Sexual promiscuity

My two cents

How do you view someone who is sexually promiscuous (a slut, or sleaze, whatever)? Do you have any problems with such behaviour? If so, what are they? If not, why not? Would you date a guy/girl who was sexually promicuous in the past?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the past..I didnt really worry to much about what other people were doing with their sexual lives, for like many.. I believed, and still believe that until promicuous behaviour effects me personaly its none of my business.

I know I have much personal growth and many lessons to learn / experience in my own life before I could even begin to judge another.

My Ex wife had a rather vivacious and somewhat secretive sexual appetite for other men... as such when I found out about her devious ways.... I felt betrayed, and deeply hurt.etc etc..

Exactly why I felt these emotions so strongly or indeed if they even served a purpose other than to ensure an eventual marriage dissolution is beyond me.

Having said that.. I now am quite careful and try to identify those more likely to cheat or be promicuous before I'd concider allowing a personal relationship to develop.

cheers
RazZ
 
Well, whatever the reasons, even crows and ducks develop monogamous intimate relationships. I guess it's just natural or something for many types of animal.
 
That same jealousy you felt, could drive a less controled person to be abusive, or even kill their spouse and the cheater. Domestic violence... and promiscuity is a leading player in domestic violence. Their's just another toss-in which proves my case that promiscuity is bad for society as a whole.
 
Originally posted by Xevious
Squid Vicious, their is something very wrong with you if the idea of being of moral character makes you sick.

by whose standards? yours?

This is how I look at it: You have just displayed character which I dislike and do not support.

erm. hm. i'm trying to figure out what sort of emotion i should be feeling in response to this, but i'm not getting anything.

I will choose not to support you in your character,

you place a very high value on the level of support i supposedly might ask from you, don't you?

and I will distrust you because if you are unable to be trusted with one moral, how can I trust you with others?

so, if you catch me fucking your wife, your first instinct will be to run out to the garage to see if your car is still there?

How do I know you won't steal from me, or cheat me, or lie to me?

You don't. Whereas you, to me, are as predictable as the weather. occasionally, i'll get it wrong.. but most of the time you're quite dependable. i wouldn't dare to ask perfection from you. i don't ask that from anyone, least of all myself.

displaying one set of immoral character, I wonder about your other morals,

yep. promiscuity is only the first step. from there, we progress to theft, drug dealing, and finally multiple homicide. it's a wild ride, but hell, if you want to learn i'll be happy to show you. i know a girl you can start being promiscuous with, and then we'll get to the fun bit and i'll teach you how to use a knife.

and will debate wether or not I will want to help you in your immoral ways.

you'll not want to help me in my immoral ways, certainly. where does the debate come into it? you WILL want to cure me of them however.... trying to do so will make ya feel all warm 'n fuzzy inside, won't it?

That's how well-kept societies keep in one piece

yep. all with neat little white picket fences and a permanent rainbow JUST over the horizon where you can't... quite... reach it.

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!

so i'm PERMITTED to have your wife? take away all my fun, would you?

But, none of those are entirely societal issues.

oh i see. i'm allowed expression only while adhering to your standards. society does have issues, yes, i entirely agree.

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.

i don't want co-operation from anybody. except maybe your wife. don't worry, once i get it you can have her back, i promise. you'd probably forgive her, too, but you'd never quite figure out why she'd ever done it in the first place.
 
Last edited:
Originally posted by Xevious
That same jealousy you felt, could drive a less controled person to be abusive, or even kill their spouse and the cheater. Domestic violence... and promiscuity is a leading player in domestic violence. Their's just another toss-in which proves my case that promiscuity is bad for society as a whole.
Click to expand...

it proves nothing other than people's rage at the thought of being betrayed. the question you must ask yourself is WHY you feel that rage in the first place. if the belief in betrayal was not present, the rage would likewise not be.

this is more an indicator of the animal in society, not the human.
 
The difference is that humans can learn to control their emotions, esp. anger/rage - being able to think before you act is a sign of maturity. So by not 'taking out' your jealousy etc. on someone else is not only a sign of civilized behaviour, but mature character. Morals are usually taught by mature people (parents, hopefully) and questioned by immature people (usually their teenage kids). Immorality = immaturity, in individuals as well as in society.
 
Originally posted by Adam
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.

