Sexual promiscuity
- Thread starter Adam
- Start date
I would have some problems trusting that person to be faithful, and healthy. I don't judge that kind of behaviour, some people might enjoy it as a lifestyle. I do however think that promiscuity has its roots in a very low selfesteem and insecurity and not so much to do with sexual urges...although there are always exceptions.
I agree with Xev, it is pretty pathetic to judge someone based on their sexual past. Yes, I would date someone like that. Shit, I already do
I dont get jealous so it doesnt bother me when they cheat. I just leave and find another, cuz if he really loved you and he was the one - he wouldnt of hurt you in the first place.
I dont view them any differently. I think younger girls who have alot of sex are usually just looking for someone to like them. I dont feel they are sluts. I hate it when one of my friends says "Oh, look at that hoe". Just because a girl has sex alot does not make her a hoe. And the people that go overboard, well apparently they have issues. There has to be something not right when a girl has 5 kids by 4 different men. I think its pretty sad that they would have to resort to getting pregnant to keep a man. On the male side, I think all men need sex so they'll get it wherever. I hate to think like that, but Ive seen it happen too much. They want it all the time and if they aint getting it at home, they'll find somewhere else to get it.
But again, its just sex. It has nothing to do with the goodness of people.
I dont get jealous so it doesnt bother me when they cheat. I just leave and find another, cuz if he really loved you and he was the one - he wouldnt of hurt you in the first place.I dont view them any differently. I think younger girls who have alot of sex are usually just looking for someone to like them. I dont feel they are sluts. I hate it when one of my friends says "Oh, look at that hoe". Just because a girl has sex alot does not make her a hoe. And the people that go overboard, well apparently they have issues. There has to be something not right when a girl has 5 kids by 4 different men. I think its pretty sad that they would have to resort to getting pregnant to keep a man. On the male side, I think all men need sex so they'll get it wherever. I hate to think like that, but Ive seen it happen too much. They want it all the time and if they aint getting it at home, they'll find somewhere else to get it.
But again, its just sex. It has nothing to do with the goodness of people.
<i>I dont get jealous so it doesnt bother me when they cheat. I just leave and find another, cuz if he really loved you and he was the one - he wouldnt of hurt you in the first place.</i>
If it doesn't bother you, why do you feel hurt?
I think it does bother you.
If it doesn't bother you, why do you feel hurt?
I think it does bother you.
I'm still trying to figure out how having a lot of sex can turn a girl into garden implement.
Squid:
You want to find out if it's possible? *Sly wink*
James R:
I think it's more that they'd be willing to hurt you. I dunno. Personally, I'm not a huge believer in monogamy. Sex is whatever you make of it. It can be a means of communication, it can be a simple fuck, it can be a means of expressing love and it can be a way of sharing power, or exploring power, or all of these things.
Monogamy is just the biological desire to safeguard one's genetic resources.
You want to find out if it's possible? *Sly wink*
James R:
I think it's more that they'd be willing to hurt you. I dunno. Personally, I'm not a huge believer in monogamy. Sex is whatever you make of it. It can be a means of communication, it can be a simple fuck, it can be a means of expressing love and it can be a way of sharing power, or exploring power, or all of these things.
Monogamy is just the biological desire to safeguard one's genetic resources.
was - and even then not really recognised as such.
now? people have forgotten even that.... monogamy now just "is" right. They dont even think much about it... deep thought is not prevalent much anymore, acceptance is. If you ask, any non-religious person will probably say something along the lines of "i just believe it's right" or "i have my own code of morality" and never get past that. what they've never thought about is why it is... and if you ask, again, they'll say "it's my intuitive feeling monogamy is a natural state". The more intelligent ones will then probably go into the laws of darwinism and tell how it gives a child more chance of survival.
which is pure bullshit. its deeply ingrained social conditioning. nothing more, and in this age even less relevant or useful than it was in the past.
Squid:
I disagree. Posessiveness serves a definite reproductive end - keeping one from supporting children that don't share your genes - therefore everyone demands monogamy from their partner while screwing around themselves.
Now, to what degree the demand of monogamy is simple emotional posessivenes I do not know. I would respect that more than I would one who claims that monogamy is a simple sign of respect.
However, you cannot logically deny that demanding monogamy while screwing around is the best reproductive strategy.
From there, the question becomes an excersize in reproductive psychology. The relevence of monogamy on one's personal life? Well, this is more cultural than anything else.
I disagree. Posessiveness serves a definite reproductive end - keeping one from supporting children that don't share your genes - therefore everyone demands monogamy from their partner while screwing around themselves.
Now, to what degree the demand of monogamy is simple emotional posessivenes I do not know. I would respect that more than I would one who claims that monogamy is a simple sign of respect.
However, you cannot logically deny that demanding monogamy while screwing around is the best reproductive strategy.
