(November 9, 2023 at 5:32 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote:(November 9, 2023 at 11:15 am)FrustratedFool Wrote: If you aren't implying harm, then I don't understand you argument.
We agree, I take it, that such an encounter would be pleasurable.
So it seems to me that I am saying that having a partner (with all that rich non-shit sex) + also having pleasurable cheap shit sex is better than only having a partner, yet you seem to disagree but have no case to undermine my hedonic calculus here. Rich + cheap is still better than just rich, if there's zero harm/downside yes?
So, you must be implying that there's some harm in casual sexual encounters for your disapproval to make sense. Can you explain what that harm is?
Wrong again. A meaningful encounter is far more satisfying than your cheap meaningless ones.
What is a "meaningful encounter"
"Imagination, life is your creation"