Not quite, Adam. Men would prefer that as many of (not only) their own genes survive as possible. not only that, we want to KNOW they're ours. so we stick around to make sure. but we'd like to have a little insurance policy every now and then too, right? can't have all the eggs in one basket. men are a little torn on this, we cant stray too far without risking another bird in the bower. so we wander a little... and then scarper home quick smart to make sure we're not being rendered obsolete. rather comical really.

Women prefer monogamy for an entirely different reason... to ensure a provider remains close for as long as possible. is it only a coincidence that the 7 year itch is rather close to an age at which a child could theoretically fend for itself? just a question.

studies tend to indicate that women have entirely different reasons for having "affairs" than men. a common trend seems to be protest... at whatever she thinks a man has done, or sometimes more importantly not done. if the provider ain't gonna come up with the goods, then maybe she'd better shop around....

and to pre-empt anyone saying im using "provider" in the sense of money, think again. security has all sorts of different meanings...

I think we have a natural, built-in double standard.

yup. is it necessary any longer? was it ever necessary, or merely... desired.
 
Originally posted by Jenyar
The difference is that humans can learn to control their emotions, esp. anger/rage - being able to think before you act is a sign of maturity.

No. it's a sign of being human. one more thing to consider... being able to think before you act is no guarantee of coming up with the right answer.

So by not 'taking out' your jealousy etc. on someone else is not only a sign of civilized behaviour, but mature character.

ahhh, yes. i love being proved wrong on my previous judgements of character. i only wish you fully understood what you just said.

Morals are usually taught by mature people (parents, hopefully)

yes. what if they're the wrong morals?

and questioned by immature people (usually their teenage kids)

value judgement. irrelevant.

Immorality = immaturity, in individuals as well as in society.

hmmm... my problem in replying to this is that you appear to lump all deviations from your moral code into one heading, marked "immaturity". now, i'm certainly not going to commit murder. i'm not going to steal your car. i WILL fuck your wife, given the opportunity, and provided she's worth the effort.
now, by your own words, i can't refute this and say i'm promiscuos without also declaring myself a mass murderer. this seems somewhat unfair. shall we discuss shades of grey?
 
You're very welcome to discuss the shades of grey. I wasn't judging your character, or even your judgement of character. I would like to know what you consider as maturity. Feel free to generalise.
 
Originally posted by Jenyar
You're very welcome to discuss the shades of grey. I wasn't judging your character, or even your judgement of character. I would like to know what you consider as maturity. Feel free to generalise.
Click to expand...

oh, please, let's not lie. i was judging you, and you me. if you weren't, i'm not interested in you at all. i'm giving you a come on, bruce lee style. i'm not interested in your version of civilisation, so let's step outside our little idealogical forts and fight, shall we?

besides which.. seems to me, i've done a lot of refuting to which you havent answered. a little Squid Pro Quo seems appropriate.
if you want me to talk more, you'd better give me something to talk about.
 
oh, and by the way... "character" was the wrong word for me to use here. i meant something more along the lines of "awareness".
or perhaps a combination of the two.

"So by not 'taking out' your jealousy etc. on someone else is not only a sign of civilized behaviour, but mature character.

ahhh, yes. i love being proved wrong on my previous judgements of character. i only wish you fully understood what you just said."
 
Last edited:
OK, here's my version, and let me know when you want to call it Squids...

No. it's a sign of being human. one more thing to consider... being able to think before you act is no guarantee of coming up with the right answer.
Click to expand...

Of course it's a sign of being human. But not all humans act responsibly. What the 'right' answer would be, would depend on the circumstances and the culture. In its most basic form, morality comes down to human rights. Even murder is acceptible in some cultures (death penalty). You have to judge the conduct of others when they affect your own well-being. But often by then it's already too late, and you have to stop bad behaviour even before it affects the society you're living in.

What's being debated in this thread is whether sexual promiscuity can be considered beneficial/detrimental to society. We've seen that it affects people personally - If I may quote Razz:
My Ex wife had a rather vivacious and somewhat secretive sexual appetite for other men... as such when I found out about her devious ways.... I felt betrayed, and deeply hurt.etc etc..

