Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 81

Thread: Oh, the woes of sexual immorality! The ethics of casual sex.

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Work'n 'dem streets
    Posts
    48

    Default Oh, the woes of sexual immorality! The ethics of casual sex.

    slut shaming:

    From wikipedia

    **** shaming (also hyphenated, as ****-shaming) is defined as the act of making a woman feel guilty or inferior for engaging in certain sexual behaviors that violate traditional gender expectations.[1][2]

    It is also used as a form of victim blaming for rape and sexual assault, such as claiming the crime was caused (either in part or in full) due the woman wearing revealing clothing or previously acting in a forward, sexual manner before not consenting to sex.[3]

    It is also a term often used to provide support for women who lead or have led sexually promiscuous lifestyles. In such context, it is implied that women should not bear the burden of responsibility for indiscriminate sexual history, and that their current or former lifestyle should not affect perceptions of their social value as individuals. Specifically, it is emphasized by users of the term that men should not consider current or former sexual promiscuity as a factor during selection of female mating partners.
    Or in other words, it's the practice of making people feel like total, utter, crap for having sex. The question is, what's wrong with having sex outside of committed relationships?

    If you're using protection, you aren't sleeping with people in relationships, and you aren't leading people on, what exactly is wrong with being promiscuous? Sex is awesome. Sex is pretty much one of the greatest things ever. So, if people aren't hurting others in their pursuit of it, why should they be made to feel ashamed for having it? Basically, if you wanna get laid, go for it. If you want to sleep with someone, and they wanna sleep with you, you should be able to have a good time without being called a "slut" or "whore" or other such defamations of character. By all means, go and have all the sex your little heart desires, just don't be shady about it.

    I don't care if you've slept with one person, five people, or one hundred people. All that matters is that they're clean and that they would be faithful to me, and that's all that should matter to you. Where do you draw the line and decide when a person has had one sexual partner too many, and they aren't good enough anymore? After what point is someone damaged goods?

    I challenge the notion that a person has to choose between self respect and pleasure. It's a vile false dillema that helps no one.

    Thoughts?
    Last edited by Crudelis ventus; 29th March 2013 at 9:19 AM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    INSIDE...
    Posts
    2,118

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Crudelis ventus View Post
    Or in other words, it's the practice of making people feel like total, utter, crap for having sex.
    Mostly women, in my experience. Men are very, very seldom called ****s or *****s for sleeping around, or even cheating on significant others, etc.

    It seems to go hand-in-hand with the relative taboo on sex our culture has in place. Sex, and individual sexuality, is depicted as a terrible thing unless it's done with ideals like love and marriage in mind. It's also got a lot to do with why pregnant women often get treated much differently in everyday life than those who are not.

    Personally, I think while one should always be smart about sex as a rule, the line shouldn't get drawn based on quantity of partners. I think if someone of either gender is of legal age and yet gets an STD/contracts HIV/a girl gets pregnant by accident and they didn't take standard precautions... Well, they're old enough to make their own decisions and reap their own consequences. I think in part, it's also because we need to change the way we approach sex ed, both in schools and at home -- not trying to guilt young people out of sex, or scare-tactic them, or sweep it under the rug until they find out the hard way why it needs to be handled with proper knowledge, but arming them with said knowledge. Not teaching them isn't going to make it happen less often, only turn out much worse in the end when someone does something irreversible.


    SHINY RAINBOWS BECKON YOU TO THE ARTIST'S CORNER

    Trainer Name: Misha
    3DS FC: 5112-3720-5938
    Friend Safari: Fighting; Pancham, Machoke, Hariyama


  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Work'n 'dem streets
    Posts
    48

    Default

    Mostly women, in my experience. Men are very, very seldom called ****s or *****s for sleeping around, or even cheating on significant others, etc
    Well, heterosexual men, I think you mean. Straight men don't get slut shamed, no, but I've noticed that homosexual men...slut shame eachother. Frequently. Especially if the person in question is in the submissive role sexually, or if they are percieved to have more feminine gender expressions. It's a really odd phenomena. I'm really curious as to how and when the gay community, (or rather, gay culture? I'm struggling to find a fitting word) borrowed the practice of slut shaming from their heterosexual male counterparts.

    Here's an interesting article about it on the Daily Kos


    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/0...ng-and-Gay-Men

    It seems to go hand-in-hand with the relative taboo on sex our culture has in place. Sex, and individual sexuality, is depicted as a terrible thing unless it's done with ideals like love and marriage in mind. It's also got a lot to do with why pregnant women often get treated much differently in everyday life than those who are not.

