Having a Girlfriend

[inator]

Well you've seem to not have a proper edumacation.

We didn't have that in school, that's all. Different backgrounds.

Hey, you do you, it's perfectly fine if you don't feel like getting a girlfriend yet. Just don't rationalize 'I don't want to' like 'I shouldn't'.

Uhhh, I wasn't?

You kinda are throughout this whole post.

And it's jot that I don't want to, it's that i don't need to. I got a working hand, and I got all other social areas in life covered.

Once again, if you feel like the hand and platonic relationships completely replace a romantic relationship (they actually replace a friend with benefits), no one's forcing you to go looking for it.
A romantic relationship doesn't have to involve sex, especially in school.

You don't have to have sex if you have a girlfriend you really like and you're in school.

You'd be surprised.

I am surprised. Social pressure is what it is, but it's ultimately still your choice.

But you can, if it's legal and you're ready, and you want to and your partner wants to, and you use protection correctly.

Disregarding irresponsibilities, let's just say some people think they can pull out at the last second.

Then that would contradict the "you're ready" and "use protection correctly" parts.

brimstone said before that not every STD is tested.
And confirmed!
https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn ... td-testing

http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-cond ... t-20046019

Both sources claim that some STDs don't show symptoms, and that some are only testing for a certain disease.

Getting tested and using protection correctly will take care of most of the risk. From there, you just have to do your own risk-benefit analysis (if you're mature enough) and decide what you want to do.

Anyway, attraction isn't just about physical hotness.

If it's not the only factor, it's more than likely the main factor. You see what someone looks like first. There are reasons why we're attracted to the body. The posterior for example can give the male a sense on how well a woman can give birth, while for the woman, it's to see how muscular the male is. We're attracted to sex organs to continue our species. If it didn't feel good, there wouldn't be any real motive to have sex.

I'm not contradicting that, just saying that's not the only turn-on, thankfully. And as you get more experience with people, you start realizing how much the other factos weigh in.

I feel like nowadays the bigger problem is people not having enough quality experiences that add richness to their lives, rather than having too much going on and too much drama. Which is a direct result of always staying in their comfort zone and not putting themselves out there, like ever. Great way to become lonely and depressed later in life. Making mistakes is fine and you have a lot of room for making them in school... just don't be too stupid and make the big ones with long-term consequences.

I've said it before, and I'll say it once more, teenagers are stupid, ignorant, and irresponsible when it comes to sex cause they want to so badly, but it is in fact natural. Anyway, these negative attributes lead to the aforementioned "pulling out" and other stupid risks.

So I guess your sex ed isn't much better than what I got?
That would contradict the "just don't be too stupid and make the big ones with long-term consequences." part.

But in this whole paragraph I was actually referring to avoiding having a girlfriend because

Plus I don't get heartbroken when (not if, when) someone breaks up with me, as it happened to so many others.

That's just being sheltered. Which is fine, if you want to be. What I said about the video games.

Look, I know long shots pay off big time, but sometimes, it's not worth taking those risks. It's a gamble.

If you get tested and use protection correctly, that's pretty much like saying that you shouldn't take the bus because there's a chance that you'll get the flu and die. And you did get the flu shot, but hey, there's still an infinitesimal chance. (or I don't even know if there's a vegan version of that vaccine out yet, just choose another disease for the sake of the example if that's the case). Better yet, stay in your house and don't go out, just to be safe.
All these precautions can be smart to some degree, but a simple personal risk-benefit analysis will tell you how smart. Just make that analysis when you're responsible and informed enough, I totally agree with that.

[brimstoneSalad]

Once again, if you feel like the hand and platonic relationships completely replace a romantic relationship (they actually replace a friend with benefits), no one's forcing you to go looking for it.

What do you think a romantic relationship is?

It depends on what your attitude toward romance is.
This is a pretty good video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Al1rQKIllk4

If you're talking about mania, no, a friend plus your hand doesn't replace that -- because mania is also a hefty dose of obsessive crazy.

A romantic relationship in school definitely isn't pragmatic, so you're really only left with a few other options. The only healthy one is based on friendship, not the true love delusions of mania.

A romantic relationship doesn't have to involve sex, especially in school.

What does it involve?

Then that would contradict the "you're ready" and "use protection correctly" parts.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/no-true-scotsman

How do people know when they are magically "ready"? How do they really know they're being safe? Because they all think they are.

