Datasets:

simonycl
/

cmv_multi_turn

Modalities:

Formats:

Size:

Libraries:

Dataset card Data Studio Files Files and versions

Dataset Viewer

Auto-converted to Parquet Duplicate

Split (2)

train · 8.7k rows

claim string	positive string	negative string	post_id string	post_title string	post_text string	post_author string	positive_chain_length int64	negative_chain_length int64	positive_comments list	negative_comments list	positive_comment_ids list	negative_comment_ids list
CMV: Not everyone should have kids. This may be the coldest take of all time. I'm not just talking about people with clear personal issues like addiction that would be detrimental to a child's development, there are countless reasons why having kids isn't going to be in your best interest and they mostly boil down to financial or medical reasons. I know there's the argument that the birth rate is going down in developed countries (it's sitting on average at 1.6-1.9 depending on the country, 2.1 is where you want it to be for growth) but this is ONLY for developed countries. We're not at risk of our population declining or stagnating any time soon when developing countries are seeing a marked birth rate increase. We're at the point in medical science where women aren't needing to have 6+ kids in the hope that a handful of them survive into adulthood, we have the ability to invest more time and energy into the kids that are already around rather than simply having more just because we're expected to.	Sorry, is the view that people below a certain financial threshold or who have medical issues shouldn't have kids at all, or should have fewer kids than they might otherwise want to have? --- Sorry, I could have probably been more clear in that part. The point I meant was that there are real barriers to being able to meaningfully provide for a child (being mostly financial or medical) and that people whose life has these barriers shouldn't be expected to procreate when it's outside of their means to actually care for the child in those ways. I hope that makes sense. --- 1. Everybody’s life has barriers of some sort: how exactly are you determining the threshold for someone not being able to care for a child? Medical and financial challenges are a wide spectrum, I think you need to be more specific here. 2. Procreation is the baseline of life. I would say procreation is a fair expectation for most people (not required of course, but expected/encouraged) Your framing makes it seem like people only have kids because of societal pressure. But it’s one of our most fundamental biological drives. That’s the only reason the societal pressure even exists - procreation is the foundation of our society. 3. I disagree with the general premise that you need to have a perfect life to care for a child. It’s perfectly fine to YOLO and have a baby, and figure it out along the way. Billions of people did that in much worse times, and it was fine. This modern expectation of a perfect childhood is unrealistic imo, and suicidal on a civilizational level. It should never be considered selfish or immoral to create life - pro-natalism gang all the way	Are you saying people in certain positions should think twice, or.someone else should enforce a no-kids for you rule? --- More from a social pressure stand point of "just because you can, doesn't mean you're in a good position to do so". Especially in hetero relationships, there's an expectation that kids are on the table at some point. --- Would you pressure them not to have kids, or just stop pressuring people to have kids in the first place?	1mqkdtm	CMV: Not everyone should have kids.	This may be the coldest take of all time. I'm not just talking about people with clear personal issues like addiction that would be detrimental to a child's development, there are countless reasons why having kids isn't going to be in your best interest and they mostly boil down to financial or medical reasons. I know there's the argument that the birth rate is going down in developed countries (it's sitting on average at 1.6-1.9 depending on the country, 2.1 is where you want it to be for growth) but this is ONLY for developed countries. We're not at risk of our population declining or stagnating any time soon when developing countries are seeing a marked birth rate increase. We're at the point in medical science where women aren't needing to have 6+ kids in the hope that a handful of them survive into adulthood, we have the ability to invest more time and energy into the kids that are already around rather than simply having more just because we're expected to.	Fletcher-wordy	3	3	[ { "author": "Icy_River_8259", "id": "n8rffh1", "score": 12, "text": "Sorry, is the view that people below a certain financial threshold or who have medical issues shouldn't have kids at all, or should have fewer kids than they might otherwise want to have?", "timestamp": 1755223395 }, { "author": "Fletcher-wordy", "id": "n8rfs0x", "score": 21, "text": "Sorry, I could have probably been more clear in that part.\n\nThe point I meant was that there are real barriers to being able to meaningfully provide for a child (being mostly financial or medical) and that people whose life has these barriers shouldn't be expected to procreate when it's outside of their means to actually care for the child in those ways.\n\nI hope that makes sense.", "timestamp": 1755223524 }, { "author": "CarrotcakeSuperSand", "id": "n8sc8xh", "score": -7, "text": "1. Everybody’s life has barriers of some sort: how exactly are you determining the threshold for someone not being able to care for a child? Medical and financial challenges are a wide spectrum, I think you need to be more specific here.\n\n2. Procreation is the baseline of life. I would say procreation is a fair expectation for most people (not required of course, but expected/encouraged) Your framing makes it seem like people only have kids because of societal pressure. But it’s one of our most fundamental biological drives. That’s the only reason the societal pressure even exists - procreation is the foundation of our society.\n\n3. I disagree with the general premise that you need to have a perfect life to care for a child. It’s perfectly fine to YOLO and have a baby, and figure it out along the way. Billions of people did that in much worse times, and it was fine. This modern expectation of a perfect childhood is unrealistic imo, and suicidal on a civilizational level. It should never be considered selfish or immoral to create life - pro-natalism gang all the way", "timestamp": 1755238098 } ]	[ { "author": "DebutsPal", "id": "n8rftin", "score": 55, "text": "Are you saying people in certain positions should think twice, or.someone else should enforce a no-kids for you rule?", "timestamp": 1755223540 }, { "author": "Fletcher-wordy", "id": "n8rg61s", "score": 55, "text": "More from a social pressure stand point of \"just because you can, doesn't mean you're in a good position to do so\". Especially in hetero relationships, there's an expectation that kids are on the table at some point.", "timestamp": 1755223668 }, { "author": "DebutsPal", "id": "n8rgqn8", "score": 25, "text": "Would you pressure them not to have kids, or just stop pressuring people to have kids in the first place?", "timestamp": 1755223881 } ]	[ "n8rffh1", "n8rfs0x", "n8sc8xh" ]	[ "n8rftin", "n8rg61s", "n8rgqn8" ]
CMV: the word "incel" is a baseless insult used by people to describe a certain political affiliation. Incel means involuntary celibate which was coined by people to describe themselves and why they are not having sex and to point out that it is no fault of their own. Incel is now thrown around to describe people on the right even when said people don't subscribe to said ideology, much like the word cuck is thrown around at people on the left. Incel is not about a movement anymore but instead a disparaging remark to describe people of a certain political affiliation, when I see people called an incel 9 out of 10 it is someone describing a person who has right leaning views and is used to disregard their points to said discussion.	You've got it backwards. The right wing isn't associated with incels because of people using "incel" as an insult. Rather, the word "incel" itself [was appropriated by](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incel) right-wing people who self-identified as incels. Eventually, the term "incel" came to be understood to refer to this right-wing online subculture specifically, which supplanted its previous meaning (i.e. the meaning of the term as it was originally understood by Alana and others in her online community). Now "incel" refers primarily to an online right-wing community characterized by "resentment, misanthropy, self-pity, self-loathing, misogyny, racism, a sense of entitlement to sex, and the endorsement of violence against sexually active people." But that's not because of anyone trying to use "incel" as an insult: that's because of the way self-identified incels act. --- My point is incel is being used against people who don't even identify with the incel movement. You can be called an incel for not agreeing with a women or leaning to the right on issues even if you are respectful. Incel is a term to disparage people on the right even if they don't agree with the incel movement. --- Do you have an example of the use you are talking about? In my experience, "incel" is a term that is primarily used by members of the incel community as a self-identification, secondarily used by others referring to that community, and only rarely used as an insult against people who are not a member of that community. --- https://www.reddit.com/r/yourmomshousepodcast/comments/a7jcwo/your_moms_house_podcast_ep_479_w_nikki_glaser/ec4t1ka https://www.reddit.com/r/unpopularopinion/comments/a8oye9/the_word_incel_is_the_far_left_equivalent_of_cuck/eccgnbe Here is two examples of people being called incels and both people are left leaning spouting the incel term. If you can find anything with an incel feel in those posts please do tell. --- Neither of those links has somebody calling anybody an incel for having right-wing views. One specifically is calling people incels for attacking a woman, like I said. Unless sexism is a core right-wing value, then this doesn't show what you say it shows.	Can you show any examples. Personally I havent seen this happening (despite being part of some left wing communities and inceltears) so I’d be curious to see a couple of examples of it being thrown around baseless. --- Anytime someone tries to advocate for a male-friendly approach to a social or legal issue, the word incel magically appears. --- Do you have an example or two? Like I said, I genuinly enjoy and lurk at liberal and specfically inceltears subreddits and dont see this behaviour. I’d be interested in a couple of examples considering this happens “9 out of 10 times” or “anytime” so? --- https://www.reddit.com/r/unpopularopinion/comments/a8lvg4/men_should_have_the_option_to_financially_abort_a/ecbtach Here's one that literally just conflates them in the OP: https://www.reddit.com/r/unpopularopinion/comments/9qlso1/this_place_is_the_right_wing_version_of --- 1st link. Literally someone from MGTOW (literally their top post ever took one second). Also someone disregarding female bodily autonomy not that we are here to discuss that (a common incel view). I mean the post history is a mess of common incel views. 2nd. 1. Hyperbole. 2. Posting to unpopular opinion, no? So, an unpopular opinion, no? Isn’t posting that a recognition at some level the opinion is not popular. Also nobody is saying it NEVER happens. But if the only example is clear hyperbole maybe you should get move examples before you go “anytime” and “9 out of 10”.	a8pqhh	CMV: the word "incel" is a baseless insult used by people to describe a certain political affiliation.	Incel means involuntary celibate which was coined by people to describe themselves and why they are not having sex and to point out that it is no fault of their own. Incel is now thrown around to describe people on the right even when said people don't subscribe to said ideology, much like the word cuck is thrown around at people on the left. Incel is not about a movement anymore but instead a disparaging remark to describe people of a certain political affiliation, when I see people called an incel 9 out of 10 it is someone describing a person who has right leaning views and is used to disregard their points to said discussion.	themarksmann	5	5	[ { "author": "yyzjertl", "id": "eccnyzn", "score": 27, "text": "You've got it backwards. The right wing isn't associated with incels because of people using \"incel\" as an insult. Rather, the word \"incel\" itself [was appropriated by](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incel) right-wing people who self-identified as incels. Eventually, the term \"incel\" came to be understood to refer to this right-wing online subculture specifically, which supplanted its previous meaning (i.e. the meaning of the term as it was originally understood by Alana and others in her online community). Now \"incel\" refers primarily to an online right-wing community characterized by \"resentment, misanthropy, self-pity, self-loathing, misogyny, racism, a sense of entitlement to sex, and the endorsement of violence against sexually active people.\" But that's not because of anyone trying to use \"incel\" as an insult: that's because of the way self-identified incels act.", "timestamp": 1545523136 }, { "author": "themarksmann", "id": "eccp1cm", "score": 1, "text": "My point is incel is being used against people who don't even identify with the incel movement. You can be called an incel for not agreeing with a women or leaning to the right on issues even if you are respectful. Incel is a term to disparage people on the right even if they don't agree with the incel movement.", "timestamp": 1545524089 }, { "author": "yyzjertl", "id": "eccpk45", "score": 13, "text": "Do you have an example of the use you are talking about? In my experience, \"incel\" is a term that is primarily used by members of the incel community as a self-identification, secondarily used by others referring to that community, and only rarely used as an insult against people who are not a member of that community.", "timestamp": 1545524555 }, { "author": "themarksmann", "id": "eccps7x", "score": 0, "text": "https://www.reddit.com/r/yourmomshousepodcast/comments/a7jcwo/your_moms_house_podcast_ep_479_w_nikki_glaser/ec4t1ka\n\n\nhttps://www.reddit.com/r/unpopularopinion/comments/a8oye9/the_word_incel_is_the_far_left_equivalent_of_cuck/eccgnbe\n\n\nHere is two examples of people being called incels and both people are left leaning spouting the incel term. If you can find anything with an incel feel in those posts please do tell.", "timestamp": 1545524765 }, { "author": "Spaffin", "id": "eccq4ma", "score": 18, "text": "Neither of those links has somebody calling anybody an incel for having right-wing views. One specifically is calling people incels for attacking a woman, like I said.\n\nUnless sexism is a core right-wing value, then this doesn't show what you say it shows.", "timestamp": 1545525077 } ]	[ { "author": "Helpfulcloning", "id": "eccn9c4", "score": 10, "text": "Can you show any examples. Personally I havent seen this happening (despite being part of some left wing communities and inceltears) so I’d be curious to see a couple of examples of it being thrown around baseless. ", "timestamp": 1545522527 }, { "author": "whatyoucallaflip", "id": "eccpk95", "score": -3, "text": "Anytime someone tries to advocate for a male-friendly approach to a social or legal issue, the word incel magically appears. \n\n", "timestamp": 1545524559 }, { "author": "Helpfulcloning", "id": "eccu0cp", "score": 8, "text": "Do you have an example or two? Like I said, I genuinly enjoy and lurk at liberal and specfically inceltears subreddits and dont see this behaviour. I’d be interested in a couple of examples considering this happens “9 out of 10 times” or “anytime” so? ", "timestamp": 1545528767 }, { "author": "whatyoucallaflip", "id": "eccuu34", "score": -1, "text": "https://www.reddit.com/r/unpopularopinion/comments/a8lvg4/men_should_have_the_option_to_financially_abort_a/ecbtach\n\nHere's one that literally just conflates them in the OP:\n\n\nhttps://www.reddit.com/r/unpopularopinion/comments/9qlso1/this_place_is_the_right_wing_version_of", "timestamp": 1545529551 }, { "author": "Helpfulcloning", "id": "eccvfjm", "score": 5, "text": "1st link. Literally someone from MGTOW (literally their top post ever took one second). Also someone disregarding female bodily autonomy not that we are here to discuss that (a common incel view). I mean the post history is a mess of common incel views.\n\n2nd. 1. Hyperbole. 2. Posting to unpopular opinion, no? So, an unpopular opinion, no? Isn’t posting that a recognition at some level the opinion is not popular. Also nobody is saying it NEVER happens. But if the only example is clear hyperbole maybe you should get move examples before you go “anytime” and “9 out of 10”. ", "timestamp": 1545530117 } ]	[ "eccnyzn", "eccp1cm", "eccpk45", "eccps7x", "eccq4ma" ]	[ "eccn9c4", "eccpk95", "eccu0cp", "eccuu34", "eccvfjm" ]
CMV: People insisting on being referred to by genderqueer pronouns do not want equal treatment, they want special treatment. While I can sympathize with mtf or ftm trans people, those who identify as genderqeer or non-binary, while also insisting on being referred to as ["they", "ze", "sie", "hir", "co", or "ey"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genderqueer#Pronouns_and_titles) do not want equal treatment, they want special treatment. Equal treatment would be treating them like we treat everyone else. We don't call other people (singular)"they", and we sure as hell don't call other people "ze" or "hir". I have zero sympathy for people who insist on being referred to by made up pronouns.	If I call you "she" when you're a man, you might correct me and point out that "he" is a more appropriate term regarding your gender. I can then use the pronoun you prefer, or I can continue to call you "she". Likewise, there are people who don't identify as a man or a woman, and therefore it doesn't make sense from their perspective to call them "he" or "she". These people might create a new pronoun and ask you to use it to make them more comfortable. You can then accommodate this preference or not, and live with the consequences of potentially being perceived as rude or insensitive by the person in question, or deal with the no doubt severe mental anguish that comes from using an unfamiliar word. But a man asking to be referred to as "he" instead of "she", which is considered perfectly natural and reasonable, is exactly the same as someone who is gender queer asking to be referred to by whatever pronoun they feel is appropriate. --- >If I call you "she" when you're a man, you might correct me and point out that "he" is a more appropriate term regarding your gender. I can then use the pronoun you prefer, or I can continue to call you "she". Likewise, there are people who don't identify as a man or a woman, and therefore it doesn't make sense from their perspective to call them "he" or "she". These people might create a new pronoun and ask you to use it to make them more comfortable. Asking you to call me a "he" is asking you to please treat me equally to other men. Asking you to call me a "hir" is asking you to treat me differently from other people. That's the main difference. --- What if there were loads of genderqueer people who all wanted to be called “hir”? Would that be acceptable to you then? After all, you’d be treating them all the same.	If I call you a "she" instead of a "he", and you say you want me to refer to you as a "he" do you think you are demanding special treatment? If not, can you explain what the difference is between you and genderqueer people? --- Trans men want to be treated like other men. It would be equal treatment to treat them like other men. But genderqueer want to be treated as something entirely different. How can you treat someone equally and at the same time, treat them entirely different from anything else in society? --- Who is demanding to be treated both equally and differently here? You have two groups, each wanting to be addressed in a particular way, just like cis men want to be addressed in a particular way, and cis women want to be addressed in a particular way...	9fgvlr	CMV: People insisting on being referred to by genderqueer pronouns do not want equal treatment, they want special treatment.	While I can sympathize with mtf or ftm trans people, those who identify as genderqeer or non-binary, while also insisting on being referred to as ["they", "ze", "sie", "hir", "co", or "ey"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genderqueer#Pronouns_and_titles) do not want equal treatment, they want special treatment. Equal treatment would be treating them like we treat everyone else. We don't call other people (singular)"they", and we sure as hell don't call other people "ze" or "hir". I have zero sympathy for people who insist on being referred to by made up pronouns.	JoeVacs	3	3	[ { "author": "SanchoPanzasAss", "id": "e5wf7oy", "score": 25, "text": "If I call you \"she\" when you're a man, you might correct me and point out that \"he\" is a more appropriate term regarding your gender. I can then use the pronoun you prefer, or I can continue to call you \"she\". Likewise, there are people who don't identify as a man or a woman, and therefore it doesn't make sense from their perspective to call them \"he\" or \"she\". These people might create a new pronoun and ask you to use it to make them more comfortable. You can then accommodate this preference or not, and live with the consequences of potentially being perceived as rude or insensitive by the person in question, or deal with the no doubt severe mental anguish that comes from using an unfamiliar word. But a man asking to be referred to as \"he\" instead of \"she\", which is considered perfectly natural and reasonable, is exactly the same as someone who is gender queer asking to be referred to by whatever pronoun they feel is appropriate.", "timestamp": 1536841213 }, { "author": "JoeVacs", "id": "e5wfnf7", "score": 17, "text": ">If I call you \"she\" when you're a man, you might correct me and point out that \"he\" is a more appropriate term regarding your gender. I can then use the pronoun you prefer, or I can continue to call you \"she\". Likewise, there are people who don't identify as a man or a woman, and therefore it doesn't make sense from their perspective to call them \"he\" or \"she\". These people might create a new pronoun and ask you to use it to make them more comfortable.\n\nAsking you to call me a \"he\" is asking you to please treat me equally to other men. Asking you to call me a \"hir\" is asking you to treat me differently from other people. That's the main difference.", "timestamp": 1536841762 }, { "author": "h0m3r", "id": "e5wk419", "score": 24, "text": "What if there were loads of genderqueer people who all wanted to be called “hir”? Would that be acceptable to you then? After all, you’d be treating them all the same.", "timestamp": 1536846567 } ]	[ { "author": "5xum", "id": "e5wc3q0", "score": 2, "text": "If I call you a \"she\" instead of a \"he\", and you say you want me to refer to you as a \"he\" do you think you are demanding special treatment?\n\n \nIf not, can you explain what the difference is between you and genderqueer people?", "timestamp": 1536836671 }, { "author": "JoeVacs", "id": "e5wc9pc", "score": 2, "text": "Trans men want to be treated like other men. It would be equal treatment to treat them like other men. But genderqueer want to be treated as something entirely different. How can you treat someone equally and at the same time, treat them entirely different from anything else in society?", "timestamp": 1536836962 }, { "author": "5xum", "id": "e5wce9i", "score": 2, "text": "Who is demanding to be treated both equally and differently here? You have two groups, each wanting to be addressed in a particular way, just like cis men want to be addressed in a particular way, and cis women want to be addressed in a particular way...", "timestamp": 1536837171 } ]	[ "e5wf7oy", "e5wfnf7", "e5wk419" ]	[ "e5wc3q0", "e5wc9pc", "e5wce9i" ]