From there, the question becomes an excersize in reproductive psychology. The relevence of monogamy on one's personal life? Well, this is more cultural than anything else.
i'm not really denying that, i'm denying the relevance of monogamy in our society. it no longer serves any meaningful purpose, except as an emotional cushion. the guilt associated with not being monogamous is not caused by any factor other than social conditioning. biological imperatives do not demand guilt.
in addition, not all of us demand monogamy in our partners. there is sometimes some emotional reaction to finding out one's partner has not been faithful, but this is soon extinguished in the cold light of reason and re-examination of one's own motives.
At the risk of getting laughed at, I have to ask anyone if being permiscuous is worth is.
If your a male and you knocked up a girl, you just signed your life away and have given some woman you don't know total power over you. If she chooses to keep the kid you owe child support for life and in many cases you may be denied visitation by a judge. The only recourse you have is to get a DNA test. Then, your looking at what, $200+ a month in child support? You could press for custody but what are the odds in your favor... less than 25% statistically? Unwanted fathers in this country are for the most part considered just as disposable as unwanted children.
I haven't even started talking about STD's, but I think personally no one can really justify a loose lifestyle accept "It feels good." That doesn't mean I detest people who live that way at all... just that I cannot find any incentive to live that way, and for that matter for anyone to live that way. For the record I'm not a virgin either... I just can't justify 5 seconds of orgasm with 50 years of regrets and a dirty jock.
If your a male and you knocked up a girl, you just signed your life away and have given some woman you don't know total power over you. If she chooses to keep the kid you owe child support for life and in many cases you may be denied visitation by a judge. The only recourse you have is to get a DNA test. Then, your looking at what, $200+ a month in child support? You could press for custody but what are the odds in your favor... less than 25% statistically? Unwanted fathers in this country are for the most part considered just as disposable as unwanted children.
I haven't even started talking about STD's, but I think personally no one can really justify a loose lifestyle accept "It feels good." That doesn't mean I detest people who live that way at all... just that I cannot find any incentive to live that way, and for that matter for anyone to live that way. For the record I'm not a virgin either... I just can't justify 5 seconds of orgasm with 50 years of regrets and a dirty jock.
I think monogamy goes against human nature. But then, why do we care whether the person you love sleeps around? Because we love them. If you just liked them, and knew they didn't love you, you wouldn't expect much more, but the deeper your love, the less you want to share that person - least of all sexually, because it's so personal, so close to our feelings and emotions.
The only reason you would condone promiscuity is if you *didn't care* (or just think of your own pleasure=selfish). No one can condone or judge it - but whether it's moral or like Xevious says, worth the risk (both physically and psychologically) is a question worth asking.
Living in Africa, I know what Aids does to people. It's a disease just like any other, but unlike most - the link between death and immorality has never been so evident. <bold>I am NOT saying people die because its their own fault</bold> I just say that when monogamy is an answer to a problem - it is worth thinking about twice.
The only reason you would condone promiscuity is if you *didn't care* (or just think of your own pleasure=selfish). No one can condone or judge it - but whether it's moral or like Xevious says, worth the risk (both physically and psychologically) is a question worth asking.
Living in Africa, I know what Aids does to people. It's a disease just like any other, but unlike most - the link between death and immorality has never been so evident. <bold>I am NOT saying people die because its their own fault</bold> I just say that when monogamy is an answer to a problem - it is worth thinking about twice.
Being non-manogomous is indeed a state of nature. When will people figure out that you cannot function like your in a state of nature when you live in civilization? The whole point behind civilization was to set down rules for coopertive and peaceful coexistance, the division of labor, and advancement of everyone.
Monogomy is indeed a HUGE extention of this. This is because it is designed to keep the family in one piece, make sure their is a healthy enviornment for the children to grow up in, and prevent dischord which occurs with one is promuscuous. (IE Jealousy tendencies which lead to violence, STD's, as well as reinforcing the bond has with their mate)
I think you will find that when the Greeks came a lot more worshipful of nature, their civilization collapsed. It happens time and time again, when societies reject coopertiveness in favor of more and more personal freedom. In nature, survival of the fittist is the rule. In a society which shuns coopertive morals in favor of personal interests, a state of nature is inevitable.
Monogomy is indeed a HUGE extention of this. This is because it is designed to keep the family in one piece, make sure their is a healthy enviornment for the children to grow up in, and prevent dischord which occurs with one is promuscuous. (IE Jealousy tendencies which lead to violence, STD's, as well as reinforcing the bond has with their mate)
I think you will find that when the Greeks came a lot more worshipful of nature, their civilization collapsed. It happens time and time again, when societies reject coopertiveness in favor of more and more personal freedom. In nature, survival of the fittist is the rule. In a society which shuns coopertive morals in favor of personal interests, a state of nature is inevitable.
Thank you Xevious
Viva la civilization!
Anarchy has never solved anything, especially not moral anarchy. People seem to confuse freedom of expression and expression of freedom, with having no standards or guidelines to live by. They say "I will decide for myself what's right and what's wrong," pretending to be free-thinking and rational individuals, but effectively closing their eyes to the world, and history, and relinquishing any social responsibility. As you said, Xevious: monogamy is about protecting the most sacred of social institutions: the family, and by inplication the whole of society.