People think more highly of their own competences than is accurate. If there were some objective measure or test, that would be another thing, but it's reasonable and rational to assume oneself average, and observe correctly that others ones age are not ready.

Getting tested and using protection correctly will take care of most of the risk.

Yes, like wearing a bullet proof vest on Normandy beach during World War II will take care of most of the bullets.

From there, you just have to do your own risk-benefit analysis (if you're mature enough) and decide what you want to do.

I feel like you're reacting against your bad sex ed to the opposite irrational extreme. People are stupid and irresponsible; they're inherently very bad at risk assessment, particularly when they want something and are trying to rationalize it. Do you know how many high school kids smoke?

The notion of self evaluation, or "you do you" is a profoundly bad idea.

Anyway, to the point:

The best assessment of risk for a sexual partner, beyond an STD test, is going to be how many other partners he or she has had, how many partners those partners have had, etc.
Generally, the size of the fluid exchange pool you're jumping into.

You want to have sex with people who haven't had sex with very many people.
But don't be an asshole and have double standards: They will be more willing to have sex with you the cleaner you have been as well.

If you're very clean, you'll be more accepted by others with similar standards.
If you've had sex with only a few people, more accepted by the same.
If you've had sex with a few dozen, by like people.
If you've lost count, likewise.

Your risk does not grow linearly, but exponentially, because your future partners will have similar standards (unless you want to lie to them). The people willing to have sex with you if you're a slut are typically going to be sluts themselves, which puts you at MUCH higher risk, because these are people who have only been as careful as you have at best.

The point is to try to limit your lifetime sexual partners to a reasonable number.

Given you have a target number, don't waste it on high school relationships that won't last long.
Better to have a series of more long term relationships, or a pool of long term friends to have sex with who also only have sex within that pool.

More sex, fewer net sexual partners, lower risk per orgasm.

But in this whole paragraph I was actually referring to avoiding having a girlfriend because

Plus I don't get heartbroken when (not if, when) someone breaks up with me, as it happened to so many others.

That's just being sheltered. Which is fine, if you want to be. What I said about the video games.

Or just grow out of the whole romance notion.

If you get tested and use protection correctly,

At $2 a pop?
And around $100 per test?

that's pretty much like saying that you shouldn't take the bus because there's a chance that you'll get the flu and die.

No, buses have significant utility. He has a hand that provides the same without risk.

or I don't even know if there's a vegan version of that vaccine out yet

Flublok
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxPURerlas0

Better yet, stay in your house and don't go out, just to be safe.

Or stay inside on the worst day - say, St. Patty's - and go out when it's safer and you can have more fun with sober grownups.
It's a cost benefit analysis, and I think he's doing it exceedingly well.

Just make that analysis when you're responsible and informed enough, I totally agree with that.

How do you know when you're smart enough? Everybody thinks he or she is; the vast majority are clearly wrong.

[miniboes]

Shower thought: if I had not been trying to get a girlfriend a year and a half ago, I would probably not have been vegan. After all, my veganism started with me trying to lose weight. The thing that motivates me to lose weight has always been, and still is, to be more attractive.

Not trying to make an argument here, just a thought that popped up.

[Jebus]

The thing that motivates me to lose weight has always been, and still is, to be more attractive..

There is nothing unusual with that. I started going to the gym when I was 18. I hated it, but kept doing it because I thought I would become more physically attractive. I was right. I started getting a lot more positive attention once I got in shape so I never stopped training.

However, priorities change as you get older. At age 46 I train to be more healthy and to avoid injury. Looking good has become much less important.

[miniboes]

The thing that motivates me to lose weight has always been, and still is, to be more attractive..

There is nothing unusual with that. I started going to the gym when I was 18. I hated it, but kept doing it because I thought I would become more physically attractive. I was right. I started getting a lot more positive attention once I got in shape so I never stopped training.

Yeah, and even if it just boosts your confidence it will help greatly in any social situation. Knowing I don't look fat anymore was a great confidence boost going into vocational university.

Edit: it also changes the way receive the fact that you're vegan. Only a couple weeks ago people started finding out I am vegan, but by now most of the class is aware. Instead of people responding with bad arguments they are just curious. Granted, the people in my class are much cooler than the people I knew in high school, but still, I think it matters how healthy the vegan looks. A girl actually told me, responding to the fact that weight loss was one of the reasons I'm vegan: "I really can't imagine you being fat."