CMV: The Prophet Muhammad, claimed under Islam as the Most Moral of All Men, was a child rapist. The hadiths make it clear that he took his wife Aisha for marriage when she was 6. Many Muhammad apologists try to say she was actually much older and the Hadiths in question can't be trusted since they aren't "the word of Allah".. even though many are first hand accounts of the girl herself. By following the logic that the hadiths can't be trusted then we would have little to no knowledge of Muhammad himself and also getting rid of the hadiths turns the Quran into mound of disconnected contextless writings. The Hadith's in question : * Narrated 'Aisha: I used to play with the dolls in the presence of the Prophet, and my girl friends also used to play with me. When Allah's Apostle used to enter (my dwelling place) they used to hide themselves, but the Prophet would call them to join and play with me. (The playing with the dolls and similar images is forbidden, but it was allowed for 'Aisha at that time, as she was a little girl, not yet reached the age of puberty.) (Fateh-al-Bari page 143, Vol.13) Sahih Bukhari 8:73:151 * 'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) married her when she was seven years old, and he was taken to his house as a bride when she was nine, and her dolls were with her; and when he (the Holy Prophet) died she was eighteen years old. Sahih Muslim 8:3311 * A’ishah said : I used to play with dolls. Sometimes the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) entered upon me when the girls were with me. When he came in, they went out, and when he went out, they came in." Sunan Abu Dawud 4913 (Ahmad Hasan Ref) * It was narrated that 'Aishah said: "The Messenger of Allah married me when I was six, and consummated the marriage with me when I was nine, and I used to play with dolls." (Sahih) Sunan an-Nasa'i 4:26:3380 * It was narrated that 'Aishah said: "I used to play with dolls when I was with the Messenger of Allah, and he used to bring my friends to me to play with me." (Sahih) Sunan Ibn Majah 3:9:198 * Aisha said she was nine years old when the act of consummation took place and she had her dolls with her. Mishkat al-Masabih, Vol. 2, p 77 Many defenders also like to point to the context at the time being normal for child brides to take place. Agreed! It was! However again he is a prophet and he is the most moral of all men, there is no way to in todays day and age give him a pass and say its ok to that he only be held to the standards of the society around him at the time, He was founding an entire religion, he was a "holy man" so he should be rightly held to a higher standard, to which he has failed. \EDIT\ Please see my reply to u/[Subtleiaint](https://www.reddit.com/user/Subtleiaint/) for extensive additional sources \EDIT2\ Alright been replying for the better part of 4 hours, plenty of good discussions. Also I want to make it clear that while pointing out that Muhammad may have engaged in some very problematic practices, I'm not attempting to make a blanket commentary on modern day Islam or modern day Muslims, so for those of you that are trying, please stop turning it into that. That said I will have to come back later to continue the discussions and replies.	The arabic word hadith can basically be translated as hearsay. Its "authenticty" depends essentially on the teller's talent and creativity, and on the willingness and interests of the hearer to believe it or not. --- So do you think its ok to pick and choose hadiths to accept? Or are you saying its better to discount them all entirely? --- Some hadiths are known to be more credible than others. So it is true that some hadiths are widely accepted especially because they fall in line with the information/knowledge given in the Holy Qura'an while highly controversial ones are to be considered with a grain of salt. Having said that , you need to know that there are plenty of Muslims worldwide that discount hadiths entirely because of all the reasons people have mentioned in the comments i.e. they are hearsay, they were written decades later etc. So the Authenticity of the knowledge in the hadiths is instantly questionable.	[removed] --- "Don't mind me, just finding a good seat for the show" --- “Can you sit a bit lower, please. I can’t see over your head.”	mvqyoq	CMV: The Prophet Muhammad, claimed under Islam as the Most Moral of All Men, was a child rapist.	The hadiths make it clear that he took his wife Aisha for marriage when she was 6. Many Muhammad apologists try to say she was actually much older and the Hadiths in question can't be trusted since they aren't "the word of Allah".. even though many are first hand accounts of the girl herself. By following the logic that the hadiths can't be trusted then we would have little to no knowledge of Muhammad himself and also getting rid of the hadiths turns the Quran into mound of disconnected contextless writings. The Hadith's in question : * Narrated 'Aisha: I used to play with the dolls in the presence of the Prophet, and my girl friends also used to play with me. When Allah's Apostle used to enter (my dwelling place) they used to hide themselves, but the Prophet would call them to join and play with me. (The playing with the dolls and similar images is forbidden, but it was allowed for 'Aisha at that time, as she was a little girl, not yet reached the age of puberty.) (Fateh-al-Bari page 143, Vol.13) Sahih Bukhari 8:73:151 * 'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) married her when she was seven years old, and he was taken to his house as a bride when she was nine, and her dolls were with her; and when he (the Holy Prophet) died she was eighteen years old. Sahih Muslim 8:3311 * A’ishah said : I used to play with dolls. Sometimes the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) entered upon me when the girls were with me. When he came in, they went out, and when he went out, they came in." Sunan Abu Dawud 4913 (Ahmad Hasan Ref) * It was narrated that 'Aishah said: "The Messenger of Allah married me when I was six, and consummated the marriage with me when I was nine, and I used to play with dolls." (Sahih) Sunan an-Nasa'i 4:26:3380 * It was narrated that 'Aishah said: "I used to play with dolls when I was with the Messenger of Allah, and he used to bring my friends to me to play with me." (Sahih) Sunan Ibn Majah 3:9:198 * Aisha said she was nine years old when the act of consummation took place and she had her dolls with her. Mishkat al-Masabih, Vol. 2, p 77 Many defenders also like to point to the context at the time being normal for child brides to take place. Agreed! It was! However again he is a prophet and he is the most moral of all men, there is no way to in todays day and age give him a pass and say its ok to that he only be held to the standards of the society around him at the time, He was founding an entire religion, he was a "holy man" so he should be rightly held to a higher standard, to which he has failed. \EDIT\ Please see my reply to u/[Subtleiaint](https://www.reddit.com/user/Subtleiaint/) for extensive additional sources \EDIT2\ Alright been replying for the better part of 4 hours, plenty of good discussions. Also I want to make it clear that while pointing out that Muhammad may have engaged in some very problematic practices, I'm not attempting to make a blanket commentary on modern day Islam or modern day Muslims, so for those of you that are trying, please stop turning it into that. That said I will have to come back later to continue the discussions and replies.	Drewsef916	3	3	[ { "author": "MappleSyrup13", "id": "gvdupas", "score": 18, "text": "The arabic word hadith can basically be translated as hearsay. Its \"authenticty\" depends essentially on the teller's talent and creativity, and on the willingness and interests of the hearer to believe it or not.", "timestamp": 1619047995 }, { "author": "Drewsef916", "id": "gve04v8", "score": 14, "text": "So do you think its ok to pick and choose hadiths to accept? Or are you saying its better to discount them all entirely?", "timestamp": 1619050688 }, { "author": "seranapoetry", "id": "gve3ha2", "score": 23, "text": "Some hadiths are known to be more credible than others. So it is true that some hadiths are widely accepted especially because they fall in line with the information/knowledge given in the Holy Qura'an while highly controversial ones are to be considered with a grain of salt. \n\nHaving said that , you need to know that there are plenty of Muslims worldwide that discount hadiths entirely because of all the reasons people have mentioned in the comments i.e. they are hearsay, they were written decades later etc. So the Authenticity of the knowledge in the hadiths is instantly questionable.", "timestamp": 1619052366 } ]	[ { "author": "[deleted]", "id": "gvdlyzj", "score": 4, "text": "[removed]", "timestamp": 1619043735 }, { "author": "Alabane", "id": "gvdm6yp", "score": 2, "text": "\"Don't mind me, just finding a good seat for the show\"", "timestamp": 1619043842 }, { "author": "Mkwdr", "id": "gvdmdh6", "score": 3, "text": "“Can you sit a bit lower, please. I can’t see over your head.”", "timestamp": 1619043929 } ]	[ "gvdupas", "gve04v8", "gve3ha2" ]	[ "gvdlyzj", "gvdm6yp", "gvdmdh6" ]
CMV: I believe that the way you are raised can have long-lasting negative repercussions, that may not be reversible. I have created this post specifically for myself and will provide personal context (as it does influence my view.) I will also provide a generalized version for discussion. ###Personal Context >I was raised with the freedom to never have to do homework. I now have no study habits as a young adult, and cannot focus on a book or written material. I was never raised with concern to my hygeine, and as a young adult I still do not brush my teeth, and sometimes do not shower. I was raised by a man that never did anything but sit at a computer all day. Though I loved being outside as a child, here I sit. >Even though I maintain awareness of my failures, I have yet to make dedicated change on any of them. The hardest part of anything is maintaining a daily routine. I even thought seeking outside help would work, but my significant other seems to have 'lowered' to my level and does not really force me to do anything. > I really looked for an outside opinion. Therapy, psychiatric help, medication, books. I own a wealth of books intended to fix laziness/procrastination, or individual habits. ##Generalized points of my current view: * Children are meant to be instilled with good habits early on in their life. They are eager to learn, often by example, and easily impressionable. * If these habits are not instilled, or worse yet replaced with bad habits, it may be impossible to make change without severe outside influence (military training/other forced internment) * If there were any reasonable way for an individual to correct these deficiencies, it is the nature of the general public to either profit from it or share it. One of the other almost universally happens. * The general instruction is to just do it. I imagine this works for someone that just needs the inspiration to do the right thing, but doesn't seem appropriate for 10-20 years (or more) of bad habits having been built. * This is usually the point where someone might make an immediate action, but I believe when you are raised in this manner (as opposed to acquiring bad habits) you will naturally fail to maintain them. _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	How do you define "may not be reversible"? Essentially what I mean is, are you a determinist? Do you think that any failure that occurs was inevitable from the outset, because that is how things were set up to go? How do you determine whether any specific behavior by a specific individual is irreversible, and not that they haven't tried the right thing yet? It's demonstrable that some people can break habit instilled from early childhood, but it often takes many attempts to do so, sometime not being achieved until late in life. --- > Essentially what I mean is, are you a determinist? Thank you. I appreciate having to learn something new. I suppose that, based on the premise I gave in my view, this would be deterministic. I do not know if I can speak personally, or if (like other subreddits) I have to speak generally. > It's demonstrable that some people can break habit instilled from early childhood, but it often takes many attempts to do so, sometime not being achieved until late in life. δ, no matter how small this might be it is still a ∆. It is extremely frustrating for me to accept that I cannot know how long I have to wait, or how many times I might have to try, it just might not have happened yet. I really hope there is more to discuss with someone, because I genuinely hoped to correct these issues before I am a parent. I would despise myself to pass these on to my kids, but at the moment I am (selfishly) only discussing personal improvement please. --- I don't know, it's like the optimistic version of this quote from House MD: "I believe an alcoholic who never drinks again just didn't live long enough." Personally I'm in the same boat as you about a few things. I've failed to keep myself out of my mother's patterns, and have almost entirely lost hope that I will. But also... I think that's not a logical place to land. It's definitely not a helpful place to land, that's for sure. But more importantly, there's no tangible reason to think that I can't be one of those people who turns things around. --- Loved House, never heard that quote. Interesting thought. I used to tell myself, my doc, even a trusted family member that I knew it was an excuse. I even said I wouldn't hold it against myself because I was only using it as an excuse. It was simply tonight, looking back on three free months (on top of 8 years.) I had three months to do anything I wanted, nothing but free time other than 2 hrs a day total of driving, school and driving. Looking back and having accomplished nothing, I really needed an explanation. --- I'm not sure if this fits in the rules of this sub, but have you ever been evaluated for ADD or other issues with executive functioning? There were a couple things that pinged my radar, but something about this comment is really setting off some bells. See if this page is at all helpful: http://www.ldonline.org/article/29122. It definitely seems like you have trouble with initiating tasks, which is one of the big ways my ADD manifests itself. I can recommend a book called "The ADD-friendly guide to organizing your life." But at the end of the day, it's up to you to develop coping strategies. Executive function is like a muscle. The more you use it, the stronger it will get. You may never get to Olympic powerlifter levels, but one day you'll be able to do a full push-up :)	Wait... you don't brush your teeth? Ever? I think living life with the belief that you're never going to develop new habits is actively stopping you from creating them yourself. Stop blaming your upbringing, go out and buy a toothbrush and start brushing your teeth. Leave post-it notes for yourself as a reminder. Incentivize the act. I refuse to believe that a grown adult doesn't have the capability to complete a task as simple as brushing your teeth. People have to form new habits all the time, it's not like the skills you learn when you're a child are the only skills that you'll ever employ in your life. I didn't learn to start paying off my credit card bills when I was 10, but I do it regularly as an adult. Same with grocery shopping and keeping a stocked pantry. Sure, you might have had a shitty upbringing, but it's absolutely incorrect to say that you're screwed for life. --- I think the last time I might have brushed my teeth is a month or so ago. I have specific dental floss, one of the ultrasonic toothbrushes, a Waterpik flosser. I even enjoy doing it. > Stop blaming your upbringing, go out and buy a toothbrush and start brushing your teeth. That's the problem. Doing it once or twice is easy. Actually keeping the habit is hard. When I first noticed the problem (with my psychiatrist) I truly believed in what was offered to me. Small changes, add habits over time, mindfulness, daily planning the day before. Eventually, it just got to be too much. I would even sit in the chair at night and think to myself "I should be doing something right now. Anything." I really want to believe it's possible, but I've had nothing but time over the last three months. No work obligations, almost no school obligations, and nothing but time to correct. I don't even really remember them going by. --- I mean, if you've been seeing a psychiatrist then there's nothing really that I can say to help remedy this. However, do you really believe that you haven't picked up a single habit since you were a kid? How do you function as an adult? --- Sadly, I am not seeing a psychiatrist anymore. Long story. I really cannot say I've picked up any habits since I was a child. I just really move from one thing to the next. The nice thing is that the one job I really kept together (that got me back to school) really required me to 'react' more than 'plan.' So it didn't really require any habits, simply to respond to whatever happened that day. As far as functioning as an adult, what all does it really take? Getting up on time is kind of a habit I suppose, but it's more just going to sleep (or staying up all night.) Schoolwork is normally given a due date in-person, and I don't really plan on a time to do it. Just whenever it's due. Actually, how do I function as an adult? Barely. That's how. That is also terrifying, and it's what I want to change. --- You're right about getting up on time, that's a habit that pretty much every functioning adult has to learn. I'm just assuming here, but you probably had a routine while you were working, such as waking up on time, looking presentable, eating, commuting to work, commuting back home, eating again. Do you pay off your bills? Go grocery shopping? Even if you've gotten into the habit of procrastinating your schoolwork before it's due, you still do it - that's a habit. I'm sorry that things appear to be hopeless right now, but I think that you have the mental capability to develop your own habits. Maybe it might take an unconventional method, or you need someone close to literally give you a kick in the ass and nag you until you complete every small action, but I think it's possible. Also, did you talk to your former psychiatrist about potentially suffering from depression or anxiety?	6qlmnn	CMV: I believe that the way you are raised can have long-lasting negative repercussions, that may not be reversible.	