It did hurt him, although he "didnt really worry to much about what other people were doing with their sexual lives" before. Consequently he couldn't understand his feelings, because according to his previous lifestyle it didn't make sense. If you live promiscuously before marriage, it is my opinion that marriage (i.e. one partner) could be too much of a 'culture shock' to sustain succesfully, never mind trust completely. Personally, I don't understand so-called 'swingers'.

Razz: "Having said that.. I now am quite careful and try to identify those more likely to cheat or be promicuous before I'd concider allowing a personal relationship to develop. "

Natural selection can also be emotionally: people who get hurt by a certain behaviour are more likely to avoid that behaviour. Love is a kind of trial and error of emotions, needs and compromises. You can either mate like animals, or learn to love. Fortunately most humans eventually prefer love above lust.

ahhh, yes. i love being proved wrong on my previous judgements of character. i only wish you fully understood what you just said.
Click to expand...
I really wasn't trying to prove you wrong - I didn't mean *you* were jealous. I understand what I'm saying: reserve=self-control. You do at least agree to the virtue of self-control, don't you?
Morals are usually taught by mature people (parents, hopefully) and questioned by immature people (usually their teenage kids)
I mean that with age comes wisdom, if you do it right. You don't have to make the mistake your parents made. If their children respect them, they can safely assume what they say is based on good judgement. If their children don't respect them, then surely they can ask themselves 'why' and strive to be different. Again, I'm assuming that respectability is a virtue.
you appear to lump all deviations from your moral code into one heading, marked "immaturity"
Click to expand...
I use the word 'maturity' loosely to include the concepts of self-control and good judgement among other virtues. Of course there are levels of maturity. You might steal food and be quite mature in other ways. But the thinking that justifies taking from others what doesn't belong to you is not as far removed from taking someone's life when it's not yours to take - it's a matter of restraint. Monogamy is also a form of restraint, Q.E.D.
 
Last edited:
Originally posted by Jenyar
OK, here's my version, and let me know when you want to call it Squids...

that'll be when i get bored.

Of course it's a sign of being human. But not all humans act responsibly.

responsibility is subjective.

What the 'right' answer would be, would depend on the circumstances and the culture.

exactly.

In its most basic form, morality comes down to human rights.

agreed so far.

You have to judge the conduct of others when they affect your own well-being.

also true. however, your version of well-being might be different to mine.
i get the feeling here that you assume your well-being involves you remaining happy. i'm not sure if you extend that thought to any potential partner.

i could drug you, make you feel nothing but sheer bliss via chemical enhancement, and put you in a room with a few sheets of paper and a box of crayons... you'd be happy. is this good for you?

But often by then it's already too late, and you have to stop bad behaviour even before it affects the society you're living in.

again, bad behaviour is a value judgement. my standards of bad behaviour might be different from yours. we're pretty much agreed on the murder bit... we're talking about promiscuity here. your entire argument so far seems to center on the effect promiscuity might have on a third party. THIS is where i'm taking exception.

What's being debated in this thread is whether sexual promiscuity can be considered beneficial/detrimental to society.

ok... again, YOUR society, but i'll allow it for now.

We've seen that it affects people personally - If I may quote Razz:
My Ex wife had a rather vivacious and somewhat secretive sexual appetite for other men... as such when I found out about her devious ways.... I felt betrayed, and deeply hurt.etc etc..

It did hurt him, although he "didnt really worry to much about what other people were doing with their sexual lives" before.

again i ask.. WHY did it hurt him? (my apologies Razz, you're being used here).

ok, i'll elaborate. a third party's hurt is caused by a feeling of betrayal. this feeling of betrayal is a result of the belief that a partner should be faithful, and has not been. this belief is present in today's society... but why is it present? can you tell me what useful purpose it serves? this is what i want from you. go deeper.

Your version of respect for another seems to be folding their individual will to yours. mine is different. my respect is for one who will not allow me to do so.

hmm. let me develop that a little further. they will not allow me to do so when they feel strongly about something. small issues are not as important, and small clashes of will will often involve in one partner or another giving in due to the fact that they do not feel strongly enough about something to fight over it. this is fine. important issues should not result in one partner bending. that only leads to submergence.

Consequently he couldn't understand his feelings, because according to his previous lifestyle it didn't make sense.

now we're getting warm.

If you live promiscuously before marriage, it is my opinion that marriage (i.e. one partner) could be too much of a 'culture shock' to sustain succesfully, never mind trust completely.

oh, please. One might simply have been confused about their own needs, involved in a search, or unable to believe the ideal partner even exists. once the need has been fulfilled or the confusion cleared through finding the right partner, monogamy might become possible through choice rather than social dictate. or, alternatively, if an equal is finally met, monogamy might result through happenstance... that no one else is even able to provide the same level of.. hmm... pleasure (not the word i'm after but it'll suffice for now)... and others are therefore no longer sought.

Personally, I don't understand so-called 'swingers'.

there are many different personalities involved in "swinging". too many to debate here, and i don't think they're really relevant anyway. not for the point i'm trying to make.

Razz: "Having said that.. I now am quite careful and try to identify those more likely to cheat or be promicuous before I'd concider allowing a personal relationship to develop. "

in order to avoid being hurt again? why not concentrate on why he was hurt in the first place? might be more enlightening in the long run.

natural selection can also be emotionally: people who get hurt by a certain behaviour are more likely to avoid that behaviour. Love is a kind of trial and error of emotions, needs and compromises. You can either mate like animals, or learn to love. Fortunately most humans eventually prefer love above lust.

why exclude the possibility of both? or perhaps you feel humans are not capable of this?

I really wasn't trying to prove you wrong - I didn't mean *you* were jealous.

oh yes, i can be. i'm working on it, though, because i don't regard it as being an ideal emotion.

I understand what I'm saying: reserve=self-control. You do at least agree to the virtue of self-control, don't you?

yes, i do indeed. i'm not sure if my definition would correlate with yours, though.

Morals are usually taught by mature people (parents, hopefully) and questioned by immature people (usually their teenage kids)
I mean that with age comes wisdom, if you do it right. You don't have to make the mistake your parents made. If their children respect them, they can safely assume what they say is based on good judgement. If their children don't respect them, then surely they can ask themselves 'why' and strive to be different. Again, I'm assuming that respectability is a virtue.

i don't believe children can safely assume anything at all. far better for them to question, otherwise we end up with a stagnant society of robots. particularly in the 60's, if those teenagers then had not questioned the previous generation, some values may never have been exposed as they were... as being completely erroneous.

and yes, you are. but i'll let you get away with it.

I use the word 'maturity' loosely to include the concepts of self-control and good judgement among other virtues.

ummm... virtues. there are far too many of them, and unfortunately not having all of them appears to mean you are precluded from possessing any at all.

Of course there are levels of maturity. You might steal food and be quite mature in other ways. But the thinking that justifies taking from others what doesn't belong to you is not as far removed from taking someone's life when it's not yours to take - it's a matter of restraint.

completely disagree. this would entirely depend on the personal philosophy of the perpetrator. they may be completely alien to one another.

Monogamy is also a form of restraint, Q.E.D.

this is what you're trying to demonstrate, yes. however, your entire argument is, i say again, based on a personal set of values. your stance here is that restraint is a good thing. in some instances, that's entirely correct.

my belief, however, is that anyone assuming their partner will be faithful due to restraint set upon them by a social dictate, or that of a partner (which in some cases will be the same thing), will succeed only in submerging another human will to their own, if the other allows it.

if you truly value another human being, then you would not attempt to remold them in your own image, or treat them as your own personal possession. the human should recognise that in doing so he only destroys what was valuable about that human in the first place. this does not, however, preclude the odd testing of will. strength to me is sometimes as a mountain to be climbed for others. you try to break (climb) it... because its there. and take more joy in failure than in success.
 
Let me talk slower for you, Squid.

If you want cooperation from me with reguard to mutual survival, you are going to have to prove yourself to be a person who will treat me the what you want to be treated. If you screwed my girlfriend, then it's unthinkable you would not expect to be treated the same way. It's called hippocracy. Maybe it's human for you to screw around, but if we played by those same rules (namely, state of nature), I could decide I felt like killing you off as a rival mate. But OH NO!! You wouldn't want that, would you? Of course not, so as long as you get to enjoy the benefits of civalization and not the responsibility your fine with it.
 
Originally posted by Xevious
Let me talk slower for you, Squid.

why? i'll be reading it at the same speed anyway.

If you want cooperation from me with reguard to mutual survival

i don't, really. i pick my allies a little more carefully than that.

you are going to have to prove yourself to be a person who will treat me the what you want to be treated.

no. you want me to treat you the way you want to be treated, and will return the favour only if i submit my moral values to yours.

If you screwed my girlfriend, then it's unthinkable you would not expect to be treated the same way. It's called hippocracy.

that's right. exactly. don't remember saying i'd mind overly much if you did. or wait, i did, but also said i didn't agree with the sentiment and i'm working on purging it from myself. let's just say i'd probably deal with it in a manner completely different to yourself.

Maybe it's human for you to screw around, but if we played by those same rules (namely, state of nature), I could decide I felt like killing you off as a rival mate.

which would make you a murderer, and me promiscuous. seems to be a fairly extreme reaction from you, and one which would ensure that you in both your eyes and mine are the worse person, morally speaking. you sure about this?

But OH NO!! You wouldn't want that, would you?

being killed by you? of course not. fancy forcing you to become an animal in your own eyes.

Of course not, so as long as you get to enjoy the benefits of civalization and not the responsibility your fine with it.

so, in your view, we take your moral universe... the whole thing, kit and kaboodle, no exceptions allowed, or return to savage ways? how bloody silly.

You're incapable of allowing for the fact that not all of your morals are correct. i'm already allowing that some of your morals may be, but not this one. so who's intolerant then? isn't that one of your morals too?
 
Jesus hell, you bastards, where do you get off having interesting conversations when I'm at work?

Bachus:
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.
Click to expand...

And what, you are? *Hint* In English, the personal "I" is capitalized and sentances usually are shorter than 40 words. :rolleyes:

Adam

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.
Click to expand...

Bingo, I've explained this to you well. Go me. :)

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.
Click to expand...

This only proves that monogamy is neutral, not that it is beneficial.

I, for one, don't need to control my partner. I'm perfectly okay if he wants to sleep with other women, so long as the same courtesy is extended to me. In my eyes, if you love someone, it doesn't matter how many people they've slept with (besides health and all) or whether they're sleeping with another person.

I rather pity those who can't love someone without being given assurence of a nonexistant sexual fidelity. Pretty pathetic, really, not to be able to feel an emotion like love over a little thing like that.

Well, whatever the reasons, even crows and ducks develop monogamous intimate relationships. I guess it's just natural or something for many types of animal.
Click to expand...

Male lions kill all the lion cubs when they take over a pride, so that the lionesses will start ovulating and be receptive to the lions.

Alpha female chimps will kill the children of gamma female chimps.

So infanticide is "just natural or something for many types of animal".

See where this logic gets us?

Xevious
That same jealousy you felt, could drive a less controled person to be abusive, or even kill their spouse and the cheater. Domestic violence... and promiscuity is a leading player in domestic violence. Their's just another toss-in which proves my case that promiscuity is bad for society as a whole.
Click to expand...

No, it's not a toss in. I'll put it simply, so that even a cretin like you can understand:

A: Your assertion that promiscuity is a leading player in domestic violence is unlikely at best.

First, most battered women are live in such fear of their partner that they wouldn't dream of screwing around.

Secondly, most batterers isolate their victims socially, so that the oppertunities for fucking around are greatly reduced.

B: Even if true, you've provided no evidence that "promiscuity is a leading player in domestic violence". Put up or sound like an even bigger idiot than you do now.

C: I don't care what they've done, domestic violence is illegal.

D: Most people think it's wrong to abuse people without their consent. Now, I may be a Nietzschean, but I think it's fair enough to use a provisional moral system where

'Hurting people without their consent = morally wrong"

Sheesh, when did group homes for the profoundly retarded get internet access?
 
To everybody

Everybody has their own set of principles, values, morals, etc. I just don't think that society should default to the 'lowest' common denominator, i.e. the people with the most personal freedom (it's called anarchism, isn't it? When someone tells you it's wrong to kill someone, but you don't think it is, do you now have the freedom to kill that person?)

I'm exaggerating in order to demonstrate my point. To bring the topic back to promiscuity. I agree with Squid and Xev that if both parties have no problem with sleeping around, it shouldn't be a problem. For instance, in a city of prostitutes, prostitution is expected. Promiscuity is defined as 'indiscriminate sex', as opposed to 'discriminate'. But the question isn't the liberties of love, but the constraints of it. Treat others as you wish to be treated...unless it interferes with their own values.

