Poll: Sexual Promiscuity- What's your take?

[DayDark]

Pardon me if I don't answer your question how you'd like it to be answered, but I'm finding it hard to read. Please note, as well, that I'm not attempting to saddle anyone with my beliefs here.

Dude chivalry aside,I don't see how casual sex is in any way indicative of a lack of honour or respect on either part. Consensual sex between 2 consenting adults, where both of them are aware the sex is just sex and nothing more, is in no way dishonourable or disrespectful.

How one percieves Honour and Respect is entirely subjective; my code of honour and respect may differ from yours. Casual Sex between two adults is fine, if they are okay with it, sure. But not me. As I said, it's all subjective.

What you state in you're opening presents honour and respect as something which is generally understood by your audience. If you think that honour and respect is subjective you should have addressed this in the beginning so that people know what you mean when you say honour and respect, given it can mean anything.

As for Chivalry, it is an outdated code from a time when women were thought incapable of defending themselves and as the property of men to be carefully guarded, and is in no way relevant to this day and age.

Let me just use the definition of Chivalry here, to clarify what I mean.

chiv·al·ry ?noun
1. the sum of the ideal qualifications of a knight, including courtesy, generosity, valor, and dexterity in arms.
2. the rules and customs of medieval knighthood.
3. the medieval system or institution of knighthood.
4. a group of knights.
5. gallant warriors or gentlemen: fair ladies and noble chivalry.
6. Archaic . a chivalrous act; gallant deed.

The underlined sections are what I perceive Chivalry to be (a personal code of conduct). I don't expect others to abide by it, and I'm not going to make them. It's merely a way that I go about my existence; and I believe that Casual Sex does not fit into that.

I can't see anything in those underlined statements which leaves Casual Sex out.

My view can really be summarised by Ayn Rand, in a 1964 interview with a certain magazine.

...I say that sex is one of the most important aspects of man's life and, therefore, must never be approached lightly or casually. A sexual relationship is proper only on the ground of the highest values one can find in a human being. Sex must not be anything other than a response to values. And that is why I consider promiscuity immoral. Not because sex is evil, but because sex is too good and too important.

And the fact I border on Asexuality also factors in.

Now this I can get, I disagree with the view that sex needs to be a response only to the highest values one can find in a human being, if you find such a person, it's a good reason to have sex though. I also can't see it as immoral, especially, from someone like Ayn Rand, given her promotion of egotism. I agree that sex should not be anything than a response to values, but I can't see how this conflicts with promiscuity, or how sex can even not be a response to values.

 

[Cain_Zeros]

It's not for me, but whatever, people can do what they want.

 

[Chewster]

I is statistically a massive risk. Pregnancy, drug abuse, occurrence of STIs, and mental health problems are more common in those who "sleep around". I don't respect people who do as much as they must not respect themselves to put their bodies at risk.
My opinion is that one must be in a committed relationship in order to engage in coitus. That way there is full disclosure on possible STIs (or should be), and if pregnancy occurs, there are two parents to raise the child.

First, this is the old chicken/egg argument. Do people become more messed up because they sleep around or are already messed up people drawn to sleeping around? There is a difference and I'd like to see more information on which is more prevalent. I'd also wonder how many people who become messed up as a result of sleeping around are young people, who are not mentally completely developed, and at more at risk for problems anyhow.

Second, everything you do puts your body at risk. Do you drive in a car? Risk. Do you fly in airplanes? Risk. Do you eat food with no proper knowledge of the manufacturers processes? Risk. Do you engage in any sort of physical contact sports? Risk. Do you use prescription drugs? Risk. Do you drink any amount of alcohol or use any casual drugs? Risk. I'm not saying the levels of risk for all activities are the same, but seems like a weak reason to disrespect one's decisions as we all do risky things all the time, every day and having sex is no different.The risk can be almost always mitigated in most things if people are careful and educated on the subject. The world is never going to be a 100% safe place, so you may as well get over it.

And third, one can have full disclosure of STIs without being in a committed relationship and those in a committed relationship can lie about their health status. This is why science invented blood tests. I've known people you'd probably classify as promiscuous who refused to fully sleep with extended casual partners until they got their blood tested, so I don't really think that is good argument on your part. And there are many options for pregnancy when the parental situation is not ideal (assuming that all commitment can last under such stress is also a bit silly).

Of course, all of this is opinion. I just take umbrage at people who are judgmental based on weak reasoning.

 

[CarpathianMuffin]

I don't really mind unless it's somebody who really has no business being promiscuous. I'm not talking looks-wise, I mean that they're in a healthy relationship, or don't do well with casual sex.

 

[Dags90]

I'm not promiscuous, I don't like it for myself but I don't really have issue with others who are.

 

[GuideBot]

I simply believe that human beings were not designed to spend their entire lives with one person. That's why marriage fucks things up and only a minority of married couples stay happy.

 

[DayDark]

I don't really mind unless it's somebody who really has no business being promiscuous. I'm not talking looks-wise, I mean that they're in a healthy relationship, or don't do well with casual sex.