I have created this post specifically for myself and will provide personal context (as it does influence my view.) I will also provide a generalized version for discussion. ###Personal Context >I was raised with the freedom to never have to do homework. I now have no study habits as a young adult, and cannot focus on a book or written material. I was never raised with concern to my hygeine, and as a young adult I still do not brush my teeth, and sometimes do not shower. I was raised by a man that never did anything but sit at a computer all day. Though I loved being outside as a child, here I sit. >Even though I maintain awareness of my failures, I have yet to make dedicated change on any of them. The hardest part of anything is maintaining a daily routine. I even thought seeking outside help would work, but my significant other seems to have 'lowered' to my level and does not really force me to do anything. > I really looked for an outside opinion. Therapy, psychiatric help, medication, books. I own a wealth of books intended to fix laziness/procrastination, or individual habits. ##Generalized points of my current view: * Children are meant to be instilled with good habits early on in their life. They are eager to learn, often by example, and easily impressionable. * If these habits are not instilled, or worse yet replaced with bad habits, it may be impossible to make change without severe outside influence (military training/other forced internment) * If there were any reasonable way for an individual to correct these deficiencies, it is the nature of the general public to either profit from it or share it. One of the other almost universally happens. * The general instruction is to just do it. I imagine this works for someone that just needs the inspiration to do the right thing, but doesn't seem appropriate for 10-20 years (or more) of bad habits having been built. * This is usually the point where someone might make an immediate action, but I believe when you are raised in this manner (as opposed to acquiring bad habits) you will naturally fail to maintain them. _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	ThePathLaid	5	5	[ { "author": "radialomens", "id": "dky85xe", "score": 4, "text": "How do you define \"may not be reversible\"?\n\nEssentially what I mean is, are you a determinist? Do you think that any failure that occurs was inevitable from the outset, because that is how things were set up to go?\n\nHow do you determine whether any specific behavior by a specific individual is irreversible, and not that they haven't tried the right thing yet? It's demonstrable that some people can break habit instilled from early childhood, but it often takes many attempts to do so, sometime not being achieved until late in life. ", "timestamp": 1501470269 }, { "author": "ThePathLaid", "id": "dky8yx4", "score": 3, "text": "> Essentially what I mean is, are you a determinist?\n\nThank you. I appreciate having to learn something new.\n\nI suppose that, based on the premise I gave in my view, this would be deterministic. I do not know if I can speak personally, or if (like other subreddits) I have to speak generally.\n\n> It's demonstrable that some people can break habit instilled from early childhood, but it often takes many attempts to do so, sometime not being achieved until late in life.\n\nδ, no matter how small this might be it is still a ∆.\n\nIt is extremely frustrating for me to accept that I cannot know how long I have to wait, or how many times I might have to try, it just might not have happened yet.\n\nI really hope there is more to discuss with someone, because I genuinely hoped to correct these issues before I am a parent. I would despise myself to pass these on to my kids, but at the moment I am (selfishly) only discussing personal improvement please.", "timestamp": 1501471473 }, { "author": "radialomens", "id": "dkyaiww", "score": 1, "text": "I don't know, it's like the optimistic version of this quote from House MD: \"I believe an alcoholic who never drinks again just didn't live long enough.\"\n\nPersonally I'm in the same boat as you about a few things. I've failed to keep myself out of my mother's patterns, and have almost entirely lost hope that I will. But also... I think that's not a logical place to land. It's definitely not a helpful place to land, that's for sure. But more importantly, there's no tangible reason to think that I can't be one of those people who turns things around.", "timestamp": 1501473892 }, { "author": "ThePathLaid", "id": "dkyatp5", "score": 1, "text": "Loved House, never heard that quote. Interesting thought.\n\nI used to tell myself, my doc, even a trusted family member that I knew it was an excuse. I even said I wouldn't hold it against myself because I was only using it as an excuse.\n\nIt was simply tonight, looking back on three free months (on top of 8 years.) I had three months to do anything I wanted, nothing but free time other than 2 hrs a day total of driving, school and driving. \n\nLooking back and having accomplished nothing, I really needed an explanation.", "timestamp": 1501474339 }, { "author": "bluebasset", "id": "dkyd6vj", "score": 2, "text": "I'm not sure if this fits in the rules of this sub, but have you ever been evaluated for ADD or other issues with executive functioning? There were a couple things that pinged my radar, but something about this comment is really setting off some bells. See if this page is at all helpful: http://www.ldonline.org/article/29122. It definitely seems like you have trouble with initiating tasks, which is one of the big ways my ADD manifests itself.\n\nI can recommend a book called \"The ADD-friendly guide to organizing your life.\" But at the end of the day, it's up to you to develop coping strategies. Executive function is like a muscle. The more you use it, the stronger it will get. You may never get to Olympic powerlifter levels, but one day you'll be able to do a full push-up :)", "timestamp": 1501478507 } ]	[ { "author": "bad__hombres", "id": "dky7yz3", "score": 43, "text": "Wait... you don't brush your teeth? Ever?\n\nI think living life with the belief that you're never going to develop new habits is actively stopping you from creating them yourself. Stop blaming your upbringing, go out and buy a toothbrush and start brushing your teeth. Leave post-it notes for yourself as a reminder. Incentivize the act. I refuse to believe that a grown adult doesn't have the capability to complete a task as simple as brushing your teeth. People have to form new habits all the time, it's not like the skills you learn when you're a child are the only skills that you'll ever employ in your life. I didn't learn to start paying off my credit card bills when I was 10, but I do it regularly as an adult. Same with grocery shopping and keeping a stocked pantry. Sure, you might have had a shitty upbringing, but it's absolutely incorrect to say that you're screwed for life. ", "timestamp": 1501469990 }, { "author": "ThePathLaid", "id": "dky8ro8", "score": 7, "text": "I think the last time I might have brushed my teeth is a month or so ago.\n\nI have specific dental floss, one of the ultrasonic toothbrushes, a Waterpik flosser. I even enjoy doing it.\n\n> Stop blaming your upbringing, go out and buy a toothbrush and start brushing your teeth.\n\nThat's the problem. Doing it once or twice is easy. Actually keeping the habit is hard.\n\nWhen I first noticed the problem (with my psychiatrist) I truly believed in what was offered to me. Small changes, add habits over time, mindfulness, daily planning the day before.\n\nEventually, it just got to be too much. I would even sit in the chair at night and think to myself \"I should be doing something right now. Anything.\"\n\nI really want to believe it's possible, but I've had nothing but time over the last three months. No work obligations, almost no school obligations, and nothing but time to correct.\n\nI don't even really remember them going by.", "timestamp": 1501471163 }, { "author": "bad__hombres", "id": "dky9l9f", "score": 8, "text": "I mean, if you've been seeing a psychiatrist then there's nothing really that I can say to help remedy this. However, do you really believe that you haven't picked up a single habit since you were a kid? How do you function as an adult? ", "timestamp": 1501472431 }, { "author": "ThePathLaid", "id": "dky9swh", "score": 2, "text": "Sadly, I am not seeing a psychiatrist anymore. Long story.\n\nI really cannot say I've picked up any habits since I was a child. I just really move from one thing to the next.\n\nThe nice thing is that the one job I really kept together (that got me back to school) really required me to 'react' more than 'plan.' So it didn't really require any habits, simply to respond to whatever happened that day.\n\nAs far as functioning as an adult, what all does it really take? Getting up on time is kind of a habit I suppose, but it's more just going to sleep (or staying up all night.) Schoolwork is normally given a due date in-person, and I don't really plan on a time to do it. Just whenever it's due.\n\nActually, how do I function as an adult? Barely. That's how.\n\nThat is also terrifying, and it's what I want to change.", "timestamp": 1501472759 }, { "author": "bad__hombres", "id": "dkyadlu", "score": 3, "text": "You're right about getting up on time, that's a habit that pretty much every functioning adult has to learn. I'm just assuming here, but you probably had a routine while you were working, such as waking up on time, looking presentable, eating, commuting to work, commuting back home, eating again. Do you pay off your bills? Go grocery shopping? Even if you've gotten into the habit of procrastinating your schoolwork before it's due, you still do it - that's a habit. \n\nI'm sorry that things appear to be hopeless right now, but I think that you have the mental capability to develop your own habits. Maybe it might take an unconventional method, or you need someone close to literally give you a kick in the ass and nag you until you complete every small action, but I think it's possible. Also, did you talk to your former psychiatrist about potentially suffering from depression or anxiety? ", "timestamp": 1501473675 } ]	[ "dky85xe", "dky8yx4", "dkyaiww", "dkyatp5", "dkyd6vj" ]	[ "dky7yz3", "dky8ro8", "dky9l9f", "dky9swh", "dkyadlu" ]
CMV: I believe that the way you are raised can have long-lasting negative repercussions, that may not be reversible. I have created this post specifically for myself and will provide personal context (as it does influence my view.) I will also provide a generalized version for discussion. ###Personal Context >I was raised with the freedom to never have to do homework. I now have no study habits as a young adult, and cannot focus on a book or written material. I was never raised with concern to my hygeine, and as a young adult I still do not brush my teeth, and sometimes do not shower. I was raised by a man that never did anything but sit at a computer all day. Though I loved being outside as a child, here I sit. >Even though I maintain awareness of my failures, I have yet to make dedicated change on any of them. The hardest part of anything is maintaining a daily routine. I even thought seeking outside help would work, but my significant other seems to have 'lowered' to my level and does not really force me to do anything. > I really looked for an outside opinion. Therapy, psychiatric help, medication, books. I own a wealth of books intended to fix laziness/procrastination, or individual habits. ##Generalized points of my current view: * Children are meant to be instilled with good habits early on in their life. They are eager to learn, often by example, and easily impressionable. * If these habits are not instilled, or worse yet replaced with bad habits, it may be impossible to make change without severe outside influence (military training/other forced internment) * If there were any reasonable way for an individual to correct these deficiencies, it is the nature of the general public to either profit from it or share it. One of the other almost universally happens. * The general instruction is to just do it. I imagine this works for someone that just needs the inspiration to do the right thing, but doesn't seem appropriate for 10-20 years (or more) of bad habits having been built. * This is usually the point where someone might make an immediate action, but I believe when you are raised in this manner (as opposed to acquiring bad habits) you will naturally fail to maintain them. _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	> Children are meant to be instilled with good habits early on in their life. They are eager to learn, often by example, and easily impressionable. While it's true that children that come from households with good parents statistically have better study/hygiene habits than children who do not, you have to realize it's not the end all be all. Meeting the right friends at school makes a huge impact on your social skills/study skills/hygiene and generally how your carry yourself. > If these habits are not instilled, or worse yet replaced with bad habits, it may be impossible to make change without severe outside influence (military training/other forced internment) It's not impossible to change a bad habit. It's literally a personal choice. You can't blame other people or the environment for your own short comings. Because pointing fingers at factors that aren't in your control doesn't get you anywhere. It's up to you in how you value certain skills and habits if it's worthwhile enough for you to invest time improving and/or changing yourself for the better. No one in this entire universe can force you to do that. It's your choice. > If there were any reasonable way for an individual to correct these deficiencies, it is the nature of the general public to either profit from it or share it. One of the other almost universally happens. And whats wrong about this? Help isn't always free and if you want to change something about yourself you have to be willing to make a sacrifice to do so. If a goal can be reached without any effort, then it's not really a worthwhile goal anyway because it's too easy. You aren't going to suddenly pick up good hygiene/study skills overnight. It's a process. One step at a time. > The general instruction is to just do it. I imagine this works for someone that just needs the inspiration to do the right thing, but doesn't seem appropriate for 10-20 years (or more) of bad habits having been built. That's where you're wrong. If you're a heavy drug addict or alcoholic, you aren't dropping that addiction by a flick of a wrist or simply by being motivated. Being motivated isn't good enough. You actually have to want to do it. It's all about taking the first few steps to get your feet in the water. The rest comes easily. > This is usually the point where someone might make an immediate action, but I believe when you are raised in this manner (as opposed to acquiring bad habits) you will naturally fail to maintain them. This is where I agree. But this isn't because you're conditioned to naturally fail or make bad habits, but because you actively choose to keep making poor choices or prevent yourself from getting out of your comfort zone. ---------------------------------- Listen. I'm pretty sure you didn't come to this sub-reddit because you actually think that because you've never been pressured to make study habits or work on personal hygiene is someone else's or something else's fault. I'm pretty sure at some level you know its your fault that you have bad habits, and you're just looking for someone else or something else to take the blame for your poor life decisions in certain areas. You know why I believe this? Because this was me back in highschool. Horrible hygiene, terrible study habits and horribly in-personable. But I'll be damned if I blamed my parents, my friends, my school or that hot chick in grade 9 who turned me down because she thought I was a loser. My martial arts teacher always tells me that you can't and you shouldn't get frustrated or angry on things that are out of your control. In this case your childhood environment. Instead work on what IS under your control and go from there. I didn't sugar coat anything because I believe an honest CMV deserves an honest CMV reply. I almost get the feeling you came here to try and run away from what you know you have to do and thought that maybe there was some magical way you could turn yourself overnight. You know that's bullshit. It's a process. Take one step at a time. Because believe me, the first step is always the hardest. You don't take a shower every day? okay. Every other day. And work your way into everyday. Set a time. Evening? Morning? You don't brush your teeth everyday? Okay. Try every morning before you go to work. Just once a day or once every other day if it's really going to kill you. What you need to understand ultimately is that, you don't need to take 5 steps to start changing yourself. One will get the ball rolling. But you need to understand it's not enough. First you start off small and you work your way up. I believe you're strong enough to do this on your own, but if you need your wife/significant other or other family/friends to help you take the baby steps. Ask them. But don't ask them if you don't have the fucking balls to actually do what you set out to do. Seriously consider what you want to do first. --- The beginning is obviously true, so I want to address some things > And whats wrong about this [profiting from that information]? Help isn't always free and if you want to change something about yourself you have to be willing to make a sacrifice to do so. I didn't argue that it was wrong. I simply said that it was not really evident anywhere. I have enough money that I would be happy to pay for a guaranteed way to make a difference. > If a goal can be reached without any effort, then it's not really a worthwhile goal anyway because it's too easy. You aren't going to suddenly pick up good hygiene/study skills overnight. It's a process. One step at a time. It's just been a lot of one steps. Over years. With no change. > Being motivated isn't good enough. You actually have to want to do it. It's all about taking the first few steps to get your feet in the water. The rest comes easily. I assure you that many of these changes are things I want nothing more than to do differently. > I'm pretty sure at some level you know its your fault that you have bad habits, and you're just looking for someone else or something else to take the blame for your poor life decisions in certain areas. This I don't agree with, but I feel like you did repond to what I was actually saying. I know my view was wrong, and genuinely wanted it attacked. I haven't been able to shake that feeling that there is nothing I can do (and I'm still not sure) but I wanted someone to be honest, and this sub is plenty good at that. > I believe you're strong enough to do this on your own, but if you need your wife/significant other or other family/friends to help you take the baby steps. Ask them. This is the difficult part. I don't have friends anymore. I asked my wife once, and she said she would help. She honestly just wants to be a nice person, and really won't get on my case about anything. Still giving you a δ, because you did honestly provide the kind of information I needed to ∆ my view a little and, with any luck, try again. --- Allow yourself to make mistakes without getting upset. Studies show people who get upset with themselves for making a mistake are more likely to fail again. Better to simply say, oops let's try again. While you are working on step one forget about the other steps. Habits can be difficult to break so the key is to create a new habit. Try to make your step ones last for a month or even three.	How do you define "may not be reversible"? Essentially what I mean is, are you a determinist? Do you think that any failure that occurs was inevitable from the outset, because that is how things were set up to go? How do you determine whether any specific behavior by a specific individual is irreversible, and not that they haven't tried the right thing yet? It's demonstrable that some people can break habit instilled from early childhood, but it often takes many attempts to do so, sometime not being achieved until late in life. --- > Essentially what I mean is, are you a determinist? Thank you. I appreciate having to learn something new. I suppose that, based on the premise I gave in my view, this would be deterministic. I do not know if I can speak personally, or if (like other subreddits) I have to speak generally. > It's demonstrable that some people can break habit instilled from early childhood, but it often takes many attempts to do so, sometime not being achieved until late in life. δ, no matter how small this might be it is still a ∆. It is extremely frustrating for me to accept that I cannot know how long I have to wait, or how many times I might have to try, it just might not have happened yet. I really hope there is more to discuss with someone, because I genuinely hoped to correct these issues before I am a parent. I would despise myself to pass these on to my kids, but at the moment I am (selfishly) only discussing personal improvement please. --- Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/radialomens ([10∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/radialomens)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^\| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards) [](HTTP://DB3PARAMSSTART { "comment": "This is hidden text for DB3 to parse. Please contact the author of DB3 if you see this", "issues": {}, "parentUserName": "radialomens" } DB3PARAMSEND)	6qlmnn	CMV: I believe that the way you are raised can have long-lasting negative repercussions, that may not be reversible.	