    Personally, I think while one should always be smart about sex as a rule, the line shouldn't get drawn based on quantity of partners. I think if someone of either gender is of legal age and yet gets an STD/contracts HIV/a girl gets pregnant by accident and they didn't take standard precautions... Well, they're old enough to make their own decisions and reap their own consequences. I think in part, it's also because we need to change the way we approach sex ed, both in schools and at home -- not trying to guilt young people out of sex, or scare-tactic them, or sweep it under the rug until they find out the hard way why it needs to be handled with proper knowledge, but arming them with said knowledge. Not teaching them isn't going to make it happen less often, only turn out much worse in the end when someone does something irreversible.
    I agree 100%

    I think a big step is recognizing where that taboo comes from. America was founded on very puritan ideals, and even since the sexual revolution, women still aren't quite sexually liberated. Definitley not in the same way heterosexual men are. What I've noticed is that it seems that women are expected to walk a tight line of sexuality. If they don't put out at all, they're seen as prudes. If they put out too much, they're sluts. It's like society expects for them to walk this tight rope of sexuality, and it's ridiculous.
    Last edited by Crudelis ventus; 30th March 2013 at 11:18 PM.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Dallas Texas
    Posts
    8,741

    Default

    I do think we can agree that females and the effeminate side of the Homosexual community engages in this act, why? I don't know, maybe it goes back to some kind of grade school behavior of teasing any girl who may seem different? It would be nice to have a female perspective on this as I am just shooting in the dark here.

    BUT that being said I want to throw this out, could there possibly be a good use for this? And that is to possibly keep down young teenagers having sex ( And mind you on this I am speaking of 12 - 16 year olds as I believe after that they are largely heading to college where the dogma isnt so bad ). And to possibly keeping down the spread of STDs, again I am just shooting this out in the dark, but if more peer pressure was out there like what you saw before the sexual liberation movement of the 60s, is it not possible we would have less of a STD and AIDS epidemic today?
    "No. I don't agree with him on a LOT of issues. Unlike most Republicans, who are blindly loyal to their party" ~ Maedar on Barack Obama

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    dere in the sheets
    Posts
    8,977

    Default

    I personally think this comes down to a moral standing. Some people just don't want a partner that has been with large amount of people. Anyone trying to these people feel bad about that are just as bad as **** slammers. I agree we probably shouldn't care what other people do, but honestly, the more people you sleep with the higher chance you have of catching something. Humans in general like exposing others like this.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    KORUSAN IS A VERY BAD POSTER
    Posts
    388

    Default

    We shouldn't shame the ****-shamers. We need them to be vocal, that's how they identify themselves as red-flag "do not date me ever" partners
    wh

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Work'n 'dem streets
    Posts
    48

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jb View Post
    I personally think this comes down to a moral standing. Some people just don't want a partner that has been with large amount of people. Anyone trying to these people feel bad about that are just as bad as **** slammers. I agree we probably shouldn't care what other people do, but honestly, the more people you sleep with the higher chance you have of catching something. Humans in general like exposing others like this.
    No they aren't. They have every right to go after those people. We're not saying people that don't want to be with people that they percieve as having too many sexual partners are inherently bad people, we're saying that they are misguided and are using poor reasoning to exclude what are perfectly valid partners/potential romantic interests. Just because someone screams "Personal morality" doesn't mean your personal morality isn't up above scrutiny.

    STD's are a non issue if you're using protection and getting tested regularly. It's a poor argument. A piss poor one.

    Let's say a woman has slept with 100 people. Big number right? What a tramp. She's clean. She's also had two long term relationships lasting over 2 years in which she has never, not once, been unfaithful.

    If you dismiss her on the grounds that she's had too many sexual partners and only for that reason, you're slut shaming.

    "But I'm not!"

    Yes. You are.

    There's only so many reasons that you'd dismiss someone for their sexual history and that alone. Either A) You're religious and you believe pre-marital sex is wrong (Which you still get no dice, because religion isn't immune to criticism either.) or B) You believe that a womans worth to a man becomes less and less with each sexual partner she has.

    So while you may not directly be calling them sluts or whores outright, you've already done it by carrying around an archaic attitude that's conducive to a culture of slut shaming. You have no excuse, nor does anyone else.

    We shouldn't shame the ****-shamers. We need them to be vocal, that's how they identify themselves as red-flag "do not date me ever" partners
    This is cute. Thanks for making me laugh.
    Last edited by Crudelis ventus; 31st March 2013 at 9:34 AM.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    dere in the sheets
    Posts
    8,977

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Crudelis ventus View Post
    They have every right to go after those people. We're not saying people that don't want to be with people that they percieve as having too many sexual partners are inherently bad people, we're saying that they are misguided and are using poor reasoning to exclude what are perfectly valid partners/potential romantic interests. Just because someone screams "Personal morality" doesn't mean your personal morality isn't up to scrutiny.
    I fail to see how people following there own beliefs on this matter are misguided. Not everyone wants a promiscuous partner that has slept with a hundred people. I don't agree with **** slamming, everyone is free to live their own life. But you shouldn't expect everyone in the world to agree with it because they're "clean and that they would be faithful to me." The same way people have romantic interest, they also have romantic turnoffs. If promiscuous people fit the bill of the later, then they are no longer potential romantic interests.


    STD's are a non issue if you're using protection and getting tested regularly. It's a poor argument. A piss poor one.
    Protection isn't 100% effective, nor are all STD's treatable. Obviously there's risk in sex and it's fine taking it, I'm all for that. But I won't blame anyone that's a little skeptical of anyone that's been with a large amount of people. I'll leave it as a poor argument though since it's only a tiny fraction of the underlying problem.