A liberal friend of mine (note: liberal in the Netherlands is right-wing) actually concluded that the politicians in environmental parties are hypocritical for not being vegan like me.

[inator]

What do you think a romantic relationship is?

It depends on what your attitude toward romance is.
This is a pretty good video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Al1rQKIllk4

If you're talking about mania, no, a friend plus your hand doesn't replace that -- because mania is also a hefty dose of obsessive crazy.

A romantic relationship in school definitely isn't pragmatic, so you're really only left with a few other options. The only healthy one is based on friendship, not the true love delusions of mania.

That was interesting, it’s a good explanation.
I guess the levels of each ‘type’ of romantic love can vary quite a lot in individuals, and also in the same person depending on the relationship. The definition of ideal mania (100%) is really crazy. There are different doses and configurations across the 6 elements though. A relationship based 100% on one element and 0% for all others is probably unhealthy, or not a romantic relationship at all (as with your friendship example).

It’s difficult to say what’s pragmatic if you think in terms of overall well-being. Different people, different needs and perceptions.

How do people know when they are magically "ready"? How do they really know they're being safe? Because they all think they are.
People think more highly of their own competences than is accurate. If there were some objective measure or test, that would be another thing, but it's reasonable and rational to assume oneself average, and observe correctly that others ones age are not ready.

How do you know when you're smart enough? Everybody thinks he or she is; the vast majority are clearly wrong.

Well he clearly thinks he’s not ready. Which is probably true, apparently it’s not even legal for him yet.

There are three factors to this.
a. I’m referring to cases where people are, on average, considered to potentially be smart enough, i.e. when it’s legal.
b. Objectively speaking, when the necessary information on the type and importance of precautions has been presented to them, and they understand the risk. Much like saying: If you want to go vegan, don’t just eat lettuce, do it when you’re informed enough.
c. And subjectively speaking, when they feel ready and want to start this new chapter in their lives.

He in particular seems to have the necessary information on what precautions to take and is scared enough of the risk. He wouldn’t be acting out of ingnorance, which means that, in the objective department, he’s ready to make a decision for himself (and he has).
His ‘readiness’ fails in the other two departments: the legal and the subjective one.

Yes, like wearing a bullet proof vest on Normandy beach during World War II will take care of most of the bullets.”
“Or stay inside on the worst day - say, St. Patty's - and go out when it's safer and you can have more fun with sober grownups.
It's a cost benefit analysis, and I think he's doing it exceedingly well.

I disagree with this interpretation.The chances of accidentally being with someone who does have an STD and it not showing in tests are just small. And then above that, you’d have to use protection incorrectly. We should see some numbers on the actual risk, otherwise it’s a matter of interpretation.
The perception of benefits is more subjective, that’s where there’s room to get to a different conclusion.

I feel like you're reacting against your bad sex ed to the opposite irrational extreme. People are stupid and irresponsible; they're inherently very bad at risk assessment, particularly when they want something and are trying to rationalize it.

Not at all, that was a long time ago and it’s as hilarious a story now as it was then. Had I grown up in a Western European country, I would have probably had great sex ed. Living there now, my opinion is probably influenced by the different attitude towards sex present in Western Europe.
The purpose of all this isn't to justify some sort of behavior that I might or might not personally have (who cares about anecdotal evidence anyway?), but to emphasize that different attitudes on this are ok.

Different attitudes don’t always mean different behavior. In this case it simply means different degrees of guilt when thinking about the behavior. Which might make "It's not for me, but I'm totally fine with what other people do" possible. It also makes the "I shouldn’t, I shouldn’t, I shouldn’t, DAMN IT, I did it" potentially riskier than "I will possibly do it, so let’s be prepared."
Abstinence is the safest (safest only means best if you don't consider potential benefits), there’s no debate here. But if you look at it statistically, telling people to be abstinent only makes things worse.
I want to see a study showing that people in Western Europe have higher rates of STDs than in the States as a whole, and that this correlates with their more liberal attitudes towards promiscuity.