I have created this post specifically for myself and will provide personal context (as it does influence my view.) I will also provide a generalized version for discussion. ###Personal Context >I was raised with the freedom to never have to do homework. I now have no study habits as a young adult, and cannot focus on a book or written material. I was never raised with concern to my hygeine, and as a young adult I still do not brush my teeth, and sometimes do not shower. I was raised by a man that never did anything but sit at a computer all day. Though I loved being outside as a child, here I sit. >Even though I maintain awareness of my failures, I have yet to make dedicated change on any of them. The hardest part of anything is maintaining a daily routine. I even thought seeking outside help would work, but my significant other seems to have 'lowered' to my level and does not really force me to do anything. > I really looked for an outside opinion. Therapy, psychiatric help, medication, books. I own a wealth of books intended to fix laziness/procrastination, or individual habits. ##Generalized points of my current view: * Children are meant to be instilled with good habits early on in their life. They are eager to learn, often by example, and easily impressionable. * If these habits are not instilled, or worse yet replaced with bad habits, it may be impossible to make change without severe outside influence (military training/other forced internment) * If there were any reasonable way for an individual to correct these deficiencies, it is the nature of the general public to either profit from it or share it. One of the other almost universally happens. * The general instruction is to just do it. I imagine this works for someone that just needs the inspiration to do the right thing, but doesn't seem appropriate for 10-20 years (or more) of bad habits having been built. * This is usually the point where someone might make an immediate action, but I believe when you are raised in this manner (as opposed to acquiring bad habits) you will naturally fail to maintain them. _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	ThePathLaid	3	3	[ { "author": "deathaddict", "id": "dkya3pr", "score": 18, "text": "> Children are meant to be instilled with good habits early on in their life. They are eager to learn, often by example, and easily impressionable.\n\nWhile it's true that children that come from households with good parents statistically have better study/hygiene habits than children who do not, you have to realize it's not the end all be all. \n\nMeeting the right friends at school makes a huge impact on your social skills/study skills/hygiene and generally how your carry yourself. \n\n> If these habits are not instilled, or worse yet replaced with bad habits, it may be impossible to make change without severe outside influence (military training/other forced internment)\n\nIt's not impossible to change a bad habit. It's literally a personal choice. You can't blame other people or the environment for your own short comings. Because pointing fingers at factors that aren't in your control doesn't get you anywhere. \n\nIt's up to you in how you value certain skills and habits if it's worthwhile enough for you to invest time improving and/or changing yourself for the better. No one in this entire universe can force you to do that. It's your choice. \n\n> If there were any reasonable way for an individual to correct these deficiencies, it is the nature of the general public to either profit from it or share it. One of the other almost universally happens.\n\nAnd whats wrong about this? Help isn't always free and if you want to change something about yourself you have to be willing to make a sacrifice to do so.\n\nIf a goal can be reached without any effort, then it's not really a worthwhile goal anyway because it's too easy. You aren't going to suddenly pick up good hygiene/study skills overnight. It's a process. One step at a time. \n\n> The general instruction is to just do it. I imagine this works for someone that just needs the inspiration to do the right thing, but doesn't seem appropriate for 10-20 years (or more) of bad habits having been built.\n\nThat's where you're wrong. If you're a heavy drug addict or alcoholic, you aren't dropping that addiction by a flick of a wrist or simply by being motivated. Being motivated isn't good enough. You actually have to want to do it. It's all about taking the first few steps to get your feet in the water. The rest comes easily. \n\n> This is usually the point where someone might make an immediate action, but I believe when you are raised in this manner (as opposed to acquiring bad habits) you will naturally fail to maintain them.\n\nThis is where I agree. But this isn't because you're conditioned to naturally fail or make bad habits, but because you actively choose to keep making poor choices or prevent yourself from getting out of your comfort zone. \n\n----------------------------------\n\nListen. I'm pretty sure you didn't come to this sub-reddit because you actually think that because you've never been pressured to make study habits or work on personal hygiene is someone else's or something else's fault.\n\nI'm pretty sure at some level you know its your fault that you have bad habits, and you're just looking for someone else or something else to take the blame for your poor life decisions in certain areas. \n\nYou know why I believe this? Because this was me back in highschool. Horrible hygiene, terrible study habits and horribly in-personable. But I'll be damned if I blamed my parents, my friends, my school or that hot chick in grade 9 who turned me down because she thought I was a loser. \n\nMy martial arts teacher always tells me that you can't and you shouldn't get frustrated or angry on things that are out of your control. In this case your childhood environment. Instead work on what IS under your control and go from there.\n\nI didn't sugar coat anything because I believe an honest CMV deserves an honest CMV reply. \n\nI almost get the feeling you came here to try and run away from what you know you have to do and thought that maybe there was some magical way you could turn yourself overnight. \n\nYou know that's bullshit.\n\nIt's a process. Take one step at a time. Because believe me, the first step is always the hardest. \n\nYou don't take a shower every day? okay. Every other day. And work your way into everyday. Set a time. Evening? Morning? \n\nYou don't brush your teeth everyday? Okay. Try every morning before you go to work. Just once a day or once every other day if it's really going to kill you. \n\nWhat you need to understand ultimately is that, you don't need to take 5 steps to start changing yourself. One will get the ball rolling. But you need to understand it's not enough. First you start off small and you work your way up. \n\nI believe you're strong enough to do this on your own, but if you need your wife/significant other or other family/friends to help you take the baby steps. Ask them. But don't ask them if you don't have the fucking balls to actually do what you set out to do. Seriously consider what you want to do first. \n", "timestamp": 1501473248 }, { "author": "ThePathLaid", "id": "dkyaidy", "score": 3, "text": "The beginning is obviously true, so I want to address some things\n\n> And whats wrong about this [profiting from that information]? Help isn't always free and if you want to change something about yourself you have to be willing to make a sacrifice to do so.\n\nI didn't argue that it was wrong. I simply said that it was not really evident anywhere. I have enough money that I would be happy to pay for a guaranteed way to make a difference.\n\n> If a goal can be reached without any effort, then it's not really a worthwhile goal anyway because it's too easy. You aren't going to suddenly pick up good hygiene/study skills overnight. It's a process. One step at a time.\n\nIt's just been a lot of one steps. Over years. With no change.\n\n> Being motivated isn't good enough. You actually have to want to do it. It's all about taking the first few steps to get your feet in the water. The rest comes easily.\n\nI assure you that many of these changes are things I want nothing more than to do differently.\n\n> I'm pretty sure at some level you know its your fault that you have bad habits, and you're just looking for someone else or something else to take the blame for your poor life decisions in certain areas.\n\nThis I don't agree with, but I feel like you did repond to what I was actually saying. I know my view was wrong, and genuinely wanted it attacked. I haven't been able to shake that feeling that there is nothing I can do (and I'm still not sure) but I wanted someone to be honest, and this sub is plenty good at that.\n\n> I believe you're strong enough to do this on your own, but if you need your wife/significant other or other family/friends to help you take the baby steps. Ask them.\n\nThis is the difficult part. I don't have friends anymore. I asked my wife once, and she said she would help. She honestly just wants to be a nice person, and really won't get on my case about anything.\n\nStill giving you a δ, because you did honestly provide the kind of information I needed to ∆ my view a little and, with any luck, try again.", "timestamp": 1501473871 }, { "author": "threecharles", "id": "dkye813", "score": 5, "text": "Allow yourself to make mistakes without getting upset. Studies show people who get upset with themselves for making a mistake are more likely to fail again. Better to simply say, oops let's try again.\n\nWhile you are working on step one forget about the other steps. Habits can be difficult to break so the key is to create a new habit. Try to make your step ones last for a month or even three.", "timestamp": 1501480554 } ]	[ { "author": "radialomens", "id": "dky85xe", "score": 4, "text": "How do you define \"may not be reversible\"?\n\nEssentially what I mean is, are you a determinist? Do you think that any failure that occurs was inevitable from the outset, because that is how things were set up to go?\n\nHow do you determine whether any specific behavior by a specific individual is irreversible, and not that they haven't tried the right thing yet? It's demonstrable that some people can break habit instilled from early childhood, but it often takes many attempts to do so, sometime not being achieved until late in life. ", "timestamp": 1501470269 }, { "author": "ThePathLaid", "id": "dky8yx4", "score": 3, "text": "> Essentially what I mean is, are you a determinist?\n\nThank you. I appreciate having to learn something new.\n\nI suppose that, based on the premise I gave in my view, this would be deterministic. I do not know if I can speak personally, or if (like other subreddits) I have to speak generally.\n\n> It's demonstrable that some people can break habit instilled from early childhood, but it often takes many attempts to do so, sometime not being achieved until late in life.\n\nδ, no matter how small this might be it is still a ∆.\n\nIt is extremely frustrating for me to accept that I cannot know how long I have to wait, or how many times I might have to try, it just might not have happened yet.\n\nI really hope there is more to discuss with someone, because I genuinely hoped to correct these issues before I am a parent. I would despise myself to pass these on to my kids, but at the moment I am (selfishly) only discussing personal improvement please.", "timestamp": 1501471473 }, { "author": "DeltaBot", "id": "dky8zpt", "score": 1, "text": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/radialomens ([10∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/radialomens)).\n\n^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^\| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)\n[](HTTP://DB3PARAMSSTART\n{\n \"comment\": \"This is hidden text for DB3 to parse. Please contact the author of DB3 if you see this\",\n \"issues\": {},\n \"parentUserName\": \"radialomens\"\n}\nDB3PARAMSEND)", "timestamp": 1501471506 } ]	[ "dkya3pr", "dkyaidy", "dkye813" ]	[ "dky85xe", "dky8yx4", "dky8zpt" ]
CMV:North America should legalize prostitution to keep sex workers safe. Legalizing prostitution will create a safer environment for sex workers and its consumers. With legalization there will be safety standards and regulations including annual health check ups which will lower the spread of STDs. It will also eliminate the criminal elements of prostitution such as physical abuse to sex workers from pimps and consumers. With proper permits this should also prevent the trafficking of sex slaves. Having a governing body will also make it harder for anyone underage to get into prostitution (identification & permits required). Legalizing prostitution will shed light on the negative stigmas around it and give sex workers their civil and labour rights as a person and as a worker. Sex work may not be an ideal job for many people; however, those who choose to be in this industry should still have the same labour rights. EDIT --- Decriminalization over legalization, but still maintain the position of not illegal out right. _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	This will be an easy one, because everything you just said is straight-up wrong, as we can tell from the data of western european prostitution laws. [Study: Legalizing prostitution increases human trafficking](http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/06/17/study-legalizing-prostitution-increases-human-trafficking/) [The law and economics of international sex slavery: prostitution laws and trafficking for sexual exploitation ](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10657-011-9232-0) You are taking it for granted, that there is a sufficient supply of willing sex workers to satisfy all the demand that would be raised by the option of legal procuring, and also that regulations would be efficient at separating legal prostitution from sex trafficking. In practice, countries where prostitution is illegal, have a significantly easier way to shut down sex trafficking nodes, by targeting anything that looks like a brothel, while in countries where it is legal, sex trafficking can be more easily disguised as a legal establishment. This is a recurring problem with trying to clean up any kind of trafficking, where the legal alternative alone couldn't fulfill the rising demand, but it's existence makes the illegal alternative's nature easier to cover up. --- Great response thank you. In your source, it's also noted that "The authors note that legalization could have other positive effects, such making it easier for prostitutes to seek legal or medical help and decreasing rates of abuse and sexually-transmitted disease. " There is the argument of making the cover up easier, and that's certainly something I didn't consider. But I suppose the counter would be, why go the route of seeking the illegal alternatives when, the legal alternatives are readily available. --- > why go the route of seeking the illegal alternatives when, the legal alternatives are readily available. Are they? You keep presuming that there are enough women interested at all in being prostitutes, to satisfy the men interested in frequenting brothels. In any business, the more the demand outnumbers the total supply, the more likely it is that people will start turning to seedy inferior replacements. In value-neutral job fields, you can at least expect the suppy to grow eventually. If there are so few doctors that people turn to seedy back alley ones in desperation, then more young people will study to be doctors as it's lucrative. But what if for most women, being a prostitute is just plainly a hard "no"? Then there you are, a man, believing that you have every legal right to visit a brothel, and then there is a pimp, recently gone on the straight and narrow, who already has all his girls accounted for and some empty bedrooms to spare. But he still has all the former business associates, who can sell him some drug addicts fro the streets, some illegal immigrants under fear of deportation, some well-groomed teenage girls with fake IDs, etc. You, the client wouldn't need to enter a building that says "ILLEGAL SEX SLAVE BROTHEL" on the front, just turn a blind eye over the fact that most of the nominally proper establishments are rumored to have a corrupt underbelly. --- I see your point. Would you consider an industry that would crack down on cleaning it up if legalized, would employ legit managers instead of reusing the same old pimps that may have past ties in criminal activities. Perhaps that's too optimistic on my part and I do understand about your point of turning a blind eye. Let me put it this way. Prostitution continues to grow regardless if its legalized or not. But I suppose the difference would be that if it is, it could at least help a lot of sex workers. I will concede that it might not help all of them, but is it all or nothing to make it safer even for the ones that would benefit from legalization? --- For the reasons Genoscythe_ described, legalizing prostitution isn't the best way to make prostitution safer for women. What actually makes women safer is the Swedish system, in which it's illegal to purchase sex, but legal to sell it. In that situation, women can call the police if they feel unsafe without having to worry about going to jail. When prostitution is completely illegal, police waste their time arresting the same prostitutes again and again (not to mention, you also get ethically dubious situations where undercover cops have sex with prostitutes before arresting them). Whereas when buying sex is illegal, misogynist attitudes are changed and the demand for prostitution declines, leading to a broad decline in prostitution over time.	Sex workers are quite often not going into the industry because they want to, they are forced into it through desperation from a drug addiction or some other need for money. Pimps will literally hunt down women who are at risk; runaways, people with anxiety etc. And get them hooked on drugs or alcohol. It will not protect them from abuse from pimps, and it will also not protect the underrage women going into the trades - if anything legalizing prostitution will protect the pimps and make it more difficult. What ought to be done about this issue is recognize why women(and sometimes men, not as common) are going into this and being stringed along, rather than just legalizing the abuse. There are some individuals who choose to do sex work, and this is perfectly fine in my opinion. But a woman who chooses to do sex work because she wants to as a job to make a living and a heroine addicted woman who chooses to do sex work out of a need for their drug fix are not in the same position. Hang on let me look for this Noam Chomsky quote on the porn industry. Edit: Here ”Suppose there’s a starving child in the slums, and you say “well, I’ll give you food if you’ll let me abuse you.” Suppose—well, there happen to be laws against child abuse, fortunately—but suppose someone were to give you an argument. Well, you know, after all a child’s starving otherwise, so you’re taking away their chance to get some food if you ban abuse. I mean, is that an argument?” --- That's why you regulate it. Most of these problems (like drugs) are caused by it being illegal in the first place. Abused prostitutes will be able to get legal protection, underaged prostitutes will be more easily discovered, STDs spread through prostitution will be more easily prevented with being legal etc. It also reduces the rape. Most importantly consenting adults should be free to do what they want to do in the bedroom. Why is it legal to pay someone to have sex only if you agree to film it. That makes zero sense. --- > Why is it legal to pay someone to have sex only if you agree to film it. That makes zero sense. A porn video can be viewed by millions. If one in a thousand women are interested in sex work, and nine in ten men are interested in consuming it, then porn can still offer a viable exchange. The problem with prostitution is, that it skyrockets the number of men who would be interested in safely paying fore sex, but there simply aren't all that many women willing to do it. But as long as the demand is there, the system incentivizes sex traffickers to gather even more victims than before, and the fact that legal prostitution exists, makes it easier for them to hide in plain sight. If any john can claim as a defense that he assumed the establishment's papers were in order, or if a random police patrol doesn't see women standing on the side of a country road as inherently worthy of investigating, and so on, that just means more opportunities to conduct operations with dubiously consenting women, as well as outright sex slavery. --- Demand isn't necessarily being increased with legalisation (again like drugs). Also if what you were saying is true, surely we would see evidence of this in countries in Australia? You don't stop sex trafficking by random patrols investigating women standing on the side of a country road. You do this via audits and checks, which is something you can do if legalised. Audits are far more reliable than random patrols. Edit: A porn video is viewed by millions because it's far more easily accessible. Just because more guys watch porn than pay for a prostitute doesn't mean that porn is somehow that much different. Again look at Australia --- > Demand isn't necessarily being increased with legalisation (again like drugs). The thing about drugs, is that even if it would, the legal supply could just be increased with the legal demand. The problem is if you try to clean up an industry, where your goal is explicitly to reduce the supply. For example, the same problem shows up with ivory. If you try to legalize the ivory trade but your ultimate goal is to restrict it's scope and save some elephants, then the poachers and smugglers won't actually cooperate with you, they will just exploit the cover of some of the ivory now being legal, to pass off theirs as part of that, to great effect. > Also if what you were saying is true, surely we would see evidence of this in countries in Australia? Absolutely we do, I linked to the studies in my top level post to op.	871ehj	CMV:North America should legalize prostitution to keep sex workers safe.	