Squid, you can argue all you want that what I say are value judgements, but that is exactly what I mean: that when what someone does is offensive to you, you have the right to tell them, and if you have the kind of respect for people's freedom that you say you have, you will refrain for sleeping with my wife, for instance, because that is what should keep her from sleeping with you - marriage is supposed to be a promise of monogamy. That's what I call maturity, self-control and respect, never mind moral discrimination.
 
Originally posted by Xev
Bachus:


And what, you are? *Hint* In English, the personal "I" is capitalized and sentances usually are shorter than 40 words. :rolleyes:

Click to expand...

I never claimed I was ;). I like to think i'm more intelligent then most of those girls i meet though.
 
Your assertion that promiscuity is a leading player in domestic violence is unlikely at best. First, most battered women are live in such fear of their partner that they wouldn't dream of screwing around. Secondly, most batterers isolate their victims socially, so that the oppertunities for fucking around are greatly reduced.
Click to expand...

Shows what you know, buddy. Your assuming women are the biggest victems of domestic violence, when according to the US Department of Jusitce, MEN are. Women abuse their mates more than men do, and that IS because men sometimes cheat (and as you pointed out are more prone to do so). Considering too I've grown up in a neighborhood where a lot of this is normal... (the Mexican Mafia lives within 8 blocks) I would know a lot more about it than what's on statistical paper. Your letting all the soap-opera and TV shows perceptions get through, unless you worked in a Battered Women shelter or something? Battered women are not, statistically speaking a large fraction of the domestic violence problem. In fact, there are statistically (and in my experience) more battered and controled MEN than women. You wonder why you don't see it? The answer to this one is that men often don't want to admit how much power their mate has over them. This society still buys into some of the "Men are bigger" additudes when it comes to men even though we don't treat women that way in relation to their partners. To put it more simply, there is a double-standard currently in play. Men are still required to be the big "man" around here, who protects his mate, brings home the bacon, and shrugs off his problems. The role of women has changed in the past 30 years to a more "liberated" woman concept. Men can't admit to women abusing them, but women can get a divorce and half her husband owns if he abuses her.

In High School, a friend of mine was doped on extacy at a party and he was raped by several women. Instead of cleaning up afterwards, he went to a rape crisis center, and told them what happened. He was ready for a medical exam, a psycological exam, the whole 9 yards, and the middle-aged woman who saw him just smiles condescenting at him when he told her what happened and asked, "Are you sure you wern't asking for it?" So, on top of being raped (brutally - he had bruises in multiple places), someone laughed in his face and didn't even give him an exam. I'm off topic, but I just wanted to show you how bad the double-standard is in this country in terms of how men are reguarded.

Domestic violence is NOT about battered women most often, it's about married men and women, and the children of those people who's unity as a couple is so poor they turn violently on each other. It has to do with unresolved feelings about how they treat each other. Woah, sounds like what I was talking about - treating others how you want to be treated. Yes, it IS and promiscuity is a HUGE part of it. You can substantiate this easily with the number of out-of wedlock births we have in the lower class. How many single mothers do we have because they fuck around, and their parents toss them on the street because they choose not to support their lifestyle? Couple this with the divorce rate in this country - it's now around what, 50%? That's half of all marrages failing. It largely has to do with women making differnt career choices and not being with her husband (which is her right) and thus she divorces. Women initiate 70% of divorce in this country. The remaining 30% are by men who discover their wives have cheated... and in all of that are the children who had NOTHING to do with what their parents did but will have to go through years of hell after a divorce.

But anyway, Jenyar hit it on the head. It's about respecting other people and yourself. Especially when children and a family are involed, monogomy is very important I think. You can disagree with me all you want on how this might not be a correct moral, but as long as my decisions effect other people (namely, MY parents, my mate, and children when I have them) then I will think of them before I think of my own selfish wants. My loved ones are very important to me. It's a shame not everyone values their loved ones like that anymore. It's also a shame that no one cares about the women or men they sleep with any more, or what happens to them afterwards as a result of it.
 
Last edited:
No matter how we try to rationalize
it, promiscuity will never replace monogamy as the ideal. Our hearts know that, even though our other organs may quibble.... ;-)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top