I couldn’t find much data on different levels of promiscuity (even less on attitudes), so I’ll only put a Wikipedia reference for that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Promiscui ... al_studies

“The top-10-ranking OECD nations with a population over 10 million on the study's promiscuity index, in descending order, were the United Kingdom, Germany, the Netherlands, the Czech Republic, Australia, the United States, France, Turkey, Mexico, and Canada.[14][15][16]”

However, there’s more data on STDs.

http://www.medicaldaily.com/pulse/std-p ... ace-325574
(look at the graph “Europe vs. US – Comparing the Incidence of STDs since 1980.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... lence_rate
Pretty self-explanatory.

https://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3202400.html

“Although U.S. gonorrhea and syphilis rates have decreased overall since the 1970s, the incidence of these two STDs is still significantly higher in the United States than in western Europe. Among adolescents, gonorrhea levels are particularly high, and incidence among blacks and Hispanics is higher still.[…]
Gonorrhea incidence among white adolescents remains higher than rates seen in most European countries, and the incidence rate for syphilis is similar to those for most European countries. Less widespread and less intensive prevention policies probably contribute also to the higher overall incidence of STDs among U.S adolescents than among other European youth. […]
Differences in sexual behavior alone probably cannot explain the large observed cross-national variations in STD incidence. There is relatively little variation among developed countries in the proportion of adolescents and young adults who are sexually active or in age at first intercourse.”

As I said, being abstinent to reduce personal risk (AND being prepared in case you change your mind) is a personal decision, hence “you do you”.
But telling people to be abstinent (“you shouldn’t”) is probably counter-productive, there are much better ways of reducing overall risk.

If you're very clean, you'll be more accepted by others with similar standards.
If you've had sex with only a few people, more accepted by the same.
If you've had sex with a few dozen, by like people.
If you've lost count, likewise.

Your risk does not grow linearly, but exponentially, because your future partners will have similar standards (unless you want to lie to them). The people willing to have sex with you if you're a slut are typically going to be sluts themselves, which puts you at MUCH higher risk, because these are people who have only been as careful as you have at best.

The word “slut” has a strong moral connotation, as Equallity already mentioned. You can use “promiscuous” to express what you actually intend to express. It has little to do with PC.

The infinitesimal risk does grow. The subjectively perceived benefits might also grow, depending on who you’re asking. This is where your own risk benefit analysis comes in, it’s only up to you what you think is right for you (as long as you’re honest about it with your partner, so they can do their own analysis). There’s really very little should involved in all this - should is always relative to the goal.

If your only concern is eliminating risk, then you should be abstinent.
If your only concern is maximizing benefits, then you should be promiscuous.
If you want to find a particular balance of reducing risk and getting benefits, then you should be having a behavior that results in that balance.

At $2 a pop?
And around $100 per test?

Sheesh, I’m not arguing for daily one night stands here (though if you want to do it safely and spend the $, go for it). It doesn’t make sense to confuse my opinion for an extreme one on the spectrum of possible attitudes – actually, it would be the contrary. But I don’t see much wrong with consecutive monogamy. Or polyamory in some cases, but that’s a topic for another time.

No, buses have significant utility. He has a hand that provides the same without risk.

One can walk or drive. Having alternatives with more or less risk doesn’t negate one thing’s utility. And there is variation in utilities across alternatives.
You’re being reductionist when you say that the hand provides the same for everyone (physically it does; subjectively, not always). Maybe it does for you. And that’s fine, who cares?

Flublok
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxPURerlas0

Thanks, that’s great. Unfortunately it's not authorised in the EU yet.

[ThatNerdyScienceGirl]

I say Fuck em, I didn't get into a single relationship until I was in my 20's, my first ever relationship is the one I have right now and it has been almost 4 years since we met, 3.5 since we started dating.

In middle school or high school a girlfriend/boyfriend is nothing, a dime a dozen. Girls mainly want a BF so they can have someone who makes them feel special. Guys mainly want a GF because guys like the idea of someone loving them unconditionally, as well as handing them sex. This changes from person to person and situation from situation, but in middle/highschool having a BF/GF is just crazy talk.

Don't get a girlfriend just so your parents won't see you as gay, that's selfish to the girl, and it's just lying. If you don't want a girlfriend, don't get one.

[Mateo3112]

I don't get it either, if i were you i'd aim for a relationship when i'm 20 and i know it can last. What's the point of being in a relationship with someone if the objective is not to marry that other person? Just for fun? I find that stupid.
And sex at a youg age is just not worth it, there was a 14 year old guy at my highschool who had sex with his girlfriend and she got pregnant. He's now a father and had to leave school in order to find a job to maintain his son and his wife (Well, they're not married, but you get the idea).

