Promiscuity

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Promiscuity isn't fornication though.
Isn't "fornication" unlawful and/or unnatural sex? (I concede I may be wrong)

Fornication is sex outside of marriage, so a subset or outcome of promiscuity.

Originally posted by vivify
Everything includes risk; marriage, for example. No one can be sure that their marriage won't be a wreck and that they won't regret it. All we can do is make sure we thoughtfully and responsibly choose a partner for marriage; the same goes for being promiscuous.

Promiscuity doesn't have to be indiscriminate.

In the final analysis, what matters is how you would direct your kids, daughter. Would you tell your teenage daughter that promiscuity is a sound way of life? Probably not, I've never met someone who would, have you? On the other hand I've never met anyone who told their kids that being married (or in a long-term committed monogamous relationship) is a bad thing. So there you have it.

Decide why promiscuity is never advised by parents to their children and long-term stable relationships are, and you have your answer to the OP, at least from a humanist point of view. Wether or not promiscuity is a bad idea but still moral is a personal perspective I guess.

I think for something to be immoral there has to be a victim of the behaviour in question. In the case of promiscuity, this is not, in general, the case, so I do not find promiscuity, in and of itself, immoral.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I think for something to be immoral there has to be a victim of the behaviour in question. In the case of promiscuity, this is not, in general, the case, so I do not find promiscuity, in and of itself, immoral.

Actually nor do I, but as a Christian I find it to be a sin. Twhitehead hit the head of nail earlier asking if sin equated to immorality. I think (not sure) that sin is a biblical concept and morality a humanist viewpoint. I suppose there are bound to be overlaps.

Originally posted by divegeester
In the final analysis, what matters is how you would direct your kids, daughter. Would you tell your teenage daughter that promiscuity is a sound way of life? Probably not, I've never met someone who would, have you? On the other hand I've never met anyone who told their kids that being married (or in a long-term committed monogamous relationship) is a b ...[text shortened]... view. Wether or not promiscuity is a bad idea but still moral is a personal perspective I guess.

I disagree with the premise for your final analysis. 🙂

I don't think we can give an objective response to the OP if we do it through the eyes of a parent. We can only answer objectively through our own eyes as an adult, as our children will do themselves, when they are adults.

I think a fair response to the OP is that it 'can be' a sound way of life for some people, but like most things, doesn't come without risk. I don't think we can say though that promiscuity is immoral, outside of a committed relationship anyhow.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I think for something to be immoral there has to be a victim of the behaviour in question. In the case of promiscuity, this is not, in general, the case, so I do not find promiscuity, in and of itself, immoral.

My favourite definition of morality is actions that have to do with harm or benefit to others. One can of course find a victim if one looks hard enough even for actions that I would not strictly categorise as morality. So for example if a woman shows her knees in public, that is often termed 'immoral' in good society, but the victim there is the society and its norms and not an individual. Similarly all sin could be seen as harming God (if such a thing is possible) and thus immoral in that sense, but I think that is stretching it. Far better to separate sin as in an action that God disapproves of from morals as in actions that bring harm to others or fail to bring aid to others and finally there is morals as in societies norms specifically surrounding sexual behaviour - and often targeted at women. So a woman who is promiscuous is described as having 'loose morals' whereas a man would typically not be so described. But nobody would confuse that description with causing harm to someone or failing to bring aid.

Originally posted by divegeester
In the final analysis, what matters is how you would direct your kids, daughter. Would you tell your teenage daughter that promiscuity is a sound way of life? Probably not, I've never met someone who would, have you? On the other hand I've never met anyone who told their kids that being married (or in a long-term committed monogamous relationship) is a b ...[text shortened]... view. Wether or not promiscuity is a bad idea but still moral is a personal perspective I guess.

Decide why promiscuity is never advised by parents to their children and long-term stable relationships are, and you have your answer to the OP, at least from a humanist point of view.
It's because of culture. Religious views have permeated our culture, and the idea that promiscuity (especially for girls) is bad, is due to religious influence.

It's like women who support the top-free movement (women legally being topless any place it's legal for men). Just because they support this type of equality, that doesn't mean they themselves would feel comfortable being topless in public. They may feel that the human body isn't anything to be ashamed of, or even feel that they themselves have nothing to be ashamed of; but because of how many cultures sexualize breasts, those same women could feel uncomfortable being topless, even though they support the right of women being top-free.

This is the reason why most parents wouldn't tell the daughters to be promiscuous; because culture has so ingrained the idea that it's immoral for girls to do so. However, it doesn't mean this idea is true.

Originally posted by vivify
[b]Decide why promiscuity is never advised by parents to their children and long-term stable relationships are, and you have your answer to the OP, at least from a humanist point of view.
It's because of culture. Religious views have permeated our culture, and the idea that promiscuity (especially for girls) is bad, is due to religious influence.

I ...[text shortened]... ined the idea that it's immoral for girls to do so. However, it doesn't mean this idea is true.[/b]

It doesn't mean it false either. In fact if we look at the evidence presented in this thread there is much pointing toward promiscuity being an unsound way to live; contrary to the premise in the OP. The only positive so far, and I may have missed something, is GoaD's "getting (something) out of his system" before he got into a monogamous marriage. Besides, culture is a powerful force, simply stating that the only reason for promiscuity to be perceived as negative is due to culture, is a bit like saying the only reason waving your erection around in public is negative is because of culture. It's still not "a sound way to live".

