Conference quark::mennotes-v1

    Jerry
    
    Rules from the 1950s would have it that a 'girl' that kisses
    on the first date is promiscuous.
    
    The dictionary definition is:
    
    characterized by frequent and indiscriminate changes of ones
    sexual partners
    
    composed of a disordered mixture mixture of various kinds
    of elements
    
    without discrimination
    
    so,
    
    if a person thinks that they change sexual partners with out
    discrimination and frequently then that person has defined
    themself as promiscuous..
    
    on the other hand if a person has had more than one sexual
    partner but feels that they have chosen those partners with
    discrimination, they that person will not define themself
    as promiscuous..
    
    and there are extremes of point of view that say on the one
    hand that anyone who has more than one partner is promiscuous,
    
    and I suppose another side that says as long as you x or y or
    z you are not.
    
    Bonnie

.1>    on the other hand if a person has had more than one sexual
.1>    partner but feels that they have chosen those partners with
.1>    discrimination, they that person will not define themself
.1>    as promiscuous..
    
    Interesting perspective.  If I have 25 sex partners over a 30 day
    period, and, each one was chosen with "discrimination"...I'm not
    promiscuous.
    
    Interesting...indeed...
    
    Jerry

    I once heard the phrase "great lover" as someone who could make love to
    the same person for the rest of their lives.  What does it have to do
    with the topic?  Maybe nothing, but when it was said it really struck
    me.
    
    Peace,
    
    Mike

    Promiscuity, when in a relationship, would probably be having sex
    outside the approved boundaries of the relationship (if it's an open
    relationship, there may be groundrules as to how many partners one
    should have, etc....)
    
    Promiscuity for the single person is probably when they're getting
    compulsive about it, or are affecting their life negatively through
    repercussions of their sexual forays....
    
    -Jody
    

    "promiscuity"...for all the correct definitions that are given in the
    replies, I don't like the catholic value judgement that is hidden
    behind the word. And the prejudices that come with it.
    I have my own rules. I must feel close to a woman, and I must love her,
    before I can spend the night with her. But that's my rule for the game.
    If someone finds fulfillment acting otherwise, I won't be the person to
    qualify his behaviour by calling him/her promiscuous and putting myself
    in a higher ethical category.
    I just was thinking that for some reason I always had the impression of
    gay people being very "promiscuous", which I use here for people very
    receptive to sex and somehow aggressive when approaching other people.
    In today's newspaper, to my surprise I read that gay couples which are
    allowed to marry in Denmark have by far the lowest existing divorce
    rate...
    So much for value judgements and related prejudices...
    ...Paul

    Sexuality, as being synonmous with morality, is fortunately a
    dwindling notion. I see no moral issue involved in a person
    having frequent sexual partners, unless that person is
    a committed relationship with someone else, or unless it
    involves the transmission of disease to another. Promiscuity
    is a judgement by others about one's behavior and simply reflects
    differing sexual standards between individuals. It is sometimes
    a sign of low self-esteem on the part of the individuals involved,
    in that they might feel that it was the only way they could get
    the affection or attention they needed. This is a problem that
    only affects those immediately involved, not the outside world,
    however.
    
    -roger
    

.5> I just was thinking that for some reason I always had the impression of
.5> gay people being very "promiscuous", which I use here for people very
.5> receptive to sex and somehow aggressive when approaching other people.
    
    Interesting...I've asked this quesiton of gay friends of mine because
    my understanding was that gay people were very "promiscuous" - the
    "party line" answer is that: "our sexuality has always been supressed,
    so, yes, we probably are"...I've heard this over and over again.  I'm
    convinced that his is pure crap but that for the most part, homosexuals
    are no different than other segments of society.  Personally, for
    whatever definition of 'promiscuous' I think that heterosexuals are
    more "promiscuous" than homosexuals....
    
.5> In today's newspaper, to my surprise I read that gay couples which are
.5>  allowed to marry in Denmark have by far the lowest existing divorce
.5>  rate...
    
    Very interesting...I wonder why....doesn't fit the current "party line"
    in the US of A.
    
    Jerry

    Re: gay marriages.
    
    They've only been around for a year or so, so no-ones had a chance to
    get bored yet ?
    
    OR
    
    They had no choice but to co-habit before a year or so ago and
    therefore got used to each other before actually marrying ?
    

    1. Looking into my soul, Jimmy Carter style, I find that I call sex
    with people that you meet almost purely for purposes of sex
    "promiscuous behavior".  (Actually, I call it "slutty", an adjective
    which I apply with relish to both sexes but mostly to men, but I'd
    never use a word like that in a clear-headed intellectual forum like a
    notes conference.)
    
�    Second.  Given a single male, is "promiscuity" by your definition
�    immoral?
    
    2. I don't see how you can really be promiscuous if you're only given a
    single male.
    
    Anyway, I do not think promiscuity is immoral.  Just confusing, unless
    you have excellent organizational skills.
    
    Ray

    
    >>Interesting perspective.  If I have 25 sex partners over a 30 day
    >>period, and, each one was chosen with "discrimination"...I'm not
    >>promiscuous.
    
    
    I think Bonnie said that *that* person might not define *themself* as
    promiscuous.
    
    E Grace

    Thank you E Grace, that is indeed what I said.
    
    Bonnie

    Isn't it true that the very concept of "promiscuity" is an invention of
    those who desire to control other's behavior?  Thus, by labeling
    someone as promiscuous, they (ah yes,  the inevitable "they") have a
    weapon to use against that person, a means of generating moral
    indignation, if not outrage, over that person's behavior.
    
    I know, it sounds like I'm paranoid.  But really, even those who would
    state that they don't care how many partners other might have, have
    some threshold at which even they would be shocked.  I think a
    majority of people wouldn't be too shocked over someone who had, say,
    two different partners in a year.  But what about someone who had 300?
    400?  I think a majority of people would be shocked by that.
    