[brimstoneSalad]

Miniboes: That's great. Physical attraction can be a very important motivator in life, certainly. Whether for a relationship or not, we want to be viewed as attractive (and generally viewed positively) by other people; it's human nature, and that could be good when it's in moderation, and relates to things about ourselves which we can improve.

A relationship based 100% on one element and 0% for all others is probably unhealthy, or not a romantic relationship at all (as with your friendship example).

Also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_styles

I don't agree. Mania is the irrational part, in any dosage. Much as is theism.

Agape is the kind of love we should have of ALL our fellow man and creatures; it's in the nature of altruism. Focusing it all on one person is unhealthy and irrational.

Ludus is just a game, and it's harmful to others who aren't about playing: It's better to do computer gaming, or go play carcassonne or something with friends rather than hurt people. Hand + Friends + Board games.

I don't think Eros is its own thing, but more of a mix of Mania lite and Agape based on social conventions of what love should be.
Most efforts at categorization are more arbitrary, but aside from Eros, Lee's love styles are pretty elementary with respect to potential attitudes.

Pragma and Storge are the only healthy ones. Storge being basically friends with benefits (with commitment based on friendship), and Pragma being un-pragmatic in high school, unless two students are just "dating" to get other people to leave them alone and stop hitting on them/trying to set them up with people.

Something that starts with that kind of pragmatism, and develops into friendship too, is probably the best kind of love any human being can find.

It’s difficult to say what’s pragmatic if you think in terms of overall well-being. Different people, different needs and perceptions.

Not really. Different people have different goals, but those center mainly around cultural expectation, career, stability when we're talking about pragmatic concerns. Think: rational.
Not all goals are legitimately pragmatic.

It doesn't make sense in high school unless, as I said, it's two students "pretending" to pair in order to avoid social inconvenience.

Well he clearly thinks he’s not smart enough. Which is probably true, apparently it’s not even legal for him yet.

High school students who think they ARE smart enough usually aren't either.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E ... ger_effect

a. I’m referring to cases where people are, on average, considered to potentially be smart enough, i.e. when it’s legal.

High schoolers are not considered to be, since they're under 18 (until the end of high school).

b. Objectively speaking, when the necessary information on the type and importance of precautions has been presented to them, and they understand the risk. Much like saying: If you want to go vegan, don’t just eat lettuce, do it when you’re informed enough.

How do you overcome Dunning-Kruger?

Catastrophic consequences are much more serious and less reversible with sex than with a short term dietary mistake (which will make itself apparent usually quite quickly).

c. And subjectively speaking, when they feel ready and want to start this new chapter in their lives.

That's silly, and like saying people should believe what makes them feel good, or eat instinctively.
Let's talk about objective metrics.

The chances of both accidentally being with someone who does have an STD and it not showing in tests are just small.

So, are you saying people should only have sex one time in their lives, to minimize risk? (I doubt it)

Otherwise, what's a 1% chance several hundred times over?
Risk compounds.

And no, the chances are not small that a person has an STD that doesn't show in tests because the actual number of STDs that are tested for a very small. We only test for the worst known STDs. There are so many: It would be impractical to test for all known ones (cost many thousands at least).
Not only are there more "minor" STDs which will still increase your risk of cancer (along with others you have sex with, spreading it to them), there can and will eventually be another AIDS, and we won't know about it until we (as a society) know about it and it may be too late.

Being clean is not just personally smart, it's an ethical obligation to others you may infect. Just like the ethical obligation to get vaccinated.

You may make arguments about informed consent to be infected by a disease --
Have you heard about bug chasers?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bugchasing

If you want to talk about the ethics of that, it could be an interesting discussion. I've made similar arguments to the one I would make here against alcohol as a social institution (even if you use it properly, it encourages misuse from others -- many of which can not use it properly -- when we drink socially).

And then above that, you’d have to use protection incorrectly.

Even used correctly, protection is not perfect, and it's very poor against contact transmission for certain diseases (it's pretty good at protecting from HIV).
And did you miss my point that it costs $2 a pop? I'm talking condoms here.
Some people don't use them simply because they're too expensive. And don't get me started on vegan condoms (most condoms are made from milk -- is it right to accept animal suffering so you can have a little sexual pleasure, when your hand was a perfectly safe and cruelty free alternative?).

We should see some numbers on the actual risk, otherwise it’s a matter of interpretation.

The numbers on risk are with respect to total number of lifetime sexual partners. Which is what I'm saying to minimize.

For example:

Oral cancer is one of the 10 most common cancers in the US with a flip-of-the-coin death rate. We can reduce our risk of oral cancer by avoiding all forms of tobacco, restricting alcohol consumption, avoiding obesity, and eating at least five servings of vegetables and fruits each day. Other risk factors include having more than 5 lifetime oral sex partners and prolonged (more than 20 years) marijuana use.

http://nutritionfacts.org/2013/12/19/bl ... nt-cancer/ (I video I relatively recently watched where it came up)

So? Keep it to 5 or under. Not too hard ( Particularly if you're not a drama queen/manic). That's not ultra-conservative religious anti-sex dogma. That's reasonable.

Friends with benefits can maintain stable relationships for decades. Choose more wisely, and you won't have to choose more often.
Choosing in high school is not a wise choice.

http://www.cancercompass.com/cervical-c ... actors.htm

Research has shown that women who began having sexual intercourse before age 18 and women who have had many sexual partners have an increased risk of developing cervical cancer. Another risk factor for cervical cancer is having a partner who began having sexual intercourse at a young age, has had many sexual partners, or was previously married to women who had cervical cancer.
Scientists do not know exactly why the sexual practices of women and their partners affect the risk of developing cervical cancer. However, research suggests that some sexually transmitted viruses can cause cells in the cervix to begin the series of changes that can lead to cervical cancer. Women who have had many sexual partners or whose partners have had many sexual partners may have an increased risk for cervical cancer at least in part because they are more likely to get a sexually transmitted virus.

Don't have sex before 18. Reduce your lifetime sexual partners. Don't have sex with man sluts.
Easy tips.

Like I said, sexual risk tends to grow exponentially because of mutual bad practice of partners who are easier to have sex with.

To be honest, different attitudes don’t always mean different behavior. In this case it means different degrees of guilt when thinking about the behavior. Which also makes the ‘I shouldn’t, I shouldn’t, I shouldn’t, damn it, I did it’ possibly riskier than ‘I will possibly do it, so let’s be prepared.”

I understand that, but we're talking about what we should do. We should certainly have good sex education for when people don't do what they should.

Abstinence is the safest (safest only means best if you also consider the benefits), there’s no debate here. But if you look at it statistically, telling people to be abstinent only makes things worse.

What if people tell themselves?
Stupid kids are going to be stupid and have sex either way. But if one kid is smart, why should we encourage him to be stupid too?

I'm not saying to never have sex. But if you do in high school, you're wasting sexual partners you could have later, or contributing more to your (and others') lifetime risk. It's a thing we should not be doing or encouraging.

Masturbation is probably a great practice to help kids hold off a bit. Giving each other hand jobs and fingering is another one. Mutual masturbation is great for young couples.

I want to see a study showing that people in Western Europe have higher rates of STDs than in the States as a whole, and that this correlates with their more liberal attitudes towards promiscuity.

I don't think that's the case, because I don't think "god said don't do it" is effective.
People will choose safer sexual practices only when they understand why, and that comes down to real education.

I would also blame bad social attitudes toward romance, and Disney movies interestingly enough. High school puppy love is a good way to become delusional; of course you don't need protection when you're having sex with your "forever love" -- who will last a week.

As I said, being abstinent to reduce personal risk (AND being prepared in case you change your mind) is a personal decision, hence “you do you”.

No, it's not. It's a matter of education and attitude. And it has serious social consequences. It's like saying meat eating is a personal choice.
If it ONLY affected you personally, I might agree with that, but that's not the reality of the situation.
When you get pregnant and aren't prepared for a child, it affects everybody (and some people really just shouldn't have kids at all).
When you catch STDs, it affects others you'll have sex with too, and society at large (you're acting as a vector).
Hell, even just the emotional issues aren't isolated to you: You can make the people around you miserable with your personal drama pretty easily. Number one source of murders, for one.

But telling people to be abstinent (“you shouldn’t”) is probably counter-productive, there are much better ways of reducing overall risk.

Abstinence only education is counter productive. Having some lame sex ed teacher or bible thumper say it may be useless.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't give good advice, or be honest about sexual ethics and disease transmission.