    To your last part, sure, those can be reasons, and they can be open to criticism. But not everything open to criticism is inherently wrong. I'm not saying they're right or wrong. Contrary to what some people think, the past of the person in question to some people is important to the relationship. It's a good indicator of your current standing with the person. Are you headed to a true relationship? Or are you just another sex partner?

    In short, not everyone has to agree with choices that you, of your free will made in life. Whether that's morally right or wrong can't be proven.
    Last edited by Jb; 31st March 2013 at 9:58 AM.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Work'n 'dem streets
    Posts
    48

    Default

    I fail to see how people following there own beliefs on this matter are misguided. Not everyone wants a promiscuous partner that has slept with a hundred people. I don't agree with **** slamming, everyone is free to live their own life. But you shouldn't expect everyone in the world to agree with it because they're "clean and that they would be faithful to me." The same way people have romantic interest, they also have romantic turnoffs. If promiscuous people fit the bill of the later, then they are no longer potential romantic interests.
    If you fail to understand, then step up to the plate and offer me one good reason why someone that has a promiscuous background is an uneligible potential romantic interest. If you can't come up with any, and the only reasons that are given suck, then it's misguided. You're attempting to circumnavigate the issue by saying some people just have "romantic turnoffs" when the debate here is why they shouldn't and have no good reason to find it as such.

    Protection isn't 100% effective, nor are all STD's treatable. Obviously there's risk in sex and it's fine taking it, I'm all for that. But I won't blame anyone that's a little skeptical of anyone that's been with a large amount of people. I'll leave it as a poor argument though since it's only a tiny fraction of the underlying problem.
    You're right, condoms are only 98% effective.

    If you have concerns about whether someone has STD's, do the smart thing and ask them to get tested. Being skeptical about whether someone has STD's or not is not the same as dismissing someone completely for the simple fact they've had too many partners.


    To your last part, sure, those can be reasons, and they can be open to criticism. But not everything open to criticism is inherently wrong. I'm not saying they're right or wrong. Contrary to what some people think, the past of the person in question to some people is important to the relationship. It's a good indicator of your current standing with the person. Are you headed to a true relationship? Or are you just another sex partner?
    Misguided. Someone's sexual promiscuity outside of committed relationships says nothing about their ability to have healthy and committed relationships. They're completely different arenas. That would also fall under what I said about "not being shady about it." in my first post. Someone that's both promiscuous and ethical will be honest about their intention with another person. You've already unwittingly associated promiscuity with lack of character.

    So I'll reiterate my question. What good/logical/rational/well thought out reason is there to dismiss the woman above that I mentioned as a potential romantic interest? I'm waiting.
    Last edited by Crudelis ventus; 31st March 2013 at 10:39 AM.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    98

    Default

    If you dismiss her on the grounds that she's had too many sexual partners and only for that reason, you're **** shaming.
    Not necessarily, and hear me out: Having two partners with different attitudes towards sex could potentially be a point of conflict, just like any other element of a relationship. For example, dismissing a partner over differences in religious beliefs sounds equally condemnable, but that's making the assumption that one potential partner deems the other as 'inferior' because of it. I'm a Christian and I would have to question how healthy a relationship might be with someone who has strong atheist views. I don't think any less of that person, they're just possibly not suitable for me to be entering into a relationship with. If two potential partners differ over something as significant as to the what, why, when and how of sex in a relationship, it might not be one that's going to be healthy.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Work'n 'dem streets
    Posts
    48

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Scammel View Post
    Not necessarily, and hear me out: Having two partners with different attitudes towards sex could potentially be a point of conflict, just like any other element of a relationship. For example, dismissing a partner over differences in religious beliefs sounds equally condemnable, but that's making the assumption that one potential partner deems the other as 'inferior' because of it. I'm a Christian and I would have to question how healthy a relationship might be with someone who has strong atheist views. I don't think any less of that person, they're just possibly not suitable for me to be entering into a relationship with. If two potential partners differ over something as significant as to the what, why, when and how of sex in a relationship, it might not be one that's going to be healthy.
    I see what you're saying, I just don't see how it's anything other than avoiding the issue.

    That's like saying "As a racist, I don't think I would mesh very well with someone that's for equality. Not that I think any less of them, I just disagree with them and don't think our relationship would work out due to our different philosophies"

    Using that card is cheap and it's a way to weasel yourself out of seriously self examining your views.
    Last edited by Crudelis ventus; 31st March 2013 at 10:58 AM.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    98

    Default

    I'm not sure the analogy works, because neither being sexually active or preferring abstinence are objectively 'bad', unlike racism. Someone who believes strongly in sex after marriage (a completely legitimate stance that should be respected) might feel under pressure to deliver in a relationship where the other partner sees sex as something to be enjoyed fairly frequently (ALSO a completely legitimate stance that should be respected) and vice versa.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    dere in the sheets
    Posts
    8,977

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Crudelis ventus View Post
    If you fail to understand, then step up to the plate and offer me one good reason why someone that has a promiscuous background is an uneligible potential romantic interest. If you can't come up with any, and the only reasons that are given suck, then it's misguided.
    That's the problem, "good" is subjective. Any reason I could come up with, whether it be religion to not wanting an "easy" woman and any in between you'd say is open to criticism and therefore misguided.

