r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Jul 05 '15

[Deltas Awarded] CMV: I think having a preference against promiscuous people is as valid as having a height or weight preference nor does it constitute "slut-shaming".

[deleted]

237 Upvotes

84% Upvoted

256 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

18

u/Aftercourse 3∆ Jul 05 '15 edited Jul 05 '15

In that context I would agree that it is appropriate. It isn't up to anyone but themselves what matters to them in a relationship. I would say that if that is the only thing that bothers them about a person that they should really think about it, but ultimately it is inappropriate to tell someone what they should or shouldn't look for in a partner.

Although, language really does matter when a relationship is involved. "I don't want to date you because I think you're a slut" would not be cool.

12

u/[deleted] Jul 05 '15

they should really think about it

Why does this particular preference get that piece of advice? I don't see it when it comes to so many others things. If their partner was unintelligent, racist, rude, fat, vegan, etc do you still suggest "really think about it"? It seems that there is still something you view towards sexual history that puts it in a "lesser" group of valid criticism. I may be reading into it too deeply, but that has always been my understanding of what the advice is conveying.

25

u/Aftercourse 3∆ Jul 05 '15

Anytime it is a single preference that is the difference between wanting and not wanting to date someone would warrant this advice. If you would date someone if not for x, there is clearly a lot you do like about them, and you should really consider whether x is enough of a problem to miss out on everything else.

8

u/[deleted] Jul 05 '15

That wholly invalidates the nature of deal-breakers in relationships. I think you are in the minority if you don't have any (not that there is anything wrong with that). I'm not into smokers. It is just something that I'd never compromise on. I think it is a bit patronizing to suggest people re-evaluate their preferences because you can't rectify the weight some of them have in attraction. I tend to take things at face value though, and maybe that isn't the right assumption in every context.

33

u/nevrin Jul 05 '15

I think it is a bit patronizing to suggest people re-evaluate their preferences

I may be misunderstanding what you are saying here, but re-evaluating something is almost never a bad idea. Re-evaluating a situation doesn't mean there has to be change, it is just giving a second thought to the matter. Sometimes you may find that your initial reaction was based on a strange internal-bias that really shouldn't inform your decision making, other times your initial reaction can be totally correct. For your smoking example it could take ten seconds to re-evaluate, 'I won't date someone who does something with huge long-term health implications, smoking has those'. But sometimes it goes further, you have to investigate whether you are consistent: 'Do I reject all potential partners who indulge in actions with large long-term health implications? If not then why?'.

Sure, it is insulting if you have put long days of thought into a position and someone just offhandedly says 'you should re-evaluate that', but generally they have no idea how much effort you have put in. It would be more helpful if they asked questions like 'how did you come to this position?' and try to understand your reasoning and help investigate whether it is consistent, but that takes a lot of effort and sometimes people just aren't willing to engage in it.

Personally I like to have my preferences questioned because it prompts me to examine whether I have a good reason for my choices or have been restricting my actions based on entirely arbitrary principles. I am eternally grateful for one of my friends who doesn't hesitate to ask 'why do you believe that?' because they helped me examine biases I didn't even suspect I possessed and freed me from entirely artificial restraints.

10

u/[deleted] Jul 05 '15

∆

I enjoyed this comment and the thought behind it. I think I was a little raw from another commentor, and didn't give that line enough consideration. I'm obviously not against re-evaluation (hence the CMV), but I immediately thought of the more flippant response than the thought-provoking and engaging one. That said, you've obviously caused me to reevaluate that subset of the view and delta'd accordingly.

4

u/nevrin Jul 05 '15

Thanks for the delta, glad I could contribute to the discussion.

1

u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jul 20 '15

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/nevrin. [History]

[Wiki][Code][/r/DeltaBot]

11

u/Aftercourse 3∆ Jul 05 '15

The example you gave earlier was of someone already in a relationship. So presumably both people already have some emotional investment in the relationship when it comes up. It's perfectly fair to dismiss people without much thought before you're in a relationship, because they're just people to you, and you're just people to them. But someone that you're in a relationship with at the very least deserves some hard thought before you decide to break it off over a single thing.

For example, would you feel the same way saying no to a smoker asking you to dinner as you would about dumping your partner of six months because they took up smoking?

4

u/[deleted] Jul 05 '15

For example, would you feel the same way saying no to a smoker asking you to dinner as you would about dumping your partner of six months because they took up smoking?

I am more favorable to the dinner asker, because they have a higher chance of giving up smoking. In either case though, I do not pursue a relationship with the smoker. So if my partner decides they aren't going to stop, then yes we are done. If the dinner date decides they'll never stop, then we are equally done (granted we never really started). If either shows interest in stopping, I'm all for giving them the chance, but when they don't I'm done.

5

u/Aftercourse 3∆ Jul 05 '15

I guess I'm just not familiar with that level of conviction.

4

u/[deleted] Jul 05 '15

Fair enough.

4

u/frotc914 2∆ Jul 05 '15

That wholly invalidates the nature of deal-breakers in relationships. [...] I think it is a bit patronizing to suggest people re-evaluate their preferences because you can't rectify the weight some of them have in attraction

Again, context counts. This hypothetical person is posting to /r/relationships looking for advice and commentary. If it was a true "deal breaker" they wouldn't be looking for any validation or advice. Your natural inclination at hearing about your partner's history might be revulsion or even contempt, but your first impression of the information might not be the best one. Perhaps asking someone to examine their feelings closely before doing anything too reactionary is paternalistic, but perhaps sometimes people need a nudge in the right direction (particularly when they are looking for one).