    I guess the gist of this is, promiscuity is best decided by the
    individual, who has to live to their own moral code (or lack thereof).
    
    You know, this all sounded much better before I actually put it in
    writing....
    
    Mark
    

[Stop me if you've heard this...]

The only definition of promiscuity that I've ever agreed with is:

	Promiscuous:	getting more than me.

> I know, it sounds like I'm paranoid.  But really, even those who would
> state that they don't care how many partners other might have, have
> some threshold at which even they would be shocked.

Shocked? No, I don't think so. Impressed, surprised, envious, but not shocked.

> I think a majority of people wouldn't be too shocked over someone who had,
> say,two different partners in a year.

You'd be surprised. Not too long ago that was precisely what most people thought
was promiscuous.

> But what about someone who had 300? 400?  I think a majority of people would 
> be shocked by that.

Why shocked? Let's change that slightly and see how it scans.

	"I think a majority of people wouldn't be too shocked over someone who
	had,say, pizza two different times in a year. But what about someone
	who had it 300? 400?  I think a majority of people would be shocked by
	that."

No longer so shocking. Surprising perhaps, certainly unusual, but without the
freight of judgement. If you really don't care, then you really don't care. I
believe that many people who have that many different partners have other
problems, but the problem is not "promiscuity" per-se. My reading of
"promiscuity" is that people apply it to others when they think the others are
having more sex than they ought to - in the speaker's opinion. Judgement at its
purest and most obnoxious.

    First, how would you define "promiscuity"?  If a man is married,
    "promiscuity" is probably sex with any other female!  If he's not
    married, what is "promiscuity" - a different partner every week? Month?
    Day?

I think two things are being confused here. One is promiscuity, as discussed
above, but the other - that is also labeled promiscuity above - is more properly
called "fidelity". Being married and having sex outside the relationship isn't
necessarily about promiscuity, it's about fidelity. You can be unfaithful and
not promiscuous, you can be promiscuous and faithful! (Oh yes you can. Maybe
*YOU* can't, but it can be done. [This is using my definition of promiscuous
above. Someone can be having more sexual partners than you think is right, and
still be faithful to their mate. Want to talk about it?])

	-- Charles

>        Not  because sex  is evil, but,
>    	because sex is too good and too important".

This is like saying that a hammer is more important than building a 
house, that the tool is more important than a good use of the tool.  
You can also use a hammer to kill someone, to hold a door open, to 
weigh something down, and a lot of other things that I probably have 
not thought of.

This gets back to one of my favorite rantings: context is truth.  Is a 
hammer misued if you use it to hit someone over the head?  Is it still 
misused if you hit someone who was trying to kill you or if you were 
at war with the person?  Is it misused to prop a door open?

It depends.  Sometimes, yes.  Sometimes, no.  But you understand the 
"goodness" and "badness" of it when you examine the context, not by 
focusing on the tool.

>    First, how would you define "promiscuity"?  

Someone who's getting it more than me.  ;-)

I don't find "promiscuous" to be a useful term, in most contexts.

							--Gerry

>    I just was thinking that for some reason I always had the impression of
>    gay people being very "promiscuous", which I use here for people very
>    receptive to sex and somehow aggressive when approaching other people.
>    In today's newspaper, to my surprise I read that gay couples which are
>    allowed to marry in Denmark have by far the lowest existing divorce
>    rate...

Paul, you are still operating on so many value judgements and 
pre-judgements around gay people that it is amazing.  You might want 
to hang out with the idea that you don't know much about gay people, 
and that you operate on some assumptions and stereotypes.

For instance, the phrases "aggressive when approaching other people" 
and "receptive to sex" are part of the gay stereotype.  They sound so 
ridiculous when you compare them to heterosexuals: "heterosexuals are 
not receptive to sex," or "heterosexuals are not aggressive when 
approaching people."   As another example, you assume that the lack of 
divorce in Denmark means that those couples are monogamous, not 
aggressive with partners outside of the marriage, and are not 
receptive to sex.  Knowing gay couples as I do, I would say that there 
is a good chance that not all of them are monogamous.  The secret to 
their lack of divorce might not be monogamy or lack of sex.

Check those assumptions...


							--Gerry

re. 17
    Gerry,
    	I was aware that I was talking about a stereotype that lacks any real
    justification, and I was just waiting for somebody to recriminate me
    for that, even though I think it a bit hard to criticize someone for a
    harmless prejudice he carries subconsciously and doesn't influence his
    behaviour towards persons in any way...
    	But, what can I say, there's at least one personal experience that
    shocked me. I can recall that, while being a student in Munich, and
    being new in town, we somehow managed to land in a gay bar without
    noticing it until we were approached in a truly harsh manner, believe
    me... It made me think back then that gay people, despite their alleged
    female soul, had adopted the worst of male sexuality...
    	But hey, I know that was NOT representative. It's as if you'd go to
    one of those disgusting "shows" for hetereosexuals in Amsterdam and
    judge all men by the reactions of the male attendance, God help us...
    	I just found out a couple of weeks ago that one of my best friends, not
    to say my best friend, is gay, which rocked me initially, for I was
    disappointed by the  fact he didn't open up earlier, but his behaviour
    towards me has always been like the one I expect from a true friend and
    a great person. He's the living proof against gays being "promiscous",
    whatever that means!
    	That's why I said "...for some reason...", which ought to show I was
    very sceptical towards that sort of prejudice, and that I don't like
    the term "promiscuous" with the value judgements it implies at all,
    come to that! That paragraph was just thought to illustrate how
    senseless perjudices and value judgemments are, for they are mostly
    based on wrong premises...
    ...Paul