Please, stop claiming I’m saying people should be promiscuous. It hurts my primatology reader eyes to read it. Promiscuous is a name given to species that only have sex without pair-bonding (such as bonobos)
“Promiscuous” is not a jargon term invented by primatologists, it means “Having many sexual relationships, esp. transient ones.” This is very precisely what you recommend in your post. You shouldn’t insist that people not use words in the way they are commonly used, just because you are used to seeing them in some other context.
I”ll have a little bit more sex, you’ll have a litle bit less sex
Your reading comprehension has failed you yet again. I’ve never argued against having more sex. I’ve just pointed out that the promiscuous transient sexual relationships with multiple partners you recommend don’t actually make people happier (I cited research that points this out in my older posts.) Married people actually have more sex, and they are empirically much happier than the promiscuous singles you encourage people to emulate.
I didn’t say that was the meaning, I just said it hurts my ears, and asked you for a favour. I didn’t recommend what you said I did, as you know.
You can’t be serious that those are the things you choose to respond to, and the rest you choose to ignore. Strawmanning at its worst. You are not (being in this discussion) intellectually honest. I’m out.
You never responded substantively to any of my points, instead just reasserting your speculations as though they were fact. There is no reason for me to keep reiterating the substantive arguments I made, which you never rebutted. Instead, you just kept reasserting your speculative claims as though they were fact.
I assume this is because you can’t actually find any evidence to support your assertions (unlike me, I actually did the research and cited it in my earlier comment.)
“Promiscuous” is not a jargon term invented by primatologists, it means “Having many sexual relationships, esp. transient ones.” This is very precisely what you recommend in your post. You shouldn’t insist that people not use words in the way they are commonly used, just because you are used to seeing them in some other context.
Your reading comprehension has failed you yet again. I’ve never argued against having more sex. I’ve just pointed out that the promiscuous transient sexual relationships with multiple partners you recommend don’t actually make people happier (I cited research that points this out in my older posts.) Married people actually have more sex, and they are empirically much happier than the promiscuous singles you encourage people to emulate.
I didn’t say that was the meaning, I just said it hurts my ears, and asked you for a favour. I didn’t recommend what you said I did, as you know.
You can’t be serious that those are the things you choose to respond to, and the rest you choose to ignore. Strawmanning at its worst. You are not (being in this discussion) intellectually honest. I’m out.
You never responded substantively to any of my points, instead just reasserting your speculations as though they were fact. There is no reason for me to keep reiterating the substantive arguments I made, which you never rebutted. Instead, you just kept reasserting your speculative claims as though they were fact.
I assume this is because you can’t actually find any evidence to support your assertions (unlike me, I actually did the research and cited it in my earlier comment.)
He did cite a source and mention where to look for more in his comment.
None of his sources show that increasing promiscuous sex (or even increasing frequency of sex at all) increases happiness.