Yeah, I think promiscuity is less of a state of being, and more of situational state of mind. There are places where it's appropriate and where it isn't.

I kind of view it akin to the feeling of being Angry.

Is it right or wrong to be angry? You can't really say without context. it is more of question of when it is appropriate to be angry, and when it isn't.

 

[CarpathianMuffin]

I don't really mind unless it's somebody who really has no business being promiscuous. I'm not talking looks-wise, I mean that they're in a healthy relationship, or don't do well with casual sex.

Yeah, I think promiscuity is less of a state of being, and more of situational state of mind. There are places where it's appropriate and where it isn't.

I kind of view it akin to the feeling of being Angry.

Is it right or wrong to be angry? You can't really say without context. it is more of question of when it is appropriate to be angry, and when it isn't.

That's certainly one way of looking at it.

 

[Doug]

I don't have a problem with it, though I'm a tad understand what you mean by 'Promiscruity'? Do you mean long term relationships with more than one person at the same time? Do you mean frequent one night stands with different partners? Both? I could go on.

Away, I have no problem with it so long as all partners are fully aware of the situation...

I don't mind it, although a fair amount of the people that are are douchebags.

This is true. Though I'd prefer harder language. And its the arseholes who have more than one girlfriend at the time (without informing them that there is another) that REALLY get my goat.

 

[LordKnightLani]

I see no problem with promiscuity. If you want to sleep around, that's fine. So long as you're having fun and having a fulfilling life, I see no problem.

The problems arise when one (or both) partners are involved in a serious relationship, and it becomes cheating. If you're having to lie or cheat or deceive people, that's not on.

Of course, if your regular partner is happy with it, once again, there's no problem.

tl;dr: If no-one minds, go ahead, and have fun.

 

[Bobsonnn]

Sex is awesome. Bout it.

 

[The Stonker]

I don't respect people that have sex with everyone.
But fuck that I really don't care.
So let people have sex with anything they want and anywhere they want, just don't go rub it in my face.

 

[spartandude]

i think its perfectly fine as long as you use protection and understand the actualy biological purpose of sex (reproduction)

 

[Yureina]

I have some serious problems with it. Not only is it just a bunch of uncontrolled self-indulgence, but also I put cheating in a relationship as one of the crimes that I feel worthy of sending someone to hell for, if a hell actually exists.

 

[archvile93]

I'm not promiscuous, although part of the reason for that is because I'm in a reasonably stable relationship.

I do not judge people for sleeping around. To paraphrase/rape a famous quotation: 'Fucking, for lack of a better word, is good.'

If I were single, and able to pick up and bed many different lovely ladies, I'd do it. Friends who cheat on their girlfriends/boyfriends, too. I might go 'Meh. Wouldn't have done that myself', but I'm not going to sit on a ridiculous high horse and judge them lacking in the ethical department.

If anything, I'd say that people should fuck around more. It might release some frustration/tension with the world.

And cause even more overpopultion.

OT:I have no problem with it if you're single and make it clear to this other person you have no interest in a relationship before you bed them, but please, don't lie them and say what they want to hear and then abandon them when you're done. I will judge you for that. I also can't see why you'd want to sleep around when you're in a commited relationship. It seems to me that if you love them then they should be all you need.

 

[Ham_authority95]

So long as they don't screw over anyone else that they're sleeping with( with STD's or pregnancy), it's their choice and I'm not bothered by it.

Hell, once I get more into the dating scene, I would probably become pretty promiscuous myself...

 

[Ironman126]

I don't have a problem with it and struggle to see why anyone would have a problem with two consenting adults doing whatever the fuck they want.

You literally stole my post. This is what I had typed up before I refreshed the page to see if there were any new replies -

It's not my problem. If two adults consent to having sex with one another, then they can bloody well do so. And for me personally, I don't consider sex a sacred act or anything, but I don't think I'd get anything out of sleeping with a lot of people.

You'd likely get an STD out of it.

 

[Harker067]

Honestly as long as people are honest or upfront about it I don't really care. As long as people are responsible in their choices it doesn't bother me in the slightest what they do.

I don't have a problem with it and struggle to see why anyone would have a problem with two consenting adults doing whatever the fuck they want.

You literally stole my post. This is what I had typed up before I refreshed the page to see if there were any new replies -

It's not my problem. If two adults consent to having sex with one another, then they can bloody well do so. And for me personally, I don't consider sex a sacred act or anything, but I don't think I'd get anything out of sleeping with a lot of people.

You'd likely get an STD out of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condom

 

[blipblop]

wow people have a problem whit other people having a sexlife..
thats like a vegetarian would get upset if someone ate meat.. oh never mind

 

[Ham_authority95]

Reading through the thread, the difference between kids who grew up during the clinton years and the ones who grew up during the bush ones is pretty evident.

what does that even mean? non-american here, genuinely interested.

Clinton was very much a more "liberal", promiscuous president, whereas Bush was far more Neo-Conservative Christian with the "only for marriage" belief. Leadership tends to influence populations, no less.

I grew up in the Bush era, but I don't care if people sleep around or not...