Legalizing prostitution will create a safer environment for sex workers and its consumers. With legalization there will be safety standards and regulations including annual health check ups which will lower the spread of STDs. It will also eliminate the criminal elements of prostitution such as physical abuse to sex workers from pimps and consumers. With proper permits this should also prevent the trafficking of sex slaves. Having a governing body will also make it harder for anyone underage to get into prostitution (identification & permits required). Legalizing prostitution will shed light on the negative stigmas around it and give sex workers their civil and labour rights as a person and as a worker. Sex work may not be an ideal job for many people; however, those who choose to be in this industry should still have the same labour rights. EDIT --- Decriminalization over legalization, but still maintain the position of not illegal out right. _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	miss-go	5	5	[ { "author": "Genoscythe_", "id": "dw9jhms", "score": 665, "text": "This will be an easy one, because everything you just said is straight-up wrong, as we can tell from the data of western european prostitution laws. \n\n[Study: Legalizing prostitution increases human trafficking](http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/06/17/study-legalizing-prostitution-increases-human-trafficking/)\n\n[The law and economics of international sex slavery: prostitution laws and trafficking for sexual exploitation\n](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10657-011-9232-0)\n\nYou are taking it for granted, that there is a sufficient supply of willing sex workers to satisfy all the demand that would be raised by the option of legal procuring, and also that regulations would be efficient at separating legal prostitution from sex trafficking. \n\nIn practice, countries where prostitution is illegal, have a significantly easier way to shut down sex trafficking nodes, by targeting anything that looks like a brothel, while in countries where it is legal, sex trafficking can be more easily disguised as a legal establishment.\n\nThis is a recurring problem with trying to clean up any kind of trafficking, where the legal alternative alone couldn't fulfill the rising demand, but it's existence makes the illegal alternative's nature easier to cover up. \n", "timestamp": 1521996607 }, { "author": "miss-go", "id": "dw9ok3b", "score": 152, "text": "Great response thank you.\n\nIn your source, it's also noted that\n\n\"The authors note that legalization could have other positive effects, such making it easier for prostitutes to seek legal or medical help and decreasing rates of abuse and sexually-transmitted disease. \"\n\nThere is the argument of making the cover up easier, and that's certainly something I didn't consider.\n\nBut I suppose the counter would be, why go the route of seeking the illegal alternatives when, the legal alternatives are readily available.\n", "timestamp": 1522002032 }, { "author": "Genoscythe_", "id": "dw9pjkg", "score": 151, "text": "> why go the route of seeking the illegal alternatives when, the legal alternatives are readily available.\n\nAre they? \n\nYou keep presuming that there are enough women interested at all in being prostitutes, to satisfy the men interested in frequenting brothels. \n\nIn any business, the more the demand outnumbers the total supply, the more likely it is that people will start turning to seedy inferior replacements. In value-neutral job fields, you can at least expect the suppy to grow eventually. If there are so few doctors that people turn to seedy back alley ones in desperation, then more young people will study to be doctors as it's lucrative. \n\nBut what if for most women, being a prostitute is just plainly a hard \"no\"? \n\nThen there you are, a man, believing that you have every legal right to visit a brothel, and then there is a pimp, recently gone on the straight and narrow, who already has all his girls accounted for and some empty bedrooms to spare. But he still has all the former business associates, who can sell him some drug addicts fro the streets, some illegal immigrants under fear of deportation, some well-groomed teenage girls with fake IDs, etc.\n\nYou, the client wouldn't need to enter a building that says \"ILLEGAL SEX SLAVE BROTHEL\" on the front, just turn a blind eye over the fact that most of the nominally proper establishments are rumored to have a corrupt underbelly. ", "timestamp": 1522003088 }, { "author": "miss-go", "id": "dw9qpu9", "score": 29, "text": "I see your point. Would you consider an industry that would crack down on cleaning it up if legalized, would employ legit managers instead of reusing the same old pimps that may have past ties in criminal activities. Perhaps that's too optimistic on my part and I do understand about your point of turning a blind eye.\n\nLet me put it this way. Prostitution continues to grow regardless if its legalized or not. But I suppose the difference would be that if it is, it could at least help a lot of sex workers. I will concede that it might not help all of them, but is it all or nothing to make it safer even for the ones that would benefit from legalization?", "timestamp": 1522004366 }, { "author": "therinnovator", "id": "dw9ry1j", "score": 127, "text": "For the reasons Genoscythe_ described, legalizing prostitution isn't the best way to make prostitution safer for women.\n\nWhat actually makes women safer is the Swedish system, in which it's illegal to purchase sex, but legal to sell it. In that situation, women can call the police if they feel unsafe without having to worry about going to jail. When prostitution is completely illegal, police waste their time arresting the same prostitutes again and again (not to mention, you also get ethically dubious situations where undercover cops have sex with prostitutes before arresting them). Whereas when buying sex is illegal, misogynist attitudes are changed and the demand for prostitution declines, leading to a broad decline in prostitution over time.", "timestamp": 1522005700 } ]	[ { "author": "Electra_Cute", "id": "dw9iog9", "score": 35, "text": "Sex workers are quite often not going into the industry because they want to, they are forced into it through desperation from a drug addiction or some other need for money. Pimps will literally hunt down women who are at risk; runaways, people with anxiety etc. And get them hooked on drugs or alcohol. It will not protect them from abuse from pimps, and it will also not protect the underrage women going into the trades - if anything legalizing prostitution will protect the pimps and make it more difficult.\n\nWhat ought to be done about this issue is recognize why women(and sometimes men, not as common) are going into this and being stringed along, rather than just legalizing the abuse.\n\nThere are some individuals who choose to do sex work, and this is perfectly fine in my opinion. But a woman who chooses to do sex work because she wants to as a job to make a living and a heroine addicted woman who chooses to do sex work out of a need for their drug fix are not in the same position. \n\nHang on let me look for this Noam Chomsky quote on the porn industry.\n\nEdit: Here\n\n”Suppose there’s a starving child in the slums, and you say “well, I’ll give you food if you’ll let me abuse you.” Suppose—well, there happen to be laws against child abuse, fortunately—but suppose someone were to give you an argument. Well, you know, after all a child’s starving otherwise, so you’re taking away their chance to get some food if you ban abuse. I mean, is that an argument?”", "timestamp": 1521995733 }, { "author": "[deleted]", "id": "dw9j8pz", "score": 24, "text": "That's why you regulate it. Most of these problems (like drugs) are caused by it being illegal in the first place. Abused prostitutes will be able to get legal protection, underaged prostitutes will be more easily discovered, STDs spread through prostitution will be more easily prevented with being legal etc. It also reduces the rape. \n\nMost importantly consenting adults should be free to do what they want to do in the bedroom. Why is it legal to pay someone to have sex only if you agree to film it. That makes zero sense.", "timestamp": 1521996343 }, { "author": "Genoscythe_", "id": "dw9k0ze", "score": 25, "text": "> Why is it legal to pay someone to have sex only if you agree to film it. That makes zero sense.\n\nA porn video can be viewed by millions. If one in a thousand women are interested in sex work, and nine in ten men are interested in consuming it, then porn can still offer a viable exchange. \n\nThe problem with prostitution is, that it skyrockets the number of men who would be interested in safely paying fore sex, but there simply aren't all that many women willing to do it. \n\nBut as long as the demand is there, the system incentivizes sex traffickers to gather even more victims than before, and the fact that legal prostitution exists, makes it easier for them to hide in plain sight. \n\nIf any john can claim as a defense that he assumed the establishment's papers were in order, or if a random police patrol doesn't see women standing on the side of a country road as inherently worthy of investigating, and so on, that just means more opportunities to conduct operations with dubiously consenting women, as well as outright sex slavery. \n\n\n", "timestamp": 1521997189 }, { "author": "[deleted]", "id": "dw9li8x", "score": 7, "text": "Demand isn't necessarily being increased with legalisation (again like drugs). Also if what you were saying is true, surely we would see evidence of this in countries in Australia?\n\nYou don't stop sex trafficking by random patrols investigating women standing on the side of a country road. You do this via audits and checks, which is something you can do if legalised. Audits are far more reliable than random patrols.\n\nEdit: A porn video is viewed by millions because it's far more easily accessible. Just because more guys watch porn than pay for a prostitute doesn't mean that porn is somehow that much different. Again look at Australia", "timestamp": 1521998773 }, { "author": "Genoscythe_", "id": "dw9m0sr", "score": 1, "text": "> Demand isn't necessarily being increased with legalisation (again like drugs).\n\nThe thing about drugs, is that even if it would, the legal supply could just be increased with the legal demand. \n\nThe problem is if you try to clean up an industry, where your goal is explicitly to reduce the supply.\n\n For example, the same problem shows up with ivory. If you try to legalize the ivory trade but your ultimate goal is to restrict it's scope and save some elephants, then the poachers and smugglers won't actually cooperate with you, they will just exploit the cover of some of the ivory now being legal, to pass off theirs as part of that, to great effect. \n\n> Also if what you were saying is true, surely we would see evidence of this in countries in Australia?\n\nAbsolutely we do, I linked to the studies in my top level post to op. \n\n", "timestamp": 1521999324 } ]	[ "dw9jhms", "dw9ok3b", "dw9pjkg", "dw9qpu9", "dw9ry1j" ]	[ "dw9iog9", "dw9j8pz", "dw9k0ze", "dw9li8x", "dw9m0sr" ]
CMV: Marriage and Long Term relationships are prostitution I think that marriage and long term relationships are prostitution because they involve a man giving additional things to a woman in an attempt to get her to have sex with him. I do believe that there can be exceptions such as marriages that began as friends with benefits arrangements and scenarios where men impregnate women and because of care for the child marry them to help raise the child. I am not going to dispute things such as sex being better in marriages or married people being happier, I only think that marriages are not built on genuine sexual attraction on a woman's part and thus are a form of prostitution. _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	What kind of argument or evidence could change your view? --- Evidence of the majority of married men being able to get casual sex if they want it. --- Wait... are you saying that the only reason a man marries a woman is for sex? In this day and age, I can assure you that's not the reason. This isn't the 1930s. Men don't need to marry a woman to have sex. Men can and do have casual sex all the time. You seem to be living in an alternate universe if you need evidence of that. --- But I think that only unattractive men get married since attractive men don't need to. I do require evidence not of general casual sex but of specifically married men being able to get it. --- Attractive men get married. --- Give a source saying that controlling for socioeconomic status attractive men get married equally or more than unattractive men. --- You didn't say unattractive men get married more than attractive men, you said "only unattractive men get married." --- That was an exaggeration and I do not give deltas on technicalities. --- Read the rules man, deltas should be awarded on technicalities	This post assumes 2 incredibly wrong things: sex is the foremost reason people get married, a woman only has her body to offer in a marriage. Given that many couples practice premarital sex, sex would not be an incentive to get married. Secondly women have roles in a relationship outside of the bedroom. Depending on the relationship they act as coparent, cook, clean, help pay bills/are the bread winner themselves, and help their partners mentally/emotionally; thus making the relationship give and take, not prostitution. --- > Given that many couples practice premarital sex, sex would not be an incentive to get married. As I said in the title everything I am saying applies to long term relationships as well. >Secondly women have roles in a relationship outside of the bedroom. Depending on the relationship they act as coparent, cook, clean, help pay bills/are the bread winner themselves, and help their partners mentally/emotionally; thus making the relationship give and take, not prostitution. This one is a little difficult but I don't believe that women dislike sex in marriages, it is tolerable or perhaps even slightly enjoyable but there needs to be something more for them to be willign to have sex with the man. It can very easily go the other way and men could somehow have the bargaining power to demand additional services. My view predicts that the ratio of concern for frequency of sex to concern over the other partner's income/productivity would be higher for men and lower for women, that is men would be more concerned over frequency of sex and women would be more concerned with their partner's income/productivity, and thus men would be proportionately more likely to initiate divorce over sex problems and women would be proportionately more likely to initiate divorce over financial problems. --- If sex were the main reason for any man to get into a relationship, he is undermining his goal. It's counterintuitive to subsidize a woman in exchange for sex when we have a very strong and open hook up culture. >there needs to be something more for them to be willign to have sex with the man I'm interested to know why you would think that, seeing as most of my peers and other young adults find the only thing they need in order to have sex with someone is a libido and a physically attractive man. Both of which are free. > men would be more concerned over frequency of sex and women would be more concerned with their partner's income/productivity, and thus men would be proportionately more likely to initiate divorce over sex problems and women would be proportionately more likely to initiate divorce over financial problems. This assumes that men value only sex in a relationship, (taken from my parents own marriage, my dad is far more concerned about paying the majority of the bills) and that women would rather have a nice house and clean linens. Being in the generation that will soon be apart of marriage statistics, these claims are false. Most people in long term relationships are looking for, both male and female, a great connection, great sex, and overall stability. There's no reason for us to subsidize another person for sex because, as I mentioned before, the hook up scene fulfills that need. Furthermore, if a woman is unhappy with the sex in her relationship, she will end it in favor of said hookup scene; likewise, if a male is unhappy with a partners productivity, he will end it. --- > If sex were the main reason for any man to get into a relationship, he is undermining his goal. It's counterintuitive to subsidize a woman in exchange for sex when we have a very strong and open hook up culture. > Many men don't have good enough personalities to get hookups so they get married. >I'm interested to know why you would think that, seeing as most of my peers and other young adults find the only thing they need in order to have sex with someone is a libido and a physically attractive man. Both of which are free. But there aren't very many attractive men and sometimes if a man is accompanied wiht money the difference makes being with him better than being with an actual attractive man. >This assumes that men value only sex in a relationship, (taken from my parents own marriage, my dad is far more concerned about paying the majority of the bills) and that women would rather have a nice house and clean linens. Being in the generation that will soon be apart of marriage statistics, these claims are false. Most people in long term relationships are looking for, both male and female, a great connection, great sex, and overall stability. There's no reason for us to subsidize another person for sex because, as I mentioned before, the hook up scene fulfills that need. Furthermore, if a woman is unhappy with the sex in her relationship, she will end it in favor of said hookup scene; likewise, if a male is unhappy with a partners productivity, he will end it. I want actual statistics on this before I give a delta. --- > Many men don't have good enough personalities to get hookups so they get married. Are you suggesting that women choose to get married to men that they wouldn't be willing to hookup with? Why would you make a life-long committment to someone you weren't even willing to spend a few hours with? --- Yes. I think that most women reduce their standards for when they get married because the commitment makes up for the man's unattractiveness. Only a relatively small portion of the male population is attractive enough for hookups so their hope of marrying a hookup worthy man is slim. --- Do you have any evidence for that view? Women I know have much higher standards for a spouse than a hookup. --- http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2278597/The-men-want-sex-lower-standards-frisky-females-RAISE-theirs-new-study-finds.html --- The Daily Mail? Seriously? Are you going to cite the National Enquirer next?	6xqfon	CMV: Marriage and Long Term relationships are prostitution	I think that marriage and long term relationships are prostitution because they involve a man giving additional things to a woman in an attempt to get her to have sex with him. I do believe that there can be exceptions such as marriages that began as friends with benefits arrangements and scenarios where men impregnate women and because of care for the child marry them to help raise the child. I am not going to dispute things such as sex being better in marriages or married people being happier, I only think that marriages are not built on genuine sexual attraction on a woman's part and thus are a form of prostitution. _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	ouijblvndrwoek	9	9	[ { "author": "Literally_Herodotus", "id": "dmhq7f8", "score": 2, "text": "What kind of argument or evidence could change your view?", "timestamp": 1504403820 }, { "author": "ouijblvndrwoek", "id": "dmhqs4z", "score": 2, "text": "Evidence of the majority of married men being able to get casual sex if they want it.", "timestamp": 1504404653 }, { "author": "Literally_Herodotus", "id": "dmhqvwz", "score": 6, "text": "Wait... are you saying that the only reason a man marries a woman is for sex?\n\nIn this day and age, I can assure you that's not the reason. This isn't the 1930s.\n\nMen don't need to marry a woman to have sex. Men can and do have casual sex all the time. You seem to be living in an alternate universe if you need evidence of that.", "timestamp": 1504404808 }, { "author": "ouijblvndrwoek", "id": "dmhsg07", "score": 1, "text": "But I think that only unattractive men get married since attractive men don't need to. I do require evidence not of general casual sex but of specifically married men being able to get it.", "timestamp": 1504407130 }, { "author": "Literally_Herodotus", "id": "dmhshot", "score": 6, "text": "Attractive men get married. ", "timestamp": 1504407203 }, { "author": "ouijblvndrwoek", "id": "dmhsvx0", "score": 1, "text": "Give a source saying that controlling for socioeconomic status attractive men get married equally or more than unattractive men.", "timestamp": 1504407778 }, { "author": "Literally_Herodotus", "id": "dmhtde6", "score": 3, "text": "You didn't say unattractive men get married more than attractive men, you said \"only unattractive men get married.\"", "timestamp": 1504408516 }, { "author": "ouijblvndrwoek", "id": "dmhtn25", "score": 1, "text": "That was an exaggeration and I do not give deltas on technicalities.", "timestamp": 1504408926 }, { "author": "rustinchole", "id": "dmhz3pt", "score": 5, "text": "Read the rules man, deltas should be awarded on technicalities", "timestamp": 1504419065 } ]	[ { "author": "Nicholasthesecond", "id": "dmhqqlk", "score": 11, "text": "This post assumes 2 incredibly wrong things: sex is the foremost reason people get married, a woman only has her body to offer in a marriage.\n\nGiven that many couples practice premarital sex, sex would not be an incentive to get married. Secondly women have roles in a relationship outside of the bedroom. Depending on the relationship they act as coparent, cook, clean, help pay bills/are the bread winner themselves, and help their partners mentally/emotionally; thus making the relationship give and take, not prostitution.", "timestamp": 1504404588 }, { "author": "ouijblvndrwoek", "id": "dmhsrod", "score": 2, "text": "> Given that many couples practice premarital sex, sex would not be an incentive to get married.\n\nAs I said in the title everything I am saying applies to long term relationships as well.\n\n>Secondly women have roles in a relationship outside of the bedroom. Depending on the relationship they act as coparent, cook, clean, help pay bills/are the bread winner themselves, and help their partners mentally/emotionally; thus making the relationship give and take, not prostitution.\n\nThis one is a little difficult but I don't believe that women dislike sex in marriages, it is tolerable or perhaps even slightly enjoyable but there needs to be something more for them to be willign to have sex with the man. It can very easily go the other way and men could somehow have the bargaining power to demand additional services. My view predicts that the ratio of concern for frequency of sex to concern over the other partner's income/productivity would be higher for men and lower for women, that is men would be more concerned over frequency of sex and women would be more concerned with their partner's income/productivity, and thus men would be proportionately more likely to initiate divorce over sex problems and women would be proportionately more likely to initiate divorce over financial problems.", "timestamp": 1504407606 }, { "author": "Nicholasthesecond", "id": "dmhtz36", "score": 2, "text": "If sex were the main reason for any man to get into a relationship, he is undermining his goal. It's counterintuitive to subsidize a woman in exchange for sex when we have a very strong and open hook up culture. \n\n>there needs to be something more for them to be willign to have sex with the man\n\nI'm interested to know why you would think that, seeing as most of my peers and other young adults find the only thing they need in order to have sex with someone is a libido and a physically attractive man. Both of which are free. \n\n> men would be more concerned over frequency of sex and women would be more concerned with their partner's income/productivity, and thus men would be proportionately more likely to initiate divorce over sex problems and women would be proportionately more likely to initiate divorce over financial problems.\n\nThis assumes that men value only sex in a relationship, (taken from my parents own marriage, my dad is far more concerned about paying the majority of the bills) and that women would rather have a nice house and clean linens. Being in the generation that will soon be apart of marriage statistics, these claims are false. Most people in long term relationships are looking for, both male and female, a great connection, great sex, and overall stability. There's no reason for us to subsidize another person for sex because, as I mentioned before, the hook up scene fulfills that need. Furthermore, if a woman is unhappy with the sex in her relationship, she will end it in favor of said hookup scene; likewise, if a male is unhappy with a partners productivity, he will end it. ", "timestamp": 1504409441 }, { "author": "ouijblvndrwoek", "id": "dmhuwst", "score": 2, "text": "> If sex were the main reason for any man to get into a relationship, he is undermining his goal. It's counterintuitive to subsidize a woman in exchange for sex when we have a very strong and open hook up culture.\n> \n\nMany men don't have good enough personalities to get hookups so they get married.\n\n>I'm interested to know why you would think that, seeing as most of my peers and other young adults find the only thing they need in order to have sex with someone is a libido and a physically attractive man. Both of which are free.\n\nBut there aren't very many attractive men and sometimes if a man is accompanied wiht money the difference makes being with him better than being with an actual attractive man.\n\n>This assumes that men value only sex in a relationship, (taken from my parents own marriage, my dad is far more concerned about paying the majority of the bills) and that women would rather have a nice house and clean linens. Being in the generation that will soon be apart of marriage statistics, these claims are false. Most people in long term relationships are looking for, both male and female, a great connection, great sex, and overall stability. There's no reason for us to subsidize another person for sex because, as I mentioned before, the hook up scene fulfills that need. Furthermore, if a woman is unhappy with the sex in her relationship, she will end it in favor of said hookup scene; likewise, if a male is unhappy with a partners productivity, he will end it.\n\nI want actual statistics on this before I give a delta.", "timestamp": 1504410963 }, { "author": "tea_and_honey", "id": "dmi76h4", "score": 8, "text": "> Many men don't have good enough personalities to get hookups so they get married.\n\nAre you suggesting that women choose to get married to men that they wouldn't be willing to hookup with? Why would you make a life-long committment to someone you weren't even willing to spend a few hours with?", "timestamp": 1504441912 }, { "author": "ouijblvndrwoek", "id": "dmih58c", "score": 2, "text": "Yes. I think that most women reduce their standards for when they get married because the commitment makes up for the man's unattractiveness. Only a relatively small portion of the male population is attractive enough for hookups so their hope of marrying a hookup worthy man is slim.", "timestamp": 1504457580 }, { "author": "tea_and_honey", "id": "dmii0ri", "score": 3, "text": "Do you have any evidence for that view? Women I know have much higher standards for a spouse than a hookup. ", "timestamp": 1504458705 }, { "author": "ouijblvndrwoek", "id": "dmiip6c", "score": 1, "text": "http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2278597/The-men-want-sex-lower-standards-frisky-females-RAISE-theirs-new-study-finds.html", "timestamp": 1504459580 }, { "author": "tea_and_honey", "id": "dmijeb9", "score": 4, "text": "The Daily Mail? Seriously? Are you going to cite the National Enquirer next? \n\n", "timestamp": 1504460476 } ]	[ "dmhq7f8", "dmhqs4z", "dmhqvwz", "dmhsg07", "dmhshot", "dmhsvx0", "dmhtde6", "dmhtn25", "dmhz3pt" ]	[ "dmhqqlk", "dmhsrod", "dmhtz36", "dmhuwst", "dmi76h4", "dmih58c", "dmii0ri", "dmiip6c", "dmijeb9" ]
CMV: Marriage and Long Term relationships are prostitution I think that marriage and long term relationships are prostitution because they involve a man giving additional things to a woman in an attempt to get her to have sex with him. I do believe that there can be exceptions such as marriages that began as friends with benefits arrangements and scenarios where men impregnate women and because of care for the child marry them to help raise the child. I am not going to dispute things such as sex being better in marriages or married people being happier, I only think that marriages are not built on genuine sexual attraction on a woman's part and thus are a form of prostitution. _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	There are marriages where women are the breadwinners though... and marriages not between a man and a woman. --- Those are the exception and not the norm. --- They are [38%](https://www.google.com/amp/s/fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/how-many-women-earn-more-than-their-husbands/amp/) of all marriages (where women are the primary breadwinners), more than a third and quite a large chunk to dismiss as an exception.	> I think that marriage and long term relationships are prostitution because they involve a man giving additional things to a woman in an attempt to get her to have sex with him. What exactly are men giving their wives? --- Money (although not expressed as payment), housework, miscellaneous experiences not of a sexual nature. --- Wives don't give these things to their husbands?	6xqfon	CMV: Marriage and Long Term relationships are prostitution	I think that marriage and long term relationships are prostitution because they involve a man giving additional things to a woman in an attempt to get her to have sex with him. I do believe that there can be exceptions such as marriages that began as friends with benefits arrangements and scenarios where men impregnate women and because of care for the child marry them to help raise the child. I am not going to dispute things such as sex being better in marriages or married people being happier, I only think that marriages are not built on genuine sexual attraction on a woman's part and thus are a form of prostitution. _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	ouijblvndrwoek	3	3	[ { "author": "cupcakesarethedevil", "id": "dmhps09", "score": 8, "text": "There are marriages where women are the breadwinners though... and marriages not between a man and a woman. ", "timestamp": 1504403192 }, { "author": "ouijblvndrwoek", "id": "dmhq4lc", "score": -3, "text": "Those are the exception and not the norm.", "timestamp": 1504403707 }, { "author": "kublahkoala", "id": "dmhqx4s", "score": 9, "text": "They are [38%](https://www.google.com/amp/s/fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/how-many-women-earn-more-than-their-husbands/amp/) of all marriages (where women are the primary breadwinners), more than a third and quite a large chunk to dismiss as an exception.\n", "timestamp": 1504404859 } ]	[ { "author": "PreacherJudge", "id": "dmhpqlu", "score": 2, "text": "> I think that marriage and long term relationships are prostitution because they involve a man giving additional things to a woman in an attempt to get her to have sex with him.\n\nWhat exactly are men giving their wives? ", "timestamp": 1504403136 }, { "author": "ouijblvndrwoek", "id": "dmhq49c", "score": 1, "text": "Money (although not expressed as payment), housework, miscellaneous experiences not of a sexual nature.", "timestamp": 1504403693 }, { "author": "PreacherJudge", "id": "dmhq6h6", "score": 5, "text": "Wives don't give these things to their husbands?", "timestamp": 1504403781 } ]	[ "dmhps09", "dmhq4lc", "dmhqx4s" ]	[ "dmhpqlu", "dmhq49c", "dmhq6h6" ]
CMV: White people are objectively easier to tell apart on average than Chinese people I said this to a Chinese friend and was called racist. But I'm not even saying it's a good or bad thing, i'm just saying there is more variety of the way white people look. But whites have multiple hair colors, multiple eye colors, a bigger variety of skin tones. White guys have way more variety of facial hair, and white guys tend to go bald younger adding to the variety White people are more likely to become obese, again making it easier to tell them apart. China ranks number 157 for most obese country at only 6.9%. That's just a fact https://renewbariatrics.com/obesity-rank-by-countries/ Even their fashion in China, in schools they are more likely to wear uniforms in schools making them look even more alike	[removed] --- This is a dumb answer because those phenotypes aren't how you tell people apart. Can you tell that Reese Witherspoon and Uma Thurman are different people despite the fact that they are both blonde blue eyed white women?	It seems rather unfair to compare people from 1 country to people from various countries. Wouldn't it make more sense to compare white people to south east asian people? --- No. The population of China is 1.3 billion	86z70k	CMV: White people are objectively easier to tell apart on average than Chinese people	I said this to a Chinese friend and was called racist. But I'm not even saying it's a good or bad thing, i'm just saying there is more variety of the way white people look. But whites have multiple hair colors, multiple eye colors, a bigger variety of skin tones. White guys have way more variety of facial hair, and white guys tend to go bald younger adding to the variety White people are more likely to become obese, again making it easier to tell them apart. China ranks number 157 for most obese country at only 6.9%. That's just a fact https://renewbariatrics.com/obesity-rank-by-countries/ Even their fashion in China, in schools they are more likely to wear uniforms in schools making them look even more alike	McGonzaless	2	2	[ { "author": "[deleted]", "id": "dw9asx9", "score": -1, "text": "[removed]", "timestamp": 1521986183 }, { "author": "parentheticalobject", "id": "dw9d6cs", "score": 6, "text": "This is a dumb answer because those phenotypes aren't how you tell people apart. Can you tell that Reese Witherspoon and Uma Thurman are different people despite the fact that they are both blonde blue eyed white women?", "timestamp": 1521989384 } ]	[ { "author": "DeleteriousEuphuism", "id": "dw8z7ia", "score": 6, "text": "It seems rather unfair to compare people from 1 country to people from various countries. Wouldn't it make more sense to compare white people to south east asian people?", "timestamp": 1521960822 }, { "author": "McGonzaless", "id": "dw8znxo", "score": -2, "text": "No. The population of China is 1.3 billion", "timestamp": 1521961725 } ]	[ "dw9asx9", "dw9d6cs" ]	[ "dw8z7ia", "dw8znxo" ]
CMV: Sexual liberation and casual sex has harmed women I grew up very Catholic so it was no surprise that when I initially went to college, I was very chaste. My sophomore year of college I was exposed to "hook up culture" and in the classroom, learned about women's sexual liberation in the 60's. I was sold on the whole idea of women's sexual liberation and casual sex: if men can have sex without strings, why can't women? So this was my logic, when I had my first casual "hook up" with a guy junior year. Right after we finished, he opened the door and asked me to leave. Like I was a prostitute. I knew it was casual and I didn't expect he and I to date nor did I have any romantic expectations of him, but I expected to be treated with respect and as human being. My best friend from college, "Lauren" slept with several men on campus. She was proud of her sexuality, she enjoyed herself, and had no qualms about anyone who judged her; this was what liberation had taught us right?. One day I was sitting behind two guys in the library, two with whom she happened to have slept with with on different occasions. They were talking about her and didn't notice I was there. "The sex was horrible!" "Was her vagina that dry when you hit it too?" one said about Lauren. Then he complained about how he was forced to cuddle with her afterwards. Then went on how she was "passing the pussy." I had to tell her; she was devastated. She felt as terrible as I did when I got kicked out after sex. It wasn't just Lauren, another friend "Susan" slept with various basketball players. A male friend told me that the guys referred to her as "the Basketball hoop." I ended up trying the casual sex thing various times again, all with similar negative experiences and men who only saw me for the value of my vagina. One later claimed he didn't even know me, although he had slept with me several times before. I asked another if we could hangout as friends, without the sex. He immediately told me no, he wanted to keep our relationship purely sexual. Lauren, Susan, and I all felt like shit when these men's masks came off. But where was this power I was suppose to feel from being sexual liberated? We were sleeping with these men but they didn't even see us as human beings. Sex was just like eating a sandwich to them, they didn't care where it came from. We were just sex objects for men to get off on. I just can't see how sexual liberation has helped women. Casual sex has made men even more sexist. Men may no longer publicly shame women, but in "men's world" the myth of the "virgin-whore" dichotomy still exists on who is "girlfriend material" and who is "pass the pussy" material. Also, there are tons of consequences that are not communicated initially. For example, sexual liberation does not mean men will respect you afterwards. Most importantly, people never tell women how men really view casual sex. Men see it as you temporarily letting him use your body. They don't have to respect you as a human being, because we are just sex toys to them. How does treating another human being as an object empower women? How is engaging in dehumanizing behavior empowering? Telling women to emulate the way men have casual sex is telling women to engage in behavior that is cynical and animalistic. How can this be helpful to women? I think we are conned into believing sexual liberation and casual sex was good for us. I feel like it's been more harmful to women than helpful than anything. _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	I'm sorry you feel that way, but I feel like your experiences being very limited isn't a good representation of the culture as a whole. I also think you're making the mistake of thinking that some of these experiences didn't also happen to women before now. Some men still treated women as sex objects and are just as shitty as they are now. I think the biggest difference is that there's less of a societal pressure to look at the women and make them feel like shit for sleeping with womanizers. And now women can be open about it and get support from other men and women to help them cope and understand their experiences. In the old days people would jus look at you and think "who gives a shit, that's what you get for being a whore". It's different these days. I think the main point you're missing is that a sexual liberation doesn't mean that you still aren't responsible for your choices or have to deal with the consequences, but that you don't have to be publicly shamed for them. --- You know what? Your last sentence was such a good point. I think I widened the definition of what women's sexual liberation meant. I do think that girl's should be warned in advance that they shouldn't feel ashamed to have sex, but understand how men view casual sex and the consequences of that. --- First, I think it might help you to understand that there is no such thing as "the way men view casual sex". Different men have different viewpoints and those viewpoints are diverse and varied enough to preclude any generalization. Second, realize that liberation doesn't guarantee a better experience. It empowers you to make choices. You can still choose to not partake in hookup culture. You can choose to wait until marriage to have sex. You can also choose to have sex with a new person or two every day. Prior to sexual liberation, those were not really choices. You followed one path and if you didn't, you effectively eliminated 90% of the dating pool. Instead you now have choices. Each choice carries consequences. No matter which path you take, you eliminate people from your dating pool and that is ok because you probably wouldn't be ideologically compatible with them anyway. Women were liberated from lack of choice and empowered with choice. Neither of these things guarantee good interactions. Bad outcomes are possible with any choice. You may have a casual hook up with an inconsiderate guy or you could save yourself for marriage only to find out you are married to a poor and selfish lover that refuses to change. At the end of the day... You are not protected. You are not free from risk. However, you are free to make the best choice for you though and that is important.	[deleted] --- [deleted] --- [deleted]	6xq7f1	CMV: Sexual liberation and casual sex has harmed women	I grew up very Catholic so it was no surprise that when I initially went to college, I was very chaste. My sophomore year of college I was exposed to "hook up culture" and in the classroom, learned about women's sexual liberation in the 60's. I was sold on the whole idea of women's sexual liberation and casual sex: if men can have sex without strings, why can't women? So this was my logic, when I had my first casual "hook up" with a guy junior year. Right after we finished, he opened the door and asked me to leave. Like I was a prostitute. I knew it was casual and I didn't expect he and I to date nor did I have any romantic expectations of him, but I expected to be treated with respect and as human being. My best friend from college, "Lauren" slept with several men on campus. She was proud of her sexuality, she enjoyed herself, and had no qualms about anyone who judged her; this was what liberation had taught us right?. One day I was sitting behind two guys in the library, two with whom she happened to have slept with with on different occasions. They were talking about her and didn't notice I was there. "The sex was horrible!" "Was her vagina that dry when you hit it too?" one said about Lauren. Then he complained about how he was forced to cuddle with her afterwards. Then went on how she was "passing the pussy." I had to tell her; she was devastated. She felt as terrible as I did when I got kicked out after sex. It wasn't just Lauren, another friend "Susan" slept with various basketball players. A male friend told me that the guys referred to her as "the Basketball hoop." I ended up trying the casual sex thing various times again, all with similar negative experiences and men who only saw me for the value of my vagina. One later claimed he didn't even know me, although he had slept with me several times before. I asked another if we could hangout as friends, without the sex. He immediately told me no, he wanted to keep our relationship purely sexual. Lauren, Susan, and I all felt like shit when these men's masks came off. But where was this power I was suppose to feel from being sexual liberated? We were sleeping with these men but they didn't even see us as human beings. Sex was just like eating a sandwich to them, they didn't care where it came from. We were just sex objects for men to get off on. I just can't see how sexual liberation has helped women. Casual sex has made men even more sexist. Men may no longer publicly shame women, but in "men's world" the myth of the "virgin-whore" dichotomy still exists on who is "girlfriend material" and who is "pass the pussy" material. Also, there are tons of consequences that are not communicated initially. For example, sexual liberation does not mean men will respect you afterwards. Most importantly, people never tell women how men really view casual sex. Men see it as you temporarily letting him use your body. They don't have to respect you as a human being, because we are just sex toys to them. How does treating another human being as an object empower women? How is engaging in dehumanizing behavior empowering? Telling women to emulate the way men have casual sex is telling women to engage in behavior that is cynical and animalistic. How can this be helpful to women? I think we are conned into believing sexual liberation and casual sex was good for us. I feel like it's been more harmful to women than helpful than anything. _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	dukenotredame	3	3	[ { "author": "LordNelson27", "id": "dmhq7oe", "score": 103, "text": "I'm sorry you feel that way, but I feel like your experiences being very limited isn't a good representation of the culture as a whole. I also think you're making the mistake of thinking that some of these experiences didn't also happen to women before now. Some men still treated women as sex objects and are just as shitty as they are now. I think the biggest difference is that there's less of a societal pressure to look at the women and make them feel like shit for sleeping with womanizers. And now women can be open about it and get support from other men and women to help them cope and understand their experiences. In the old days people would jus look at you and think \"who gives a shit, that's what you get for being a whore\". It's different these days. I think the main point you're missing is that a sexual liberation doesn't mean that you still aren't responsible for your choices or have to deal with the consequences, but that you don't have to be publicly shamed for them.", "timestamp": 1504403830 }, { "author": "dukenotredame", "id": "dmhrc16", "score": 11, "text": "You know what? Your last sentence was such a good point. \n\nI think I widened the definition of what women's sexual liberation meant. I do think that girl's should be warned in advance that they shouldn't feel ashamed to have sex, but understand how men view casual sex and the consequences of that. ", "timestamp": 1504405480 }, { "author": "sarcasticorange", "id": "dmhzqn9", "score": 39, "text": "First, I think it might help you to understand that there is no such thing as \"the way men view casual sex\". Different men have different viewpoints and those viewpoints are diverse and varied enough to preclude any generalization.\n\nSecond, realize that liberation doesn't guarantee a better experience. It empowers you to make choices. You can still choose to not partake in hookup culture. You can choose to wait until marriage to have sex. You can also choose to have sex with a new person or two every day. Prior to sexual liberation, those were not really choices. You followed one path and if you didn't, you effectively eliminated 90% of the dating pool.\n\nInstead you now have choices. Each choice carries consequences. No matter which path you take, you eliminate people from your dating pool and that is ok because you probably wouldn't be ideologically compatible with them anyway.\n\nWomen were liberated from lack of choice and empowered with choice. Neither of these things guarantee good interactions. Bad outcomes are possible with any choice. You may have a casual hook up with an inconsiderate guy or you could save yourself for marriage only to find out you are married to a poor and selfish lover that refuses to change. \n\nAt the end of the day... You are not protected. You are not free from risk. However, you are free to make the best choice for you though and that is important.", "timestamp": 1504420619 } ]	[ { "author": "[deleted]", "id": "dmho46k", "score": 1, "text": "[deleted]", "timestamp": 1504400757 }, { "author": "[deleted]", "id": "dmhoddz", "score": 0, "text": "[deleted]", "timestamp": 1504401130 }, { "author": "[deleted]", "id": "dmhok9l", "score": 1, "text": "[deleted]", "timestamp": 1504401407 } ]	[ "dmhq7oe", "dmhrc16", "dmhzqn9" ]	[ "dmho46k", "dmhoddz", "dmhok9l" ]
CMV: Sexual liberation and casual sex has harmed women I grew up very Catholic so it was no surprise that when I initially went to college, I was very chaste. My sophomore year of college I was exposed to "hook up culture" and in the classroom, learned about women's sexual liberation in the 60's. I was sold on the whole idea of women's sexual liberation and casual sex: if men can have sex without strings, why can't women? So this was my logic, when I had my first casual "hook up" with a guy junior year. Right after we finished, he opened the door and asked me to leave. Like I was a prostitute. I knew it was casual and I didn't expect he and I to date nor did I have any romantic expectations of him, but I expected to be treated with respect and as human being. My best friend from college, "Lauren" slept with several men on campus. She was proud of her sexuality, she enjoyed herself, and had no qualms about anyone who judged her; this was what liberation had taught us right?. One day I was sitting behind two guys in the library, two with whom she happened to have slept with with on different occasions. They were talking about her and didn't notice I was there. "The sex was horrible!" "Was her vagina that dry when you hit it too?" one said about Lauren. Then he complained about how he was forced to cuddle with her afterwards. Then went on how she was "passing the pussy." I had to tell her; she was devastated. She felt as terrible as I did when I got kicked out after sex. It wasn't just Lauren, another friend "Susan" slept with various basketball players. A male friend told me that the guys referred to her as "the Basketball hoop." I ended up trying the casual sex thing various times again, all with similar negative experiences and men who only saw me for the value of my vagina. One later claimed he didn't even know me, although he had slept with me several times before. I asked another if we could hangout as friends, without the sex. He immediately told me no, he wanted to keep our relationship purely sexual. Lauren, Susan, and I all felt like shit when these men's masks came off. But where was this power I was suppose to feel from being sexual liberated? We were sleeping with these men but they didn't even see us as human beings. Sex was just like eating a sandwich to them, they didn't care where it came from. We were just sex objects for men to get off on. I just can't see how sexual liberation has helped women. Casual sex has made men even more sexist. Men may no longer publicly shame women, but in "men's world" the myth of the "virgin-whore" dichotomy still exists on who is "girlfriend material" and who is "pass the pussy" material. Also, there are tons of consequences that are not communicated initially. For example, sexual liberation does not mean men will respect you afterwards. Most importantly, people never tell women how men really view casual sex. Men see it as you temporarily letting him use your body. They don't have to respect you as a human being, because we are just sex toys to them. How does treating another human being as an object empower women? How is engaging in dehumanizing behavior empowering? Telling women to emulate the way men have casual sex is telling women to engage in behavior that is cynical and animalistic. How can this be helpful to women? I think we are conned into believing sexual liberation and casual sex was good for us. I feel like it's been more harmful to women than helpful than anything. _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	I'm not really sure what casual sex has to do with these men being assholes. It seems like these very same men would tell women they had feelings and wanted something serious and would still be assholes to them. I dont really see how the problem is casual sex. The problem is some people being assholes. Secondly, (and this is a smaller point) you can't really go in to casual sex expecting cuddling. That's like going to a concert and expecting the band to talk to you afterwards. Casual sex means just sex. There shouldn't be an expectation of anything more and that's not really anyone's fault if you don't already know that going in --- Cuddling was my friend Lauren. I have no idea why she wanted to cuddle with him afterwards. I just wanted to sleep the night over. Oh hell, I just wanted to finish putting my clothes on before I was asked to leave. --- I think this isn't a gender issue but more of an issue with hookup culture and how people aren't able to accurately understand themselves and what they want from an encounter. I'm a woman and I enjoy my fair share of casual sex and I can safely say that a lot of your issues are a matter of mismatched expectations. > I just wanted to sleep the night over Yeah no. I fucking hate it when anyone sleeps the night in my bed especially if I don't know them too well of don't even like them that much. When it comes to casual sex, it's just that, casual sex. We fuck then it's time to leave. Unless I'm missing something, this is more an issue of mismatched expectations than them being jerks. They wanted a particular relationship and you wanted another. > One later claimed he didn't even know me, although he had slept with me several times before. I asked another if we could hangout as friends, without the sex. He immediately told me no, he wanted to keep our relationship purely sexual. I have a FWB that I really don't like talking to out of sex. He's really boring, quiet and isn't that fun to be around. But we still sleep together because we like having sex with each other and we both like our current relationship (come over, fuck, then leave). If he asked me to hang out without the sex I would turn him down because I don't like hanging out with him. You don't have to like someone to get off from fucking them. I feel like a lot of your issues stem from simply being a relationship person. You don't actually seem to want any part of causal sex other than the actually sex part. While I do care about my partners in a altruistic way (I want them to enjoy themselves and don't want to hurt them) I don't really care about getting to know them as people or try to create a deeper relationship where there isn't one. --- >Yeah no. I fucking hate it when anyone sleeps the night in my bed especially if I don't know them too well of don't even like them that much. You knew me well enough to put your penis in my vagina, but you don't know me well enough to let me sleep the night over? >They wanted a particular relationship and you wanted another. If you're fucking me and sharing fluids with me, you should have the decency to say hi when we run into each other in public. I'm a human being, not a human hole. The men expected a very transactional type of relationship. Casual sex was/is very like a transaction to them. I think that's what I was shocked about. --- > You knew me well enough to put your penis in my vagina, but you don't know me well enough to let me sleep the night over? To me there's a big difference between engaging in some physical fun with someone new who I don't know too well and being unconscious next to that person. It's not a logical thing, just an instinct to me. Just because I smash genitals together with someone doesn't mean I want to spend time with them or even like them as a person. Again, I'm a woman. This isn't a gendered issue, this is an issue of you not liking casual sex but still wanting casual sex for whatever reason. > The men expected a very transactional type of relationship. Casual sex was/is very like a transaction to them. That's what casual sex is. If you wanted a relationship (even a friendship) then you shouldn't be having casual sex. > I think that's what I was shocked about. You being shocked doesn't translate to 'sexual liberation harms women'. You had some misconceptions which have been addressed in some unpleasant experiences. This is part of growing up and learning about yourself and relationships. Everyone makes mistakes and gets a little hurt in the process and that's part of growing up and learning. You being hurt is no ones fault but your own for subjecting yourself to relationships you knew you didn't like. Don't like casual sex? Don't do it. --- > To me there's a big difference between engaging in some physical fun with someone new who I don't know too well and being unconscious next to that person. It's not a logical thing, just an instinct to me. Just because I smash genitals together with someone doesn't mean I want to spend time with them or even like them as a person. Dude, that's not logical at all. You're basically saying: "I trust you enough to engage in an activity where you could possibly get me sick and I could possibly end up bearing your child, but it's instinctual not to trust you to lie unconscious next to me." >You being shocked doesn't translate to 'sexual liberation harms women'. I think what I was trying to say was that sexual liberation lied to women. Certain advocates stretched the definition of women's liberation and began encouraging women to engage in casual sexual activity, yet failed to warn women of these consequences. Again, I think this stemmed from my own misconception of the definition of women's sexual liberation and how other women have stretched it. My second point of view was that casual sex has harmed women. I still think women were lied and conned into thinking casual sex is good for them. What is sold as what casual sex is suppose to be like is not what it turns out to be with. These men are nice to us when we meet them initially and treat us with the respect of an acquaintance, but as soon as the sex comes, they reveal that they don't care about us as human beings at all, but as view us as human holes to get off on. That is deception is what is hurtful. And the fact you can engage in an activity where you are physically closest to a person as you can be, but that man doesn't even value you as a human being. I think it works for some women like you, but I think most women are not equipped for it. My last criticism of casual sex is that casual sex as a whole is harmful practice. As previously stated, when most men engage in casual sex, they just see the women as temporarily letting them use their bodies so they can orgasm. And nothing else! There's no acquaintancy to the relationship, there's not guarantee of respect or decency for the woman. I believe that viewing anyone as a sex object is dehumanizing and animalistic. If second wave feminists knew casual sex was this type of activity, why would they encourage women to engage into an activity that is just negative? Why would they tell women to emulate a behavior that is animalistic and dehumanizing? How could encouraging women to emulate dehumanizing behavior be good of them? That is deceptive. I think women (feminists) and men who encourage casual sex to the younger generation are deceiving women into doing an activity they know we as women aren't equipped for and it's wrong. --- >These men are nice to us when we meet them initially and treat us with the respect of an acquaintance, but as soon as the sex comes, they reveal that they don't care about us as human beings at all, but as view us as human holes to get off on. That is deception is what is hurtful. And the fact you can engage in an activity where you are physically closest to a person as you can be, but that man doesn't even value you as a human being. >I believe that viewing anyone as a sex object is dehumanizing and animalistic. Thats simply you being a women, not understanding how other people work mentally. So, let me explain this statement: Sexuality for women works differently than for men. Women tend to need "the whole package" while men are much more focused on visual and physical stimuli. "The whole package" is what you are asking for. Respect, feeling comfortable and valued, wanting a high-quality mate, arousal and so on. Men ...see you as walking boobs, ass and a series of holes. (Well, not literally, but thats closer to how male sexuality works) In that sense, you expect people to be like you...but they are not. Now you say thats deception. But its not. You think people treating you politely means they actually respect you. In reality, most people will most likely not care about you in any positive or negative way. You are there? Cool thing. You are not there? Cool thing, too. You think people need to care about you to have sex with you. Well, they don't. Those men want to have their sexual needs satisfied. In that sense, it's mutual masturbation using each others body. They don't seem to to think to have any obligation beyond that. Is that deception? Not necessarily. If "having a hook-up" is exactly that, meeting for sex with nothing else happening, sending you out more or less politely is fine. Its not deception. Thats why they are happy it happened and you are unhappy it happened. They got what they wanted, while you didn't. This problem is your personal conception of what "casual sex" should entail, while reality is different. For you, being used for mutual masturbation is disturbing and not fulfilling. For others, its exactly what they want. The only deception I can see here is people telling you this is gonna be awesome, while not telling you how reality works. I mean: >Why would they tell women to emulate a behavior that is animalistic and dehumanizing? Exactly that. What is wrong with animalistic sex? Nothing. Dehumanizing? Maybe. People fuck fruits, too. Sex is a wide field with lots of "weird" things taking place. The main problem is more along the line of "Do you want that happening?" and "Did you know what you are getting yourself into?". You were tricked into believing the world is cool and nice and sexy. Its animalistic, ignorant and doesn't give a fuck about you. People will use and discard you, if you put yourself in a position where they can do it. Thats not a male thing, thats a human thing. Possible even a feature of being alive. I'd even add another lie society tells you to the list: That women can have sex like men do. They don't. Its hard for men to have sex with lots of women while any reasonably looking women can as much sex as she wants to. Most men will not like women having a high partner count, no matter what society tells everybody. They just can't outright state so anymore. On the other hand, women tend to not care about it as much, for whatever reason. In that sense, having sex is something you should take seriously. What do you truly want and why? Sounds like you want a committed relationship with someone who actually is invested in you. Please take some time and ask yourself how you want to be treated and then put yourself in a relationship with a person, who gives you exactly that. Thats much more useful than listening to "what society tells you".	> We were sleeping with these men but they didn't even see us as human beings. Sex was just like eating a sandwich to them, they didn't care where it came from. We were just sex objects for men to get off on. > I just can't see how sexual liberation has helped women. No matter how liberated we feel, when men have casual sex, they reduce us to a sex object. And sexual liberation does not mean men will respect you afterwards. Why would they need to respect someone that has no value to them? The problem is that you're doing hook-up culture wrong. What you've described above is exactly how you're supposed to feel about your partner. If you're not feeling that way about your partner - that he's just a hard dick to make you feel good - then you're doing it wrong. You should be eager to leave once sex is done. You and your girlfriends should be referring to your hook-up guys as "the pole" and complaining about how their dicks are too small or how they cum too quickly. --- Yikes, no. Mocking people about their sexual performance behind their back is childish and immature. If OP wants to have no-strings-attached, totally-cool-with-no-emotional-involvement sex, that's fine. But everybody has to be on board. If you hook up with someone, it's basic human decency to make sure everyone has the same understanding and expectations going in. And if that's not what OP wants, that's also okay. There's no "right" way to have sex with people. --- > no-strings-attached, totally-cool-with-no-emotional-involvement sex, that's fine. But everybody has to be on board. If you're having a hook-up, you should be on board with that because that's what hook ups are. If you're not on board with that, don't have hook ups. --- That's what I am saying, women aren't really told what "no-strings-attached sex" is, atleast not the first time, they have to find out from the experience itself. For men it really means no strings attached, you are just letting me borrow your body temporarily. It's a shocker for some girls who expect some human decency to it. I don't find that to be empowering. How does using someone's body empower me? And how does it empower me to know that someone views me as strictly as a human hole? And that's the only value I have? --- and who's responsibility is it to tell women? --- The people marketing "hook up culture" and casual sex to women. They don't tell give us the entire picture. --- who is they? why is it their responsibility? surely it is your responsibility to become fully informed before doing something?	6xq7f1	CMV: Sexual liberation and casual sex has harmed women	I grew up very Catholic so it was no surprise that when I initially went to college, I was very chaste. My sophomore year of college I was exposed to "hook up culture" and in the classroom, learned about women's sexual liberation in the 60's. I was sold on the whole idea of women's sexual liberation and casual sex: if men can have sex without strings, why can't women? So this was my logic, when I had my first casual "hook up" with a guy junior year. Right after we finished, he opened the door and asked me to leave. Like I was a prostitute. I knew it was casual and I didn't expect he and I to date nor did I have any romantic expectations of him, but I expected to be treated with respect and as human being. My best friend from college, "Lauren" slept with several men on campus. She was proud of her sexuality, she enjoyed herself, and had no qualms about anyone who judged her; this was what liberation had taught us right?. One day I was sitting behind two guys in the library, two with whom she happened to have slept with with on different occasions. They were talking about her and didn't notice I was there. "The sex was horrible!" "Was her vagina that dry when you hit it too?" one said about Lauren. Then he complained about how he was forced to cuddle with her afterwards. Then went on how she was "passing the pussy." I had to tell her; she was devastated. She felt as terrible as I did when I got kicked out after sex. It wasn't just Lauren, another friend "Susan" slept with various basketball players. A male friend told me that the guys referred to her as "the Basketball hoop." I ended up trying the casual sex thing various times again, all with similar negative experiences and men who only saw me for the value of my vagina. One later claimed he didn't even know me, although he had slept with me several times before. I asked another if we could hangout as friends, without the sex. He immediately told me no, he wanted to keep our relationship purely sexual. Lauren, Susan, and I all felt like shit when these men's masks came off. But where was this power I was suppose to feel from being sexual liberated? We were sleeping with these men but they didn't even see us as human beings. Sex was just like eating a sandwich to them, they didn't care where it came from. We were just sex objects for men to get off on. I just can't see how sexual liberation has helped women. Casual sex has made men even more sexist. Men may no longer publicly shame women, but in "men's world" the myth of the "virgin-whore" dichotomy still exists on who is "girlfriend material" and who is "pass the pussy" material. Also, there are tons of consequences that are not communicated initially. For example, sexual liberation does not mean men will respect you afterwards. Most importantly, people never tell women how men really view casual sex. Men see it as you temporarily letting him use your body. They don't have to respect you as a human being, because we are just sex toys to them. How does treating another human being as an object empower women? How is engaging in dehumanizing behavior empowering? Telling women to emulate the way men have casual sex is telling women to engage in behavior that is cynical and animalistic. How can this be helpful to women? I think we are conned into believing sexual liberation and casual sex was good for us. I feel like it's been more harmful to women than helpful than anything. _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	dukenotredame	7	7	[ { "author": "NoneApplicable", "id": "dmhtd2n", "score": 11, "text": "I'm not really sure what casual sex has to do with these men being assholes. It seems like these very same men would tell women they had feelings and wanted something serious and would still be assholes to them. I dont really see how the problem is casual sex. The problem is some people being assholes.\n\nSecondly, (and this is a smaller point) you can't really go in to casual sex expecting cuddling. That's like going to a concert and expecting the band to talk to you afterwards. Casual sex means just sex. There shouldn't be an expectation of anything more and that's not really anyone's fault if you don't already know that going in", "timestamp": 1504408503 }, { "author": "dukenotredame", "id": "dmhtibb", "score": 3, "text": "Cuddling was my friend Lauren. I have no idea why she wanted to cuddle with him afterwards. \n\nI just wanted to sleep the night over. Oh hell, I just wanted to finish putting my clothes on before I was asked to leave. ", "timestamp": 1504408730 }, { "author": "Throwawayace67894", "id": "dmi53ih", "score": 15, "text": "I think this isn't a gender issue but more of an issue with hookup culture and how people aren't able to accurately understand themselves and what they want from an encounter. I'm a woman and I enjoy my fair share of casual sex and I can safely say that a lot of your issues are a matter of mismatched expectations.\n\n> I just wanted to sleep the night over\n\nYeah no. I fucking hate it when anyone sleeps the night in my bed especially if I don't know them too well of don't even like them that much. When it comes to casual sex, it's just that, casual sex. We fuck then it's time to leave. Unless I'm missing something, this is more an issue of mismatched expectations than them being jerks. They wanted a particular relationship and you wanted another. \n\n> One later claimed he didn't even know me, although he had slept with me several times before. I asked another if we could hangout as friends, without the sex. He immediately told me no, he wanted to keep our relationship purely sexual.\n\nI have a FWB that I really don't like talking to out of sex. He's really boring, quiet and isn't that fun to be around. But we still sleep together because we like having sex with each other and we both like our current relationship (come over, fuck, then leave). If he asked me to hang out without the sex I would turn him down because I don't like hanging out with him. You don't have to like someone to get off from fucking them.\n\nI feel like a lot of your issues stem from simply being a relationship person. You don't actually seem to want any part of causal sex other than the actually sex part. While I do care about my partners in a altruistic way (I want them to enjoy themselves and don't want to hurt them) I don't really care about getting to know them as people or try to create a deeper relationship where there isn't one.", "timestamp": 1504436506 }, { "author": "dukenotredame", "id": "dmi8osu", "score": 3, "text": ">Yeah no. I fucking hate it when anyone sleeps the night in my bed especially if I don't know them too well of don't even like them that much.\n\nYou knew me well enough to put your penis in my vagina, but you don't know me well enough to let me sleep the night over? \n\n>They wanted a particular relationship and you wanted another.\n\nIf you're fucking me and sharing fluids with me, you should have the decency to say hi when we run into each other in public. \n\nI'm a human being, not a human hole. \n\nThe men expected a very transactional type of relationship. Casual sex was/is very like a transaction to them. \n\nI think that's what I was shocked about. ", "timestamp": 1504444990 }, { "author": "Throwawayace67894", "id": "dmi9dnc", "score": 9, "text": "> You knew me well enough to put your penis in my vagina, but you don't know me well enough to let me sleep the night over?\n\nTo me there's a big difference between engaging in some physical fun with someone new who I don't know too well and being unconscious next to that person. It's not a logical thing, just an instinct to me. Just because I smash genitals together with someone doesn't mean I want to spend time with them or even like them as a person. Again, I'm a woman. This isn't a gendered issue, this is an issue of you not liking casual sex but still wanting casual sex for whatever reason.\n\n> The men expected a very transactional type of relationship. Casual sex was/is very like a transaction to them.\n\nThat's what casual sex is. If you wanted a relationship (even a friendship) then you shouldn't be having casual sex. \n\n> I think that's what I was shocked about.\n\nYou being shocked doesn't translate to 'sexual liberation harms women'. You had some misconceptions which have been addressed in some unpleasant experiences. This is part of growing up and learning about yourself and relationships. Everyone makes mistakes and gets a little hurt in the process and that's part of growing up and learning. You being hurt is no ones fault but your own for subjecting yourself to relationships you knew you didn't like. Don't like casual sex? Don't do it. ", "timestamp": 1504446249 }, { "author": "dukenotredame", "id": "dmin6eu", "score": 0, "text": "> To me there's a big difference between engaging in some physical fun with someone new who I don't know too well and being unconscious next to that person. It's not a logical thing, just an instinct to me. Just because I smash genitals together with someone doesn't mean I want to spend time with them or even like them as a person. \n\nDude, that's not logical at all. You're basically saying: \"I trust you enough to engage in an activity where you could possibly get me sick and I could possibly end up bearing your child, but it's instinctual not to trust you to lie unconscious next to me.\" \n\n>You being shocked doesn't translate to 'sexual liberation harms women'.\n\nI think what I was trying to say was that sexual liberation lied to women. Certain advocates stretched the definition of women's liberation and began encouraging women to engage in casual sexual activity, yet failed to warn women of these consequences. \n\nAgain, I think this stemmed from my own misconception of the definition of women's sexual liberation and how other women have stretched it.\n\nMy second point of view was that casual sex has harmed women. \nI still think women were lied and conned into thinking casual sex is good for them. What is sold as what casual sex is suppose to be like is not what it turns out to be with. \n\nThese men are nice to us when we meet them initially and treat us with the respect of an acquaintance, but as soon as the sex comes, they reveal that they don't care about us as human beings at all, but as view us as human holes to get off on. That is deception is what is hurtful. And the fact you can engage in an activity where you are physically closest to a person as you can be, but that man doesn't even value you as a human being. \n\nI think it works for some women like you, but I think most women are not equipped for it. \n\nMy last criticism of casual sex is that casual sex as a whole is harmful practice. As previously stated, when most men engage in casual sex, they just see the women as temporarily letting them use their bodies so they can orgasm. And nothing else! There's no acquaintancy to the relationship, there's not guarantee of respect or decency for the woman. \n\nI believe that viewing anyone as a sex object is dehumanizing and animalistic. \n\nIf second wave feminists knew casual sex was this type of activity, why would they encourage women to engage into an activity that is just negative? Why would they tell women to emulate a behavior that is animalistic and dehumanizing? \n\nHow could encouraging women to emulate dehumanizing behavior be good of them?\n\nThat is deceptive. I think women (feminists) and men who encourage casual sex to the younger generation are deceiving women into doing an activity they know we as women aren't equipped for and it's wrong. \n", "timestamp": 1504465405 }, { "author": "Inelukie", "id": "dmjtb6e", "score": 1, "text": ">These men are nice to us when we meet them initially and treat us with the respect of an acquaintance, but as soon as the sex comes, they reveal that they don't care about us as human beings at all, but as view us as human holes to get off on. That is deception is what is hurtful. And the fact you can engage in an activity where you are physically closest to a person as you can be, but that man doesn't even value you as a human being.\n\n>I believe that viewing anyone as a sex object is dehumanizing and animalistic.\n\nThats simply you being a women, not understanding how other people work mentally. So, let me explain this statement:\n\nSexuality for women works differently than for men. Women tend to need \"the whole package\" while men are much more focused on visual and physical stimuli. \"The whole package\" is what you are asking for. Respect, feeling comfortable and valued, wanting a high-quality mate, arousal and so on. Men ...see you as walking boobs, ass and a series of holes. (Well, not literally, but thats closer to how male sexuality works)\n\nIn that sense, you expect people to be like you...but they are not. Now you say thats deception. But its not. You think people treating you politely means they actually respect you. In reality, most people will most likely not care about you in any positive or negative way. You are there? Cool thing. You are not there? Cool thing, too.\n\nYou think people need to care about you to have sex with you. Well, they don't. Those men want to have their sexual needs satisfied. In that sense, it's mutual masturbation using each others body. They don't seem to to think to have any obligation beyond that. Is that deception? Not necessarily. If \"having a hook-up\" is exactly that, meeting for sex with nothing else happening, sending you out more or less politely is fine. Its not deception. Thats why they are happy it happened and you are unhappy it happened. They got what they wanted, while you didn't.\n\nThis problem is your personal conception of what \"casual sex\" should entail, while reality is different. For you, being used for mutual masturbation is disturbing and not fulfilling. For others, its exactly what they want. \n\nThe only deception I can see here is people telling you this is gonna be awesome, while not telling you how reality works. I mean:\n\n>Why would they tell women to emulate a behavior that is animalistic and dehumanizing?\n\nExactly that. What is wrong with animalistic sex? Nothing. Dehumanizing? Maybe. People fuck fruits, too. Sex is a wide field with lots of \"weird\" things taking place. The main problem is more along the line of \"Do you want that happening?\" and \"Did you know what you are getting yourself into?\".\n\nYou were tricked into believing the world is cool and nice and sexy. Its animalistic, ignorant and doesn't give a fuck about you. People will use and discard you, if you put yourself in a position where they can do it. Thats not a male thing, thats a human thing. Possible even a feature of being alive.\n\nI'd even add another lie society tells you to the list: That women can have sex like men do. They don't. Its hard for men to have sex with lots of women while any reasonably looking women can as much sex as she wants to. Most men will not like women having a high partner count, no matter what society tells everybody. They just can't outright state so anymore. On the other hand, women tend to not care about it as much, for whatever reason.\n\nIn that sense, having sex is something you should take seriously. What do you truly want and why? Sounds like you want a committed relationship with someone who actually is invested in you. Please take some time and ask yourself how you want to be treated and then put yourself in a relationship with a person, who gives you exactly that. Thats much more useful than listening to \"what society tells you\". ", "timestamp": 1504536903 } ]	[ { "author": "letsgetfunkymonkey", "id": "dmhptgn", "score": 2, "text": "> We were sleeping with these men but they didn't even see us as human beings. Sex was just like eating a sandwich to them, they didn't care where it came from. We were just sex objects for men to get off on.\n\n> I just can't see how sexual liberation has helped women. No matter how liberated we feel, when men have casual sex, they reduce us to a sex object. And sexual liberation does not mean men will respect you afterwards. Why would they need to respect someone that has no value to them?\n\nThe problem is that you're doing hook-up culture wrong. What you've described above is exactly how you're supposed to feel about your partner. If you're not feeling that way about your partner - that he's just a hard dick to make you feel good - then you're doing it wrong.\n\nYou should be eager to leave once sex is done. You and your girlfriends should be referring to your hook-up guys as \"the pole\" and complaining about how their dicks are too small or how they cum too quickly.", "timestamp": 1504403249 }, { "author": "little_snailor", "id": "dmhq0je", "score": 17, "text": "Yikes, no. Mocking people about their sexual performance behind their back is childish and immature.\n\nIf OP wants to have no-strings-attached, totally-cool-with-no-emotional-involvement sex, that's fine. But everybody has to be on board. If you hook up with someone, it's basic human decency to make sure everyone has the same understanding and expectations going in. And if that's not what OP wants, that's also okay. There's no \"right\" way to have sex with people.", "timestamp": 1504403542 }, { "author": "letsgetfunkymonkey", "id": "dmhq957", "score": 4, "text": "> no-strings-attached, totally-cool-with-no-emotional-involvement sex, that's fine. But everybody has to be on board.\n\nIf you're having a hook-up, you should be on board with that because that's what hook ups are. If you're not on board with that, don't have hook ups.", "timestamp": 1504403891 }, { "author": "dukenotredame", "id": "dmhs594", "score": 1, "text": "That's what I am saying, women aren't really told what \"no-strings-attached sex\" is, atleast not the first time, they have to find out from the experience itself. \n\nFor men it really means no strings attached, you are just letting me borrow your body temporarily.\n\nIt's a shocker for some girls who expect some human decency to it. \nI don't find that to be empowering. How does using someone's body empower me? And how does it empower me to know that someone views me as strictly as a human hole? And that's the only value I have?\n\n\n\n", "timestamp": 1504406687 }, { "author": "JNelson_", "id": "dmi4c32", "score": 6, "text": "and who's responsibility is it to tell women?", "timestamp": 1504434153 }, { "author": "dukenotredame", "id": "dmi92d6", "score": -1, "text": "The people marketing \"hook up culture\" and casual sex to women. \nThey don't tell give us the entire picture. ", "timestamp": 1504445687 }, { "author": "JNelson_", "id": "dmi9acj", "score": 6, "text": "who is they? why is it their responsibility? surely it is your responsibility to become fully informed before doing something?", "timestamp": 1504446086 } ]	[ "dmhtd2n", "dmhtibb", "dmi53ih", "dmi8osu", "dmi9dnc", "dmin6eu", "dmjtb6e" ]	[ "dmhptgn", "dmhq0je", "dmhq957", "dmhs594", "dmi4c32", "dmi92d6", "dmi9acj" ]

End of preview. Expand in Data Studio

README.md exists but content is empty.

Downloads last month: 15

Size of downloaded dataset files:

Size of the auto-converted Parquet files:

Number of rows: