Ok, but try to take all the given info into account. And different perspectives shared by others, that are related to LTRs, not only my perception, in order to respond . Lets have as objective discussion as possible.

You seem to lay claim to some kind of moral superiority, but here you are publicly branding your girlfriend a slut. Break up with her. You'll get your peace of mind, and she'll be much better off without you demeaning her like this. She deserves better.
I find your theory of human evolutionary psychology rather simplistic. A simple counterexample to the quotation above is people who intentionally raise someone else's kids, like adoption. Are parents who adopt Darwinian failures? I hardly think so. Human beings evolved to have prefrontal cortexes, they are not the simple fucking machines (nor are most animals, by the way). Although shaped by it, life does not derive its meaning from evolution, simply because evolution is a natural process. Nature does not have the concept of 'meaning' or even 'life', only humans do. Morality and meaning cannot be found in lay theories of evolutionary psychology, human beings (as a species, or as individuals) have to define that for themselves.

_________________
One of the most useful things you will ever learn about body language.

No. It's not. Adoption turned in to something akin to buying a pet in modern culture (Anjelina Jolie, anyone?). Historically and traditionally, the only time you would raise someone who is not your child, it would be raising the child of a close deceased person of your blood. (Nephew, grandchildren, etc). It helped the survival of your genes. Almost all people who adopt are incapable of having children naturally so they adopt to fill the giant void left by being childless. yes.
Yes. Yes they are. They are surviving, eating, and fucking machines. Everything that you have, every trait, every finger and every nail, is there because it helped an ancestor of yours gain an advantage over others, survive, and reproduce more successfully than his rivals.
Do not underestimate nature, or biology. Life does not derive meaning from anything, and whatever meaning you ascribe to it is superficial. Life is the relentless and never ending competition for survival and reproduction. Be it a battle for sulfur between a bunch of 2 billion year old Archaea species in a hydrothermal vent at the bottom of the ocean, or the posturing of douchebags in their fancy cars to win a mate up top.
Yes, they can. Read the volumes upon volumes of books and studies written on evolutionary psychology. It makes hypotheses, designs experiments, and tests them in controlled studies, where predictions are verified or overturned. It is real, and it is science, and individual behavior, morality, as well as group dynamics are for the most part, very well described by evolutionary psychology. I know you're going to try to pick this apart by shooting me 100 examples of where you believe it fails, and I can tell you ahead of time that science doesn't have the answer to all of your questions, but where it has been tested, it has so far held up. Where it doesn't it adapts and changes. You try to romanticize the human experience, but it doesn't bring you any closer to the cold hard reality.

Had I murdered a man, is it then correct to say that I've been a "man slaughterer"? - Label only in order to describe the single act, since we're not communicating by telepathy, but by language, humans need approximate titles and abstractions. If it was done once, does it mean that it will happen again and again? Not necessarily. Now, provided the purpose and opportunity, who will do it easier? The one who never killed, or the one who did it once just for the thrill? Likewise, if you already experienced skydiving, will it be so much of a problem with adrenaline rush to go for it again?

If an under-age girl gave oral to a complete stranger with no protection used, in some hotel room for fun, separately ended fucking another one and maybe sucked him as well, all in one night, while her friend blown all the three, can we really look at it as a healthy way to experience sexuality for the first time? This is what you consider good? Morals aside, but being sexually uneducated, inexperienced, under legal age or very reckless, risking diseases on a wild drunk rampage? Lets put it this way... Say, this was your daughter. Would you be perfectly OK then?

So I'm not limiting anything to any labels, its not about "NOW IS AND ITS ALL THERE IS", I expressed myself inaccurately, but ones actions count and speak volumes about capability of doing something, and to say this behaviour wasn't slutty at all is ridiculous.

Since I would never, by my own right of having certain standards of selection, choose a lady who never had real relationship before, instead she only had described kind of "fun", naturally I have dilemmas, but its already done - life is strange. All of this leaves me with information that she is capable of crude "porn", and justifiedly insecure if she is capable of LTR in the long run.

Also, you're saying that someone who can ignore this completely, and doesn't feel internal discomfort at all, is in some way "better"?


Yes, humans are simple reproducing machines, in a rudiment. But there are deviations even to some humans. More complex sentience = more complex biology and psychology, of course, but the same fundamental principles apply in underneath. Complexity of consciousness will result with moral philosophy, whether you think its natural or not, or you scorn any system of morality, it exists side by side with questions of human existentialism, but that's another story.

As for adoption - that also happens to be a deviation, in evolutionary psychology. However, its been proven with statistics, that unrelated children are not treated with same quality as biological children. When we are talking in terms of any psychology, deviations are considered pathology.

You compare losing virginity during a one night stand to murder now? As others have told you before, you are making a big fuss over a small thing. So your girlfriend is not perfect, but to quote Cartman: "It's totally normal! People do this stuff! You know, not everyone can be the boy with the golden butthole!" [edit: Because it is well-known that perfection entails that ones anus is entirely made of gold.]
Another example of misused (evolutionary) psychology. It amounts to saying that left-handedness is a disease because most people are right-handed. Mental illnesses are a) consistent over time, and b) cause some form of harm. Pathology is even more strictly defined because the 'deviation' must feature in the DSM 4 to be diagnosed. You can look this up anywhere. A propos, research shows that 81% of statistics are made up. Feel free to back up your claim regarding adopted children, because a Google search that I did found two studies that found the exact opposite of your claim: adopted children are treated better than biological children. http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the ... opted-ones
Au contraire, the idea that life is only about reproducing is superficial. The fact is that life is ultimately meaningless, this meaninglessness endows people with the privilege to assign their own meaning to life. You claim that reproduction is the only meaningful activity for everyone, so it is safe to assume that you think it the only meaningful activity in your life. But there is a contradiction in your actions: if reproduction is the only meaningful event in your life, why are you here debating me instead of fucking around? Clearly, spending time doing stuff unrelated to reproduction is at least somewhat meaningful to you, otherwise you wouldn't do it.
I was referring to lay theories of evolutionary psychology, not to scientific ones. Either way, my point was not that evolutionary psychology is wrong or unscientific, but that evolutionary psychology does not teach that life is all about reproduction. Humans evolved to be social, to have emotions, to have morality, to make art, etc. We came to possess these qualities so universally because they are more fit to the environment we live in. That is the reality you have, so far, ignored, perhaps because it doesn't fit in your model of the human being as a simple reproductive machine.

_________________
One of the most useful things you will ever learn about body language.

I'm a biological aberration. I don't want kids, now or ever. Life is meaningless, and so is reproduction. However, that is what life is all about. Survival and reproduction. Every other capacity that you evolved, that does not in some way to contribute to one of those two, is just a byproduct. After years of philosophy and epistemology classes, and writing countless papers on it, I've become a pretty hardcore empiricist and nihilist. You really don't want to argue about meaning with me because you'll be hitting your head against a brick wall. I just do what makes me feel good, as well as some things which I know (through evolved drives, and conditioning *aka upbringing*) I am supposed to do (ie. family obligations, obligations to friends, etc). Those are also there from evolution. I'm just missing the "reproduction" drive (though not the sex drive).

Evolutionary psychology is based on the very premise of mutation and natural selection, which includes survival, and sexual selection. We evolved to be social and to have emotions because the evolutionary niche that we developed in turned out to make those qualities to be advantageous. Even mysticism/religion could have its roots in natural selection and survival, as a stress coping mechanism. Our ability to build rockets and send them to other planets is a complete fluke, and an accident. It emerged from qualities that we evolved to survive in the African Savannah. Chimpanzees are also social and have emotions. It helped them adapt and survive in their niche. Wolves are social, but not particularly emotional. Being social but not emotional was enough for them to survive in Alaska and Siberia. The sea tortoise has completely aced evolution for the last 200 million years by being so well adapted, that it hasn't really changed since the Triassic. It is neither social, nor does it give any countable number of fucks about anything.

Any meaning that humans ascribe to their existence, is in the grand scheme of things, just as meaningless as anything else. Do what makes you happy and stop looking for meaning in everything. If you absolutely must have it, you can try religion, but its the mental equivalent of drugs "opium for the masses -V.I. Lenin". Won't bring you any closer to reality.

Edit: I thought about what I said about missing the reproduction drive. Turns out, it doesn't matter. As long as the sex drive is there, the fact that I do or don't want kids would have no bearing on the outcome in the context of evolution. 20000 years ago, I'd have sex, and there would be no birth control, and I'd end up reproducing unintentionally. Not wanting kids never actually made you unfit to survive or reproduce, historically, only abstaining from sex did.

I'm glad to find a fellow empiricist and nihilist in you. Nihilism, existential nihilism in this case, holds that life is intrinsically meaningless, but that individuals can assign their own meaning to life if they wish to do so. The exact point that I have been making in my previous posts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existential_nihilism
Yet it is empirically shown that having a sense of purpose, i.e. meaning, makes people happier. See e.g. the research related to flow theory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_(psychology)

_________________
One of the most useful things you will ever learn about body language.

I didn't argue that we can't create our own meaning, nor am i disputing that having a sense of meaning makes one happier.. What I do maintain is that self-created meaning is fundamentally superficial. I could decide that my meaning in life is to be a firefighter. However, in the grand scheme of things its pretty superficial and well... meaningless. I tend to base my worldview globally and not so much on the individual and his perceptions. I'm not exactly a Cartesian.

I definitely knew how one silly analogy will cause you to weed out everything from context, skip further explanations, and not answer my question. Anyway, the purpose of analogy is not identification, but I think I've made my point.
Who? Where?
I know two or three people took the time to read the whole story + relevant latest updates. And actually their opinions were very close to reality, advices useful, that is, the girl in question is not a relationship material, and the chances are - she will continue were she left off. Her choice. Yes, people can change, but they don't just jump from one side of spectrum to complete opposite.

Now, in the end, and most importantly, she is the one who keeps proving me that sluts/women without self respect and dignity, who suck strangers cocks for nothing at the age of 15-17, are emotionally unreliable, unstable and neurotic in the long run, and no rational man should consider them for more than sperm banks.

As for the off-topic part, I warmly suggest:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8rAOSyhHcw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1mWcOaNAAE

Skip back to page one of this thread.
You're arguing in circles here, and making me repeat myself. Despite your (biased) account of her sexual experience, I do not think your girlfriend is a slut. In my view, a slut sleeps with a lot of guys, the manner of how she loses her virginity is completely irrelevant to me. And even I would think her a slut, that, in my view, does not brand her emotionally unreliable, unstable, neurotic, or unfit for relationships. But I am not her boyfriend am I? What matters is this: you think she is a slut, and you find this unacceptable.

By the way, that I do not quote everything you said to me does not mean that I did not read it. I cannot say that I read your other threads about this supposed problem, and I honestly do not think it necessary to know any details other than the two I've mentioned in the previous paragraph. It's not rocket science: if you despise your girlfriend, break up with her.

_________________
One of the most useful things you will ever learn about body language.

help-me-in-decision-updated-final-vt161997.html

I will break up with her, finally - because she started to become unreliable in the present.