    What good/logical/rational/well thought out reason is there to dismiss the woman above that I mentioned as a potential romantic interest? I'm waiting.
    I don't want a woman that has been with the whole town, it's something I simply find unattractive. Promiscuous people tend to have emotional stress and low self esteem. Some promiscuous people become addicted to sex. Promiscuous people are also at a higher risk for prostate cancer, cervical cancer and oral cancer. In my mind, there would always be a back thought of how I stack up against those other 100 people.

    I'm sure none of this is either bad, nor good in itself.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Work'n 'dem streets
    Posts
    48

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Scammel View Post
    I'm not sure the analogy works, because neither being sexually active or preferring abstinence are objectively 'bad', unlike racism. Someone who believes strongly in sex after marriage (a completely legitimate stance that should be respected) might feel under pressure to deliver in a relationship where the other partner sees sex as something to be enjoyed fairly frequently (ALSO a completely legitimate stance that should be respected) and vice versa.
    This works under the false assumption that someone who has been sexually promiscuous would make sexual demands from someone that has more conservative attitudes on sex. If said person in your scenario feels pressure when none is being given by the other party, then that's misguided feelings of pressure. It once again falls into the category of "not being shady about it." There's no logical correlation between people that have had a promiscuous sexual history outside of committed relationships to people that would pressure and or demand sex in a committed relationship with others that they know have differing attitudes on sex.

    If I've done my fair share of sleeping around and end up falling for a good little Christian girl, I am going to know better than to pressure her for sex. Most rational thinking people would too. Unless you're a dick.

    That's the problem, "good" is subjective. Any reason I could come up with, whether it be religion to not wanting an "easy" woman and any in between you'd say is open to criticism and therefore misguided.
    Then get the hell out of the thread then! Gosh. If all you're going to do is throw your hands up in the air and say "But morals are subjective" in a debate about morals, then why are you here!?

    I don't want a woman that has been with the whole town, it's something I simply find unattractive. Promiscuous people tend to have emotional stress and low self esteem. Some promiscuous people become addicted to sex. Promiscuous people are also at a higher risk for prostate cancer, cervical cancer and oral cancer. In my mind, there would always be a back thought of how I stack up against those other 100 people.
    Are you just pulling all of this out of your hat, or do you have anything to back up those claims? Those are pretty big claims that all sound like straight up BS that you pulled out of nowhere. Back it up. As for your insecurities about how you would stack up against those 100 other people, you would still have that same problem if she had only slept with three, or even just one. The only way you could never have to worry about measuring up to a womans previous sexual partner is if you were the only person she had ever slept with. Further more, maybe, just maybe, committed relationships are about more than just sex. If she would stick with you and like you for who you are, who cares whether you could please her sexually as well as another man once did? Male brovado much? Relationships are about spending time together and getting to know eachother on a fundamental and intimate level, not how intense of an orgasm you can give.
    Last edited by Crudelis ventus; 31st March 2013 at 12:17 PM.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    98

    Default

    I am going to know better than to pressure her for sex. Most rational thinking people would too.
    Certainly, but that doesn't mean that the pressure might not be there, especially if the girl is aware that you enjoy sex. You might also have to question if you're completely satisfied in a relationship without sex if you enjoy it/see it as something that promotes health of said relationship. This of course doesn't mean in the slightest that such a relationship can't be beautiful and fulfilling, but disagreement/differing expectations over something rather fundamental could always potentially cause issues and discomfort.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Work'n 'dem streets
    Posts
    48

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Scammel View Post
    Certainly, but that doesn't mean that the pressure might not be there, especially if the girl is aware that you enjoy sex. You might also have to question if you're completely satisfied in a relationship without sex if you enjoy it/see it as something that promotes health of said relationship. This of course doesn't mean in the slightest that such a relationship can't be beautiful and fulfilling, but disagreement/differing expectations over something rather fundamental could always potentially cause issues and discomfort.
    As I said, I don't deny that the pressure wouldn't be there, just that the feeling of pressure wouldn't be rationally justified if no pressure is being given. If it's coming from you and you alone without anything to justify it, then own your emotion and overcome it because it's not logical.

    Now, I do sort of see your point about questioning how satisfied you would be if you were sexually promiscuous beforehand and then entering into a relationship where there's no sex until marriage. I'd wager though that most people would simply go find someone that puts out if they weren't satisfied, or didn't think they were going to be. If they've got their eyes set on the good little Christian girl, there must be a pretty good reason why when they could easily look elsewhere and pursue a relationship where similar attitudes on sex would be shared.
    Last edited by Crudelis ventus; 31st March 2013 at 12:15 PM.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    98

    Default

    If they've got their eyes set on you, there must be a pretty good reason why when they could easily look elsewhere and pursue a relationship where similar attitudes on sex would be shared.
    This is absolutely the case a lot of the time, definitely. Again though, I'll just reiterate: Relationships can be tough to get right at the best of times and if either party is uncomfortable/discontented with the other's interpretation of sex, it could mean that such a relationship might not be worth pursuing. I'm not a massive believer in unconditional love at this level.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Work'n 'dem streets
    Posts
    48

    Default

    I'm not a massive believer in unconditional love at this level.
    Lol, I'll just end on that note then.

    Thanks for offering an input that was at least a cut above JB's nonsense.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    dere in the sheets
    Posts
    8,977

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Crudelis ventus View Post
    Then get the hell out of the thread then! Gosh. If all you're going to do is throw your hands up in the air and say "But morals are subjective" in a debate about morals, then why are you here!?
    This is coming from the person that's labeling everyone's opinions as misguided. What a pretentious little child you are.
    Are you just pulling all of this out of your hat, or do you have anything to back up those claims? Those are pretty big claims that all sound like straight up BS that you pulled out of nowhere. Back it up.
    In the risk section of the this article they have links to most of the ones I've claimed. They're also found on multiple Sex Ed sites.
    As for your insecurities about how you would stack up against those 100 other people, you would still have that same problem if she had only slept with three, or even just one. The only way you could never have to worry about measuring up to a womans previous sexual partner is if you were the only person she had ever slept with. Further more, maybe, just maybe, committed relationships are about more than just sex. If she would stick with you and like you for who you are, who cares whether you could please her sexually as well as another man once did? Male brovado much? Relationships are about spending time together and getting to know eachother on a fundamental and intimate level, not how intense of an orgasm you can give.
    Anybody is serious relationship would want to please their partner to the best they've ever had it. If you don't think sex plays a large part in relationships, especially young ones, you're deluding yourself,

    I also see you didn't quote my first reason. Was that a " good/logical/rational/well thought" reason? Or is that misguided as well.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Work'n 'dem streets
    Posts
    48

    Default

    This is coming from the person that's labeling everyone's opinions as misguided. What a pretentious little child you are.
    I never once just labeled your arguments as misguided. I clearly demonstrated how they were. My point still stands.

    As for your source, I'll get right down to business.

    According to Recovery Nation, promiscuity may be a way for those with low self-esteem or those with emotional stress to feel needed, desired, useful and wanted by others. Feelings of accomplishment from obtaining multiple sexual partners can be addictive; however, the positive feelings associated with promiscuity are usually short-lived, and feelings of depression, low self-esteem and low worth eventually resurface. Thus, promiscuity becomes a vicious cycle.

    Read more: http://www.voxxi.com/health-risks-of...#ixzz2P7Io2nbg
    Notice how it specifically uses the word "may."

    There's a difference between people that enjoy sex and therefore have lots of it, than people who have sex because of underlying emotional or psychological issues. Sure, someone may indulge themselves in comfort food because they use it to cope with their emotional issues. Is there anything wrong with ordering pizza every Friday because you like pizza? No.


    Individuals who are promiscuous often:
    Have multiple long-term affairs
    Have multiple short-term affairs
    Have multiple partners in one day
    Have more than five sexual partners over the course of a year
    Have a history of sexual encounters with individuals they have known less than a month
    Have indiscriminate sex after using alcohol or drugs
    Engage in prostitution
    Have routine sexual encounters in public places


    Read more: http://www.voxxi.com/health-risks-of...#ixzz2P7KR8x73
    All of the bolded would fall into the whole "not being shady" thing that I mentioned in my first post. At this point it's like you seriously do not even care to listen. As for the rest, who cares? Promiscuity with and of itself is not a bad nor immoral thing, so it's not even worth listing how many partners they have in one day or not.

    Individuals who have sexual relations with multiple partners are at an increased risk for sexually transmitted diseases, and Everyday Health indicates more than 19 million new sexually transmitted infections occur every year.

    Of the infections to be most concerned about, being promiscuous puts an individual at high risk for contracting HIV/AIDS.

    Other health risks associated with promiscuity include:
    Prostate cancer
    Cervical cancer
    Oral cancer
    Heart disease (when combined with other risky behaviors such as smoking and drinking)
    Domestic violence
    Unwanted pregnancy
    Birth defects

    Some individuals may become addicted to sex, and this all-consuming drive can ruin relationships, careers and family life.


    Read more: http://www.voxxi.com/health-risks-of...#ixzz2P7MFVjtc
    Once again, all of this is solved with condoms and STD testing. Except for the domestic violence bit, now that's somewhat interesting. I'm curious as to how they got that. The only way I could see that is if the person in question was unethical and was doing things like cheating on their partner. In which case, it wouldn't be far fetched that domestic violence could stem from that. It's still not an argument, because the discussion is about promiscuity with ethics.


    The emotional toll from having multiple sexual partners can be very detrimental. Adolescents in particular, are not mature enough to handle promiscuity, and therefore often end up harming themselves in the long run.

    Read more: http://www.voxxi.com/health-risks-of...#ixzz2P7N91x72
    Obviously we're talking about grown adults here, not 14 year olds. Wow.


    Because of social conditioning and stigmata, pre-marital or extra-marital affairs may foster fear and guilt. Shifting partners often may cause a person to lose confidence in his or her abilities to sustain a healthy relationship, and lower self-esteem,” stated Dr Suman Bijlani, a leading gynaecologist and obstetrician consulting at the SL Raheja Fortis and Kohinoor Hospitals, on sify Health.

    Read more: http://www.voxxi.com/health-risks-of...#ixzz2P7OKExUl
    And here's what tells me you didn't even read your own damn source.

    The link you provided was clearly talking about people with emotional issues and or psychological truama that use sex as either a cry for help or as a means of raising their self esteem, not responsible individuals who enjoy sex and pursue it in an ethical and healthy manner.

    But by all means, give me another source you didn't bother to read.

    Anybody is serious relationship would want to please their partner to the best they've ever had it. If you don't think sex plays a large part in relationships, especially young ones, you're deluding yourself,

    I also see you didn't quote my first reason. Was that a " good/logical/rational/well thought" reason? Or is that misguided as well.
    I see you ignored what I said regarding the fact that feeling you would need to measure up would still be true in the event a woman just had one sexual partner. Care to touch on that? Here I'll quote for you again since you missed it. Bold letters this time.

    As for your insecurities about how you would stack up against those 100 other people, you would still have that same problem if she had only slept with three, or even just one. The only way you could never have to worry about measuring up to a womans previous sexual partner is if you were the only person she had ever slept with
    I also never said sex wasn't an integral part of relationships, I simply said there were more important things. You can still have an awesome sex life without being THE BEST SHE EVER HAD.

    And what reason did I ignore from you, dear? The fact that you don't want your woman to be "easy"? Define what you mean by that and I'll respond. Easy in the sense that she'll screw anybody? If that's the case, you don't have a point. Promiscuity doesn't mean you don't have standards and that you'll just go out and hump everything that has a pulse.
    Last edited by Crudelis ventus; 31st March 2013 at 1:32 PM.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    dere in the sheets
    Posts
    8,977

    Default

    Actually, looking back, this is getting us nowhere. I'll just make a general statement of all my feelings to avoid the long page of text this thread is becoming.

    I'm simply stating the consequences of a woman pursuing more carnal pleasures. The same rationale applies to men too; if a man sleeps around with a lot of women, he's not going to be respected by a lot of women who place a higher value on sexual relations. If you're going to have a lot of sex, it WILL affect you down the line, and that's just the bottomline. No one is stopping you from having sex and you're free to do so. Let's just not get upset if someone else disagrees with your choices.



    Quote Originally Posted by Crudelis ventus View Post
    I never once just labeled your arguments as misguided. I clearly demonstrated how they were. My point still stands.
    It was clearly implied, like with the whole "nonsense" post. But we can leave it at that.
    Notice how it specifically uses the word "may."
    And this is the thing. Isn't "may", a fine reason not to do something? Don't eat this food because I may get heartburn, or walk on the ice because I may slip. "May", is what lets people decide on what we want to do and why. It's a perfectly fine reason to do, or not do something.
    Once again, all of this is solved with condoms and STD testing. Except for the domestic violence bit, now that's somewhat interesting. I'm curious as to how they got that. The only way I could see that is if the person in question was unethical and was doing things like cheating on their partner. In which case, it wouldn't be far fetched that domestic violence could stem from that. It's still not an argument, because the discussion is about promiscuity with ethics.
    It could come from the current shock that the person in question has done something like that, the other found out and attacked in a fit of rage. It isn't exactly socially acceptable for woman to act like this. A double standard that needs to be lifted.


    Obviously we're talking about grown adults here, not 14 year olds. Wow.
    Yes, but emotional problems do tend to carry over into adulthood.

    The link you provided was clearly talking about people with emotional issues and or psychological truama that use sex as either a cry for help or as a means of raising their self esteem, not responsible individuals who enjoy sex and pursue it in an ethical and healthy manner.

    But by all means, give me another source you didn't bother to read.
    I've read it. I posted it on the grounds that we're talking about promiscuity in general. Let's not pretend that we live in this perfect little world were every promiscuous person is free of problems and practices safe and honestly to a tee. A large part of promiscuous people have those problems, and you'll mostly have to deal then when you come across a such person. Not saying all are like this, but in my area, or any place I've been, not every promiscuous person is honest. They actually stay pretty quite until your boys get around and start bragging about who they slept with.
    I see you ignored what I said regarding the fact that feeling you would need to measure up would still be true in the event a woman just had one sexual partner. Care to touch on that? Here I'll quote for you again since you missed it. Bold letters this time.
    I feel this would come under the "drawing the line". I personally don't have a "line" but if I came across someone that slept with 100 people, that might just cross it. In terms of sex, sleeping with one or three people doesn't have the same impact in my mind as sleeping with 100. It's a little hard to put into words. It's like if someone lied on you in class and you got a warning, versus someone lying to the police and you get locked up for a while. Yeah, you still got a little mad at the former, but the later far outweighs that.
    I also never said sex wasn't an integral part of relationships, I simply said there were more important things. You can still have an awesome sex life without being THE BEST SHE EVER HAD.
    I actually agree with this. But not everyone does. Tons of relationships end due to a terrible sex life alone.
    And what reason did I ignore from you, dear? The fact that you don't want your woman to be "easy"? Define what you mean by that and I'll respond. Easy in the sense that she'll screw anybody? If that's the case, you don't have a point. Promiscuity doesn't mean you don't have standards and that you'll just go out and hump everything that has a pulse.
    Well I guess it depends on type of "easy." More spefically a woman that sleep with someone they just met at the bar. Is that bad? I don't really care. But I don't have to accept it.
    Last edited by Jb; 31st March 2013 at 3:05 PM.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Dragon Roost Island
    Posts
    5,082