Originally posted by divegeester
Fornication is sex outside of marriage, so a subset or outcome of promiscuity.

I've learnt something today (in addition to my daughter liking Chicken crisps).

Originally posted by divegeester
It doesn't mean it false either. In fact if we look at the evidence presented in this thread there is much pointing toward promiscuity being an unsound way to live; contrary to the premise in the OP. The only positive so far, and I may have missed something, is GoaD's "getting (something) out of his system" before he got into a monogamous marriage. Besid ...[text shortened]... ection around in public is negative is because of culture. It's still not "a sound way to live".

The only positive?
When I was promiscuous I got a lot out of it!
And I don't mean just the sex. My self-esteem and confidence grew. I was happy.
It was the right life-style for me at the time.
If it had been illegal or completely taboo I would have missed out.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
The only positive?
When I was promiscuous I got a lot out of it!
And I don't mean just the sex. My self-esteem and confidence grew. I was happy.
It was the right life-style for me at the time.
If it had been illegal or completely taboo I would have missed out.

Then it was indeed right for you. But sticking with you, if you will not promote that lifestyle to your daughter once she becomes of age, then you are not living your own premise that "promiscuity is a sound way to live"; what you are promoting is merely your own experience and there is no evidence, or cannot be any evidence for you personally, that you would not have developed into the rounded individual you are today had you not had a period of promiscuity in your life.

Originally posted by vivify
It's because of culture. Religious views have permeated our culture, and the idea that promiscuity (especially for girls) is bad, is due to religious influence.

Its a longer story than that. There are good reasons for culturally discouraging promiscuity in girls prior to the advent of birth control methods. The culture permeates religion, which in turn had kept it in the culture. Religion tend to set in stone cultural norms that may no longer be useful, such as avoidance of pork.
Even with good birth control methods, there is still a chance a girl can get pregnant and if she does not believe in having an abortion or simply does not have good access to abortion facilities, then it remains the case that there are good reasons for girls to not be promiscuous.

Children are more often than not either raised by their mother, or by both mother and father. The best evolutionary strategy for women is to get married and raise children as a couple. The best evolutionary strategy for men, is to have lots of children with different women and get other men to raise some of them. There is more to it than that, but the overall effect is that women hide their promiscuity more than men do - but are not less promiscuous.

They may feel that the human body isn't anything to be ashamed of, or even feel that they themselves have nothing to be ashamed of; but because of how many cultures sexualize breasts, those same women could feel uncomfortable being topless, even though they support the right of women being top-free.
Breasts are sexual in nature and not sexualized by culture. But then so are lips, and pretty much everything else. What culture does is decide just how much sexual symbols are allowed to be shown.

Originally posted by divegeester
Then it was indeed right for you. But sticking with you, if you will not promote that lifestyle to your daughter once she becomes of age, then you are not living your own premise that "promiscuity is a sound way to live"; what you are promoting is merely your own experience and there is no evidence, or cannot be any evidence for you personally, that you ...[text shortened]... into the rounded individual you are today had you not had a period of promiscuity in your life.

As I have said I would not promote promiscuity.
Neither would I promote any alternative.
There is nothing wrong with it or alternatives.

As a previous poster eloquently described we are victims of our culture.
Surely an open society can accept people with different and differing sexual appetites?

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Surely an open society can accept people with different and differing sexual appetites?

Indeed it should. I accept people who have differing sexual appetites but that does not mean I concur with them that those appetites are sound and beneficial. For example, if I had children (I don't) I would encourage them to not be promiscuous and explain why, but I certainly wouldn't condemn or reject them if they were.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Its a longer story than that. There are good reasons for culturally discouraging promiscuity in girls prior to the advent of birth control methods. The culture permeates religion, which in turn had kept it in the culture. Religion tend to set in stone cultural norms that may no longer be useful, such as avoidance of pork.
Even with good birth control met ...[text shortened]... acilities, then it remains the case that there are good reasons for girls to not be promiscuous.

Religion comes from culture.


Breasts are sexual in nature and not sexualized by culture. But then so are lips, and pretty much everything else. What culture does is decide just how much sexual symbols are allowed to be shown.
I'm not sure about that. If we were born and raised in a society where where women are topless in public as much as men, would we still think this way? If we were used to seeing women walk around topless from the time we were children, would breasts be anywhere near as sexual? Furthermore, women's clothing is designed in a way that accentuates and makes breasts more attractive. If humans only wore clothes for functional purposes (weather, etc.) and no other time, I doubt breasts be as sexual.

I once heard a story on the radio of an American who went some nation where women work burkas. After two weeks, completely by accident, a woman's leg was briefly exposed; the site was striking to him, after not having seen a woman's body for two weeks. This was interesting, because we in the U.S. see women's legs all the time, and we don't even blink. The best way to sexualize something is to keep it covered up; if we were nude more often, the mystery would dissipate.