The concept of promiscuity

[Starkess]

Hm, are you concerned if someone has sexual preferences? I think that's up to them personally.

Can I respect sluts and still not prefer to marry one?

I hope you understand there is only one right answer to this.

Um, what? That last line is so fucking condescending. I don't give a shit if someone insists on marrying someone that's a virgin. I think they're probably hung up on the wrong thing and if they themselves aren't a virgin then I think they're a horrible hypocrite. But I'm not telling someone who they have to marry.

What I'm saying is gross is comparing women who have sex to used chewing gum. If you think that's okay, then I extend the blech to you, because that's shitty.

[karaddin]

As Starkess says it's hypocritical as fuck to claim to respect but be unwilling to marry sluts when by your own definition you are a massive one. It's the same double standard bullshit that thinks it's fine to expect blowjobs but declare going down on a woman to be disgusting.

And you are totally off base telling LITA he's wrong for saying such a woman is a whore (a word I'm not particularly fond of) as that involves financial transactions which were not included. Yes people use it outside that context but they are wrong. Now I agree there shouldn't be stigma attached to sex work but that's a whole different argument and not what was being made.

[north of the wall]

I'm pretty sure a whore is easy to define. I think of a whore as just another word for prostitue so its someine being paid for sex or sexual favours which very different than a "slut" which is much harder to define and not really helpful define, unless it starts being used on men aswell! I'm sick of the double standards it's either acceptable for all or not acceptable for all but not the hypocritical bs we have going on now

[Athias]

I would assume that promiscuity, particularly adopted by women, provokes social contempt because a restricted sexual history is, more often than not, of value in the mate market. In times that preceded modern technology, a woman's virginity before consummation put to rest issues of sexually transmitted diseases and paternal certainty--as a father was less likely to invest time and resources to children that were genetically dissimilar to him. Also given the fact that a woman's fertility monotonically decreases as she gets older, risking one's body whether that is hedging against 42 weeks of gestation, subjecting herself to risk of sexually transmitted diseases, and/or sequential pregnancies with genetically dissimilar fathers, would compromise the survival of her children. Of course, now, modern technology has rendered these concerns obsolete. Though I'd say the State's involvement in family issues has bolstered the appeal of the virgin woman.

As for promiscuity among men, I gather it's seen less ignominiously because men are less likely to contract sexually transmitted diseases from infected partners. Males are also not burdened by pregnancy. He does not have to wait for the better part of year to enact his role in conception--that is insemination and the prospective fertilization. His drop in fertility is less steep over time and therefore the time he spends not propagating or accumulating resources to sustain his children risked his genetic survival. Although men are not "shamed" for the amount of sex/sexual partners they have, they are shamed for their inability to support the needs of their children--so much so that they're obligated to finance the sustenance of children they may not want.

[Lyanna Stark]

As for promiscuity among men, I gather it's seen less ignominiously because men are less likely to contract sexually transmitted diseases from infected partners.

I've never heard anything like this before. Where did you get this fact from?

[Athias]

A link to a medical source documenting this would be nice.

You know that syphilis was spread by hetero contact in the 1400's when the sailors came back from the New World and spread it to the prostitutes of Naples, who in turn spread it to their customers...

I've never heard anything like this before. Where did you get this fact from?

http://www.malehealthcenter.com/c_std.html

https://www.bcm.edu/research/centers/research-on-women-with-disabilities/reprod/modules/sexually.html

http://publichealth.lacounty.gov/std/het_women.htm

I mean considering the anatomical differences between men and women, especially when it concerns the movement of fluids, it makes sense. I've known this since I was a teenager.

[1918me]

http://www.malehealthcenter.com/c_std.html

https://www.bcm.edu/research/centers/research-on-women-with-disabilities/reprod/modules/sexually.html

http://publichealth.lacounty.gov/std/het_women.htm

I mean considering the anatomical differences between men and women, especially when it concerns the movement of fluids, it makes sense. I've known this since I was a teenager.

Wow, I'm genuinely shocked that I've never heard about this before.

[Stannisaurus]

http://www.malehealthcenter.com/c_std.html

https://www.bcm.edu/research/centers/research-on-women-with-disabilities/reprod/modules/sexually.html

http://publichealth.lacounty.gov/std/het_women.htm

CHLAMYDIA, Y U SO SEXIST?

[sologdin]

not sure how much differential STI rates matter when the issue is sluttiness vel non. the gendered differential there (100% v. 0%) does not correlate with the STI rates at all. likewise, if men fear female 'sluttiness' because of purported STI rates, increased vulnerability of males should weigh more heavily than decreased vulnerability.

[ljkeane]

Wow, I'm genuinely shocked that I've never heard about this before.

I have seen it before in some articles, it's largely a matter of surface area of cells by which a lot of STD's can be transmitted as I understand it, but it's hardly surprising it's not given a lot of focus in sex education. There's not much point in diluting the message that casual unprotected sex isn't a particularly good idea, especially when your target audience is largely teenagers.

[Athias]

not sure how much differential STI rates matter when the issue is sluttiness vel non. the gendered differential there (100% v. 0%) does not correlate with the STI rates at all. likewise, if men fear female 'sluttiness' because of purported STI rates, increased vulnerability of males should weigh more heavily than decreased vulnerability.

The issue may be slutiness vel non. but STI's were not argued as the sole reason as to what may inform a perception of "slutiness" particularly when it concerns casual and/or "gratuitous" habits adopted by females.

[Castel]

I could say that you're not a slut until you've had sex with 450 different people. What makes your definition of slut more objective than that one?

Nothing. But at the same time there is a range that most people in society will accept,objectivity be damned (or the mean value is no value but not for any society on this earth I think)

I'm still not sure why we're so hung up on the inability to find an objective definition for slut,when there are tons of things that don't have objective definitions. What makes you a flake, or a douche? How many times do you have to act before you can be labelled? The answer will always depend on subjective preferences shaped by society and falling with a certain "reasonable" range.

You don't have to like the word, this just seems like far too broad a critique to be helpful. If we start looking for objective facts in social situations we'll be here forever with little to show for it. On top of that, it seems vaguely nihilistic, which I'm sure wasn't the intention

[sologdin]

PA's definition is objective enough, and is rooted in very traditional sins of fornication and adultery, which means that sex is not slutty if papered over with marriage. that makes it completely arbitrary, of course, but not 'subjective.'

[Mark of Myr]

I think being promiscuous or "slutty" (male or female) is only a problen when its clear the reasons behind it are actually clearly about deeper seeded / long term issue. Some people have no problem with it , others it will eat them alive for years..... Honesty is very important if your gona enjoy others company. (and lets not forget its enjoyablel!)

[Prince Alexander]

What I'm saying is gross is comparing women who have sex to used chewing gum. If you think that's okay, then I extend the blech to you, because that's shitty.

I might have misread your post. I thought you were the one assuming that comparison. I've argued many times that being a slut/whore is in no way negative.

As Starkess says it's hypocritical as fuck to claim to respect but be unwilling to marry sluts when by your own definition you are a massive one. It's the same double standard bullshit that thinks it's fine to expect blowjobs but declare going down on a woman to be disgusting.

To me, whore = slut. Prostitute is the one who is also financially involved.

PA's definition is objective enough, and is rooted in very traditional sins of fornication and adultery, which means that sex is not slutty if papered over with marriage. that makes it completely arbitrary, of course, but not 'subjective.'

I think my main hope is that one day these traditions go away and we realize that we're all sluts. I think there is a concept of reclaiming a derogatory word, where you embrace it and it stops being negative, eventually.

As Starkess says it's hypocritical as fuck to claim to respect but be unwilling to marry sluts when by your own definition you are a massive one. It's the same double standard bullshit that thinks it's fine to expect blowjobs but declare going down on a woman to be disgusting.

Completely disagree.

By the way I really don't like going down on women. I don't find it disgusting as a concept, just don't like it personally. If someone likes it, that's cool and I respect the choices they make.

Are you seriously going to tell me what to like and not like in sex? Cause... holy shit that's arrogant.

I think you're in serious confusion about societal discrimination (for work, health, real estate, etc opportunities) and personal romantic or sexual preferences of a specific individual.

[Monday]

@PA

If we're all sluts, then why make the a distinction that you wouldn't marry a slut (the implication being you'd marry a non-slut?) instead of just saying you won't marry? Or would you be open to marrying a slut in denial? Someone who suppresses their desire for whatever reason? I mean, whatever floats your boat. It's just kind of fascinating. Maybe I got the wrong idea skimming the thread. Too lazy to go back ATM.

I'm on board with taking back 'slut'. Not sure if someone who isn't part of the group traditionally derided with that word (especially someone who would discriminate against female slut WRT marriage if that's what you were said?) should be on the forefront of that charge. Why not reclaim 'porch monkey' while your at it Randal. ;)

[Littlefingers In The Air]

Good point. If we're all sluts and PA personally wouldn't marry a slut, who is there for him to marry? Ladies and gents, our buddy here is trying to tell us he's in love with his dog.

[Prince Alexander]

Yay, more of not reading my posts.

Personally I am not planning to marry anyone, slut or not.

Secondly, yall know there are virgins who can't be sluts by definition?

My point was, a man can respect sluts and still prefer to marry a virgin. That's his business.

[Littlefingers In The Air]

I read all your posts. Light hearted jests are a thing, you see.

[Wise Fool]

I might have misread your post. I thought you were the one assuming that comparison. I've argued many times that being a slut/whore is in no way negative.

To me, whore = slut. Prostitute is the one who is also financially involved.

I think my main hope is that one day these traditions go away and we realize that we're all sluts. I think there is a concept of reclaiming a derogatory word, where you embrace it and it stops being negative, eventually.

Are you seriously going to tell me what to like and not like in sex? Cause... holy shit that's arrogant.

.

Nowise as arrogant as you proclaiming how we're all sluts. You think it's OK because reasons and in your view the word doesn't need to be negative, but that's like me calling you an idiot with the reasoning that hey, I don't think the word "idiot" is negative.

Maybe one day we'll realize we're all idiots! You can get a head start on that process of awakening. Show us the way.