Condoms are essential if you're going to engage in risky behavior, like a safety on a gun. But maybe just not doing it in the first place, until there's chance of a more stable relationship, is even better. If somebody recognizes that, that should be congratulated for the rational decision it is.

Like he said, friends + hand. It's the idea that there's something more (or should be) to romance that's worse than abstinence education. We're teaching people to be manic.

The word “slut” has a strong moral connotation, as Equallity already mentioned. You can use “promiscuous” to express what you actually intend to express. It has little to do with PC.

It doesn't have connotations of perfect purity (which is not something I'm suggesting). There ARE moral connotations to safe sexual practices.
I equate suts with anti-vaxxers. We're talking about public health risk here. It's about dangerous and irrational behavior that puts oneself and others at risk.

The infinitesimal risk does grow.

It's not infinitesimal when it grows, particularly since it can do so exponentially with growing risky practice.

The subjectively perceived benefits might also grow, depending on who you’re asking.

These subjective benefits are just irrational. I'm not concerned with people's opinions about how they benefit from having promiscuous sex any more than people's opinions on how they benefit from bacon. It's harmful to them and to others.
A rational person will think in those terms, and we aught to be rational about these things.

That's what's wrong with love -- people take it as some kind of blasphemy when anybody suggests it should be rational or practical.
This is a disease of social attitudes.

If your only concern is maximizing benefits, then you should be promiscuous.

No, no you souldn't be. Because "benefit" was something that you fabricated for yourself. You should learn to enjoy safer things instead.
Just as we learn to enjoy vegetables instead of bacon, you should learn to enjoy a good fapping session and carcassonne. Or get a stable "friends with benefits" partner (or a couple, in a closed circle) to enjoy regular, safe, stable sex with.

If there's a problem with your personality where only drunk or highly promiscuous people will have sex with you, or you can't maintain a friendship long enough to make that viable, that's something else you need to work on.

"You do you" is a terribly toxic social attitude that is nothing more than an apologia for irresponsibility and irrational behavior.

But I don’t see much wrong with consecutive monogamy. Or polyamory in some cases, but that’s a topic for another time.

High school is unfortunately closer to the one-night-stand side of the spectrum than other situations. The stereotype is falling in love with somebody new each week. It may not really be that bad, but if you want a stable long term relationship to maximize sex while minimizing risk, high school is not the place to find it.
You want something that can be measured in many years, not weeks or months.

One can walk or drive.

Walking is not viable transportation; it takes too long, thus losing utility -- there are many cases where attempting to walk to work, for example, would result in less than eight hours of sleep. Bikes are very dangerous on busy roads. Cars are very expensive.
Busing has unique utility which can not be replaced by other forms of transit.

You’re being reductionist when you say that the hand provides the same for everyone (physically it does; subjectively, not always).

Subjectively -- because not everybody is rational. This is a mental problem (mainly of mania), not a practical difference.

It's more akin to comparing a gas guzzling sports car you'll never pay off with liability and accident insurance higher than your rent, and a practical budget vehicle.
People with emotional or esteem issues may feel like they really benefit from a sports car. In reality, they need therapy.

[Red]

In middle school or high school a girlfriend/boyfriend is nothing, a dime a dozen.

But see here's the thing: as a teenager you have hardly any life experiences to compare current life to. Therefore, everything will seem as a big deal, when in reality they really aren't. I'm also applying this to myself, mind you. That's why everyone, especially freshmen, want a girlfriend/boyfriend so desperately: because it's such a big deal to them, even though the longest it'll last in the 9th grade is a few months max. Pretty much everyone I know is aching to get some head, meanwhile I'm just waiting for the release of Kingdom Hearts 3.

Girls mainly want a BF so they can have someone who makes them feel special.

Anything for my princess! hahaha

Guys mainly want a GF because guys like the idea of someone loving them unconditionally, as well as handing them sex.

To be honest, that sucks, because some girls will attempt to manipulate them, and the boyfriend will just be obsequious to them (i.e. buying things for them, making them not see their friends or even hang out with other chicks, threaten to leave them if they don't show them enough attention, etc.).

This changes from person to person and situation from situation, but in middle/highschool having a BF/GF is just crazy talk.

Unless you're serious about it.

Don't get a girlfriend just so your parents won't see you as gay, that's selfish to the girl, and it's just lying. If you don't want a girlfriend, don't get one.

well maybe a, what's the word, staged girl friend, so to speak.