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigLutz View Post
    BUT that being said I want to throw this out, could there possibly be a good use for this? And that is to possibly keep down young teenagers having sex ( And mind you on this I am speaking of 12 - 16 year olds as I believe after that they are largely heading to college where the dogma isnt so bad ). And to possibly keeping down the spread of STDs, again I am just shooting this out in the dark, but if more peer pressure was out there like what you saw before the sexual liberation movement of the 60s, is it not possible we would have less of a STD and AIDS epidemic today?
    I think that a better solution to combating STDs in teenagers is to educate them properly about safe sex, and as early as possible. I'm sixteen and so far I've had like... one class that teaches about safe sex. If we educate people early (and properly) on how to practice safe sex it would be a much better combatant to the issue. Bringing kids up to think slut shaming is right and being anyways promiscuous is wrong in an attempt to stop the spread of STDs is a dumb idea.


    Why do people care about how many times their partner has had sex? As long as they're committed to the relationship it shouldn't make any difference. If you have a trouble thinking about their sexual partners then that's an insecurity on your part.

    These blanket statements are stupid too. Yeah, some promiscuous people have low self-esteem or are ****s who brag constantly, and yeah, it can be hard to date them. So what? Then don't go out with somebody you don't like. You can't back up an argument for **** shaming by saying that certain promiscuous people have issues. Lots of people have issues, it's not exclusive to somebody who has a lot of sex. If they're not emotionally distraught or a bragging ******* or don't have any STDs, then their promiscuity shouldn't be a problem.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    903

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Valoo. View Post
    I think that a better solution to combating STDs in teenagers is to educate them properly about safe sex, and as early as possible. I'm sixteen and so far I've had like... one class that teaches about safe sex. If we educate people early (and properly) on how to practice safe sex it would be a much better combatant to the issue. Bringing kids up to think slut shaming is right and being anyways promiscuous is wrong in an attempt to stop the spread of STDs is a dumb idea.


    Why do people care about how many times their partner has had sex? As long as they're committed to the relationship it shouldn't make any difference. If you have a trouble thinking about their sexual partners then that's an insecurity on your part.

    These blanket statements are stupid too. Yeah, some promiscuous people have low self-esteem or are ****s who brag constantly, and yeah, it can be hard to date them. So what? Then don't go out with somebody you don't like. You can't back up an argument for **** shaming by saying that certain promiscuous people have issues. Lots of people have issues, it's not exclusive to somebody who has a lot of sex. If they're not emotionally distraught or a bragging ******* or don't have any STDs, then their promiscuity shouldn't be a problem.
    There's a pretty big reason why people care so much about the number of sexual partners their mate has been with, the reason being that more partners=more of a chance of catching an std. With millions of different diseases out there, and "rubber hats" not being 100% effective, every partner your mate has been with essentially adds another ball onto the STD-wheel.
    ~Currently own: X and Y (4597-0364-2569), current 6th gen OU record: 199W/44L/6D-, UU record: 31W/0L/4D
    NXT fan, RU supporter, and steam enthusiast.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Off doing something important
    Posts
    4,930

    Default

    One vital point that hasn't been made yet is the problem with slut-shaming, and the effects it has.

    First, let's establish the basic issue with slut-shaming, which is that someone looks at another person and judges them, concluding that they are a slut based on how they dress, what they do, how many sexual partners/how much sex they have, etc. Calling someone a slut means a lack of respect for them, their opinions, emotions, personal space, and consent. The term is used to dismiss or silence someone's words or actions, or even their worth as a person. It results in treating them differently, and more specifically, as if they are inferior to others.

    Thus, it is deemed acceptable not to give a so-called slut the same respect you would give anyone else, because they somehow don't deserve it. This makes it acceptable to name-call, to mistreat, to hurt, to invade personal space, and to not care about their consent. This is how we feed rape culture. You might be tired of hearing about rape culture, but how often do you hear "she was a slut, so she was asking for it" or "they had it coming"? A "normal" person who is the victim of sexual assault has enough trouble being taken seriously, but a victim who is deemed a slut has an even harder time of it. Remember - a slut doesn't get the same respect anyone else does, and this extends from caring about their consent to taking them seriously if they are the victim of a crime.

    What's the solution? Stop judging others based on the type of and amount of sex they have. Stop using this as a deciding factor in how to treat them. As has been stated, straight men are already rarely judged by this, so why are women, gay men and other groups?

    Really, the question isn't "is it okay to be promiscuous?" but rather "is it okay to judge someone who is promiscuous?". But what is the worth in a judgement based off this compared to a judgement based on important things, like their ideas, their intellect, and how they treat others? Once you start judging someone based solely off their sex life, you show how utterly shallow you yourself are.

    When you get down to it, it's the equivalent of "is it okay to judge someone based on how much they eat/how physically active they are/how many cigarettes they smoke" and so on. There are risks involved in any of those things just as there are risks in having sex, but if you retain a healthy diet, if you don't overexert yourself, and if you don't chain smoke or give people secondhand smoke, then those habits won't be a problem. Of course, it's none of your business regardless. We don't judge people for those things, and sex should be no different.



    Quote Originally Posted by BigLutz View Post
    I do think we can agree that females and the effeminate side of the Homosexual community engages in this act, why? I don't know, maybe it goes back to some kind of grade school behavior of teasing any girl who may seem different? It would be nice to have a female perspective on this as I am just shooting in the dark here.
    Men absolutely slut-shame, just for different reasons. When a woman slut-shames another women, it can be try to lower the other woman in the social pecking order, to dismiss that woman's thoughts/feelings, or to make herself feel better, or a host of other reasons. Unfortunately, slut-shaming is being internalized at younger and younger ages, so you have young girls who've never even held hands with a boy calling each other sluts, simply because it's a word that hurts. Also, boys who seem different get teased equally in grade school, so I'm not sure where you're pulling this from.

    Quote Originally Posted by BigLutz View Post
    BUT that being said I want to throw this out, could there possibly be a good use for this? And that is to possibly keep down young teenagers having sex ( And mind you on this I am speaking of 12 - 16 year olds as I believe after that they are largely heading to college where the dogma isnt so bad ). And to possibly keeping down the spread of STDs, again I am just shooting this out in the dark, but if more peer pressure was out there like what you saw before the sexual liberation movement of the 60s, is it not possible we would have less of a STD and AIDS epidemic today?
    There are a host of reasons why this is a terrible idea. A big one is that slut-shaming doesn't magically stop at a certain age. If you teach teenagers to call each other sluts and that slut-shaming is acceptable, they and their male-counterparts will continue doing it. This also contributes to rape culture, as I explained above. There is a difference between telling kids not to have sex VS shaming those that do so they feel like **** and get treated like ****. It does zero good.

    You know the best way to lower the spread of STDs and pregnancy rates? Education. Someone who wants to have sex will do so, period. If we actually care about our youth, then we will educate them so that they will know the risks, know how to make the right decisions, and know how to protect themselves if need be. I can dig up the large number of studies that prove abstinence-only education doesn't work if you'd like.


    Quote Originally Posted by Scammel View Post
    Not necessarily, and hear me out: Having two partners with different attitudes towards sex could potentially be a point of conflict, just like any other element of a relationship. For example, dismissing a partner over differences in religious beliefs sounds equally condemnable, but that's making the assumption that one potential partner deems the other as 'inferior' because of it. I'm a Christian and I would have to question how healthy a relationship might be with someone who has strong atheist views. I don't think any less of that person, they're just possibly not suitable for me to be entering into a relationship with. If two potential partners differ over something as significant as to the what, why, when and how of sex in a relationship, it might not be one that's going to be healthy.
    What I don't get about this argument is that most people don't take about their sexual history on the first date. Usually, this only comes up after some time, and usually by then you'll have decided whether or not you like this person and want to continue seeing them. If you like them and get along with them otherwise, and then find out they've had X number of partners, would you suddenly want to break things off even though you're quite compatible and get along perfectly well otherwise?


    Quote Originally Posted by Jb View Post
    In my mind, there would always be a back thought of how I stack up against those other 100 people.
    If your primary concern in the bedroom is "how do I compare to my partner's previous partners," then you have a problem. You'll have to either only have sex with virgins or find people who've only had awful sex for your ego's sake. Alternatively, you can tell your partner "I want to make you feel good. Tell me what you like" and follow their instructions, and you'll know you're pleasing them. Maybe they'll even be impressed that you're actually asking and paying attention. Problem solved.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mye View Post
    There's a pretty big reason why people care so much about the number of sexual partners their mate has been with, the reason being that more partners=more of a chance of catching an std. With millions of different diseases out there, and "rubber hats" not being 100% effective, every partner your mate has been with essentially adds another ball onto the STD-wheel.
    Which is why you always ask your partners about their sexual history and get tested together, no matter how many partners you've had. As others have said, and will likely keep saying, if you have safe sex, know your and your partner's sexual health and are honest with each other, it should not be an issue.


    ~Psychic

    Pokéthon was a huge success! Check out our Facebook page for photos from the event!

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Creeping on your boyfriend
    Posts
    1,693

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mye View Post
    There's a pretty big reason why people care so much about the number of sexual partners their mate has been with, the reason being that more partners=more of a chance of catching an std. With millions of different diseases out there, and "rubber hats" not being 100% effective, every partner your mate has been with essentially adds another ball onto the STD-wheel.
    Ugh man I have the same issue. When my last partner told me they had 5 partners in the past two months I automatically thought about the potential STDs too. It's too bad there isn't a way to get them tested before having sex with them.

    Oh wait, there is. This is such a dumb argument and the only reason someone wouldn't want to date them is because they feel that it's demoralizing to have casual sex which is such pure ********. If I or anybody else decides to have tons of casual sex that isn't your ****ing problem and if you do think it's your problem then I realize that you're a shitty human being and I won't talk to you .

    Also thanks to whoever linked that article on ****-shaming with gay men. I don't have a lot of time to read it right now but I'll make sure to check it out. Seems like an interesting little tidbit.

    Star-Lord

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •