I was intrigued by the comments on the other thread about number of partners and assumed corelation with someone’s character/morality/whatever, so I’m just curious how others look at these things.
In my opinion,
Many partners…i wouldn’t even call it a promiscuity. Because it puts a negative label to it. Someone’s had a few partners, someone had a dozens, what’s the difference, and what is right or wrong? Really, when you think about it, where IS the problem?
In our sick bigoted society - which is either polarized by the Descartes’s black and white logic or by the religious metaphysics, therefore in our heads, that’s where.
We have a comedian in this country that says the best advice he ever got, was from his grandfather , and that was ‘never take advice’. There is humour in that but also some truth… I’m more concerned about ethics than morality…
I’ve had many partners but I consider my behaviour those times far from healthy. I don’t think that it is a question of morality, but a question on a person own choices of behaviour. You can have multiple partners and that can be healthy, in most cases it isn’t. In some cases is histrionic personality disorded, in some cases is just lack of affection in ones life. It depends. I don’t judge people by their sexual choices, I might judge them by their capacity to understand those choices.
One thing about modern sexual mores is that they sometimes don’t give enough respect to a person’s right to say “no”. It seems that most people regard sexuality as public domain instead of as private domain, like it should be. True sexual freedom includes the right to say no as much as the right to say yes. I don’t care how many partners anyone else has as long as they don’t expect me to have the same number of partners. A person’s sexuality is theirs alone, and even when they share it with others they should be treated with respect.
On this I agree with you, it doesn’t say much about one’s character/morality. Not without further context at least. In a context, emphasis on such an aspect may conceavably be appealed to to point out, for example, a playful character, but I don’t think such interpretations go piecemeal. I am quite the anti-essentialist, so to say that it is intrinsic to this an this number of such and such behaviors to have that and that character trait goes very much against my intuitions. I think that only in a life such behaviors get their significance, and could be used to point out this or that charactertrait in an exemplary fashion, but just as easily could not.
There is a normative element, to such an issue, of course. Norms govern what counts as many, as too many, as few or too few. Recognizing such a normative element to me is not yet enough to discard the whole discourse. For I think that while it is often good to be critical of norms, I do, again, not think there is anything intrinsically wrong with norms in principle - they enable as well as displace. When the balance strikes to the latter, it may be time for change: activism etc. All too often though, in social critique, I see the counter-argument end at the normative nature of the issue, I want more than that.
When I was on the college I got an excellent book to read on this subject, it was “History of sexuality” by Michael Foucault. Although I can’t recall the whole idea I remember that he stated how every century has produced its own discourse of sexuality, and it is simply related as knowledge- power process: for instance, in Victorian age it was more profitable for those who had power to control people by reducing their sexuality - again within various discourses about it, and in the modern age we are much easily controlled by the idea of excessive sexuality, which gives us false sense of freedom.
Well, I just find that women who have several partners, especially at a time, are nasty because of the risk of sexually transmitted diseases. I would have to know her complete sexual history before I engaged in sex. I would then require a complete test for STDs. I would also look for hygiene and promiscuity.
Let’s not ignore that previous lovers might affect your children, and a child from an ex-lover has DNA in the mother.
If someone is very promiscuous, I might decide not to get involved with them for that reason. But that would be based mainly on their behavior and not some estimate of how many different partners they’ve had.
I used to get around a lot. And I do mean A LOT. That was before I quit drinking when I would DJ in night clubs in the evening. I was young and skinny thanks to using uppers all the time. It wasn’t a happy time in my life. I crashed and burned and was told by my sponsor in AA, “nothing changes if nothing changes.”
I stopped club hopping and bed hopping, cleaned up the rest of my act (including getting my SZ symptoms stable), and found that one lady worth committing to. Things are so much better now that I’m with the a person who completes me and we have a wonderful daughter together. I can’t imagine going back to how things used to be. Don’t want to, either. For me it’s not about morality or religion (I despise the latter and hold it in contempt), it’s about sticking with what works. For me.
This seems almost paranoid… It’s fruit fry research where they mention near the end that human mothers carry their fetus’ DNA in them while pregnant. This is not a good reason to be wary of having children with promiscuous women… And also if they use condoms when they have sex there is no reason to be scared of STDs, right?
“This particular mechanism would be unlikely to apply to mammals such as humans because of differences in reproductive physiology compared to insects. However, other researchers have suggest that mechanisms exist that could in principle result in telgony in humans; for example because mothers carry fetal DNA in their blood during pregnancy.”
PHD student Jolle Jolles of Cambridge University’s Zoology Department said: “I would expect telogony to be possible to a certain extent via behavioural effects, i.e. women who were previously in a relationship with a wealthier man might have a better body condition and therefore might be able to invest more in their offspring.”
This is not a ‘proven’ scientific study but prediction and assumption based on researching of other species.
I guess we should also add a cultural factor into discussion. For example, here where I live the whole subject is still mystified and censored within the family. That’s something
“we are not supposed to talk about”. And that’s how you get a bigoted and deeply splitted society which will shame you for the same things it provokes and affirms.
What surprised me though is to see such ‘■■■■ shaming’ at your world. I mean…its America, wtf.
Me, I had ten partners so far. Three relationships, including current one…and rest have just happened to be there Lol.
I don’t think its much…but with this dynamics I might even reach @jukebox 's score
And regarding STD-s @astefano I think that if you equalize it with too much partners/promiscuity it is the same (very harmful) generalisation as when is said that most murders are committed by the mentally ill people.
One can have just one partner and get STD, how about that?
How I view is that America is a mixture of many cultures, many morals depending where you are, some morals that are suitable f.ex. in Miami may not be so suitable in some highly religious communities of the South. In America there are people from nearly all different countries and morals depend on where you are. I have not had many partners and I used to like spending my time in some religious places such as the Ancient Monastery in Miami and maybe I am just old fashioned.