Yes, it's an ideal. But so is complete freedom, if you think about it. There has to be a balance, I think.
'Right and wrong' is by nature a social concept, and can't be figured out in isolation and out of context. How can humanity become more civilized if they have to figure out what works and what doesn't over and over again for the sake of individuality. Everybody will bump their head twice, but it is possible to live in such a way that you don't have to worry about making mistakes that could ruin your life, or somebody else's. [Hasn't anybody ever lost a brother or friend because some drunk teenager borrowed his dads merc and decided to skip a few stops? Or had to raise a kid when you could have been travelling the world?]
Viva la civilization!
Anarchy has never solved anything, especially not moral anarchy. People seem to confuse freedom of expression and expression of freedom, with having no standards or guidelines to live by. They say "I will decide for myself what's right and what's wrong," pretending to be free-thinking and rational individuals, but effectively closing their eyes to the world, and history, and relinquishing any social responsibility. As you said, Xevious: monogamy is about protecting the most sacred of social institutions: the family, and by inplication the whole of society.
Yes, it's an ideal. But so is complete freedom, if you think about it. There has to be a balance, I think.
'Right and wrong' is by nature a social concept, and can't be figured out in isolation and out of context. How can humanity become more civilized if they have to figure out what works and what doesn't over and over again for the sake of individuality. Everybody will bump their head twice, but it is possible to live in such a way that you don't have to worry about making mistakes that could ruin your life, or somebody else's. [Hasn't anybody ever lost a brother or friend because some drunk teenager borrowed his dads merc and decided to skip a few stops? Or had to raise a kid when you could have been travelling the world?]
You two make me fucking sick, and I can't even be bothered telling you why.
Last edited:
Well mostly when i date someone i don't know them yet so i wouldn't know if they were sexually promicuous however most of the girls i know who are sexually promicuous aren't the brighters stars in the universe so to speak so i don't think i would date them anyhow.
Squid Vicious, their is something very wrong with you if the idea of being of moral character makes you sick.
This is how I look at it: You have just displayed character which I dislike and do not support. I will choose not to support you in your character, and I will distrust you because if you are unable to be trusted with one moral, how can I trust you with others? How do I know you won't steal from me, or cheat me, or lie to me?
Thus, if you ask me for help when you are sick, how will I know you didn't bring it upon yourself, and if you keep getting sick because of whatever reason, I will eventually be less willing to help you. Similarly if you complain you are short money for groceries and I spare some to help you, or offer out of my garden or chicken coup, and you continue to be short on money, I will wonder why. By displaying one set of immoral character, I wonder about your other morals, and will debate wether or not I will want to help you in your immoral ways.
That's how well-kept societies keep in one piece. This does NOT mean that you don't have the right to individual expression, as the other guy pointed out. If you enjoy Astronomy, enjoy it! If you like Music, enjoy it! If you like to garden, or persue whatever hobbies you want to, then do so! But, none of those are entirely societal issues. Music CAN be since it reflect culture, but I degress. The point is, that morals are about getting cooperation and trust from your neighbors and if you can't do that, you can't function. Simple as that.
This is how I look at it: You have just displayed character which I dislike and do not support. I will choose not to support you in your character, and I will distrust you because if you are unable to be trusted with one moral, how can I trust you with others? How do I know you won't steal from me, or cheat me, or lie to me?
Thus, if you ask me for help when you are sick, how will I know you didn't bring it upon yourself, and if you keep getting sick because of whatever reason, I will eventually be less willing to help you. Similarly if you complain you are short money for groceries and I spare some to help you, or offer out of my garden or chicken coup, and you continue to be short on money, I will wonder why. By displaying one set of immoral character, I wonder about your other morals, and will debate wether or not I will want to help you in your immoral ways.
That's how well-kept societies keep in one piece. This does NOT mean that you don't have the right to individual expression, as the other guy pointed out. If you enjoy Astronomy, enjoy it! If you like Music, enjoy it! If you like to garden, or persue whatever hobbies you want to, then do so! But, none of those are entirely societal issues. Music CAN be since it reflect culture, but I degress. The point is, that morals are about getting cooperation and trust from your neighbors and if you can't do that, you can't function. Simple as that.
It seems to me that the mating urge and the rigours of survival throughout much of our history would require that: A) Men would want their women to be monogamous to ensure only their own offspring carry on; and B) women would want their men to remain monogamous for the same reason. However, for exactly the same reason, a man would wish to sleep around to really gibve his genes a shot at carrying on; and women would also want to sleep around for that reason. I think we have a natural, built-in double standard.
However, we have (I try to tell myself) evolved and overcome the rigours of natural selection somewhat. We simply don't need the old sleeping around half of the double standard. The world isn't that dangerous for most of us.
However, we have (I try to tell myself) evolved and overcome the rigours of natural selection somewhat. We simply don't need the old sleeping around half of the double standard. The world isn't that dangerous for most of us.