How could such a dumb and easily rebutted idea gain the status of an unquestionable dogma in the modern western world?
When you have promiscuous sex, you are risking getting and spreading STDs. When you get those in a country with public healthcare (something that pretty much all people who defend licentiousness also defend), you'll spend public funds (tax payer money, taken by force, nonconsensually) on treating your disease.
Gay sex is especially problematic in that regard. Such treatments aren't cheap; in Brazil, the cocktail that allows people with AIDS to live normal lives costs, per month, more than double what the average wageslave earns. It's all payed for with taxpayer money.
As for straight sex, you're also risking (as a woman) getting pregnant, something that will result either in an abortion (which is the killing of an innocent human being, or, at the very least, the POSSIBILITY of killing a human being, since there's no consensus about at what point it becomes human) or in single motherhood, something that has been proven over and over again to harm society in many ways, from spending of public funds to an increase in criminality.
One could argue that even having sex as a married woman can result in the latter, but the chances are much, much lower and in the end you at least know the guy. Some women get pregnant without even knowing who's the father.
That's why it's not only right, but pretty much a moral duty to shame promiscuous people who are irresponsible with their sexuality. Especially women, who are the gatekeepers of sexuality in the modern west and can ALWAYS get a decent, employed, committed guy. If you can't do it publicly, in order not to have SJWs have you lose your job, at least do it anonymously whenever you can.
When you have promiscuous sex, you are risking getting and spreading STDs. When you get those in a country with public healthcare (something that pretty much all people who defend licentiousness also defend), you'll spend public funds (tax payer money, taken by force, nonconsensually) on treating your disease.
Gay sex is especially problematic in that regard. Such treatments aren't cheap; in Brazil, the cocktail that allows people with AIDS to live normal lives costs, per month, more than double what the average wageslave earns. It's all payed for with taxpayer money.
As for straight sex, you're also risking (as a woman) getting pregnant, something that will result either in an abortion (which is the killing of an innocent human being, or, at the very least, the POSSIBILITY of killing a human being, since there's no consensus about at what point it becomes human) or in single motherhood, something that has been proven over and over again to harm society in many ways, from spending of public funds to an increase in criminality.
One could argue that even having sex as a married woman can result in the latter, but the chances are much, much lower and in the end you at least know the guy. Some women get pregnant without even knowing who's the father.
That's why it's not only right, but pretty much a moral duty to shame promiscuous people who are irresponsible with their sexuality. Especially women, who are the gatekeepers of sexuality in the modern west and can ALWAYS get a decent, employed, committed guy. If you can't do it publicly, in order not to have SJWs have you lose your job, at least do it anonymously whenever you can.
Last edited:
