What is YOUR definition of PROMISCUITY & How do you FEEL about it....

Parent Cafe
141

<p>I think the ideal for some of you is premarital absentinence (no sex until marriage). I know that this is an idea that has recieved a lot of media attention lately, but obviosuly this is a very old concept.</p>

<p>When “saving yourself for marriage” was the so-called standard, there was far more pressure for women to live up to it then men. If a man was a virgin for his wedding night, it was considered quaint at best but usually was thought of as just odd. So virtue was an issue much for women than for men.</p>

<p>Well, that may have made sense when girls had their first periods 2-3 years later than they do now and it was considered odd for a woman not to be married by the time she was 24. Anybody who waited for marriage for sex had a much shorter wait then they would now. So for those of year who think abstinence is the way to go, you’re talking about your daughters having a much longer wait than was envisionsed by past generations.</p>

<p>Those were the days when it was unusual for a girl to go to college and certainly unusual for her to go for any other purpose than to snag a husband. Now look at all the threads in the student sections of CC. There are so many girls here that discuss their hopes for their educations and careers. Most of them will get married someday, but there’s a lot more on their plate than the women in past generations of their families.</p>

<p>These are all great kids. But you know, along the way, some of these daughters are going to sleep with the wrong guy or will do something else that would make you cringe if you ever found out. The odds of that are higher than ever before becasue marriage is being delayed even further. There’s more opporuntity to veer off the strict moral path becasue the timeline’s longer. The same holds true of boys.</p>

<p>People make mistakes. Most of us learn from them. Young people who falter almost always find a way to get back on course, even if the road is a little different from what they started with.</p>

<p>To me the term promiscuity should be used to refer to someone whose sexual appetite is so out of control that it negatively impacts their life (college studies suffer, can’t commit to a relationship, adultery). That a college kid might indulge in something that us oldsters would find a little scandalous doesn’t quite fit that defintion for me.</p>

<p>Thank you for allowing me this late-night rant.</p>

142

<p>

</p>

<p>DG,</p>

<p>Recognizing your sincerity, perhaps for the sake of clarity you could point out the posts that fixed this ideal in your mind. I read through the thread and found quite the opposite to be true. SJmom and Jauler, in fact, specifically said that this is not their expectation or view of pre-marital romance. I do not see how you could derive this notion from any of Susantm and Aries posts…nor from mine.</p>

<p>Perhaps it would be better to address the arguments and sentiments actually presented than to manufacture a view that no one seems to share and then state it as the dogma of your detractors…for the sake of an actual argument involving sincere differences. </p>

<p>If you mean to say that there are those that believe a perfect relationship-- where no one gets hurt–is one wherein a person first falls in love with their “soul-mate” and marries and lives happily ever after in marital bliss–who would oppose it? It would be perfect…but not real.</p>

<p>As it is, things are so much more complicated than that. Who could doubt it? But the solution will not be found in reducing the whole universe of love, sexual attraction and physical emotions to a prescription to hook-up when you get a sexual itch or the mood strikes you. Really, this sounds more like the pick-up line of a dim-witted Lothario than the reasonable view of a parent, or serious adult.</p>

<p>Nor would it benefit anyone to act as if it doesn’t matter. It matters…and no reasonable person would suggest otherwise. </p>

<p>Sadly, this thread is riddled with references to “June Cleaver” and the suburban 50’s, even to denying women the right to vote or be employed (remember, for many, it is not simply “liberation,” but “Sexual Liberation), but there is a bigotry in trying to reduce a sincere belief or experience to a cartoon. Hooking-up does not require the imprimatur of women’s emancipation. It’s intellectually lazy, dishonest and unbecoming such a serious issue with real world consequences. Especially facile when done by people who went to college in the 70’s; that is to say, people who do not directly have to live with the consequences of their slap-happy prescriptions to “do it 'till your satisfied.”</p>

<p>As do young women, who are more likely to hear such liberating thoughts whispered with inebriated breath in frats and dorm rooms. Sexual expectations grow exponentially when endorsed by “mature” adults and parents; there are some liberated Lacrosse players at Duke, as elsewhere, who could inform your view in this regard.</p>

143

<p>I just spent a while looking for good references for some of the ideas below and couldn’t find anything I really liked, so feel free to take this with the proverbial grain of salt, but:</p>

<p>Apparently many women were pregnant at marriage during most of American history, as many as 1/3rd in the colonial period. In 1770 (this is verifiable), women on AVERAGE married at 17 (men at 20). Nonetheless, marriages only lasted 7 or 8 years before one partner died (<a href=“http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/historyonline/mothersfathers.cfm)%5B/url%5D”>http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/historyonline/mothersfathers.cfm)</a>.</p>

<p>I really don’t think you can say that values were any better; circumstances were just too different.</p>

144

<p>Dmd,</p>

<p>I don’t concede the point, but do the historical circmstances need to be better to expect things to be better, or to improve now? Is that the only measure we have? What was done in colonial times? or in the liberal’s dreaded 50’s? I hope not. </p>

<p>It seems to be the only option put forward by the pro-hook-up crowd. I don’t get it.</p>

<p>Is that the progressive view?</p>

145

<p>Or is this just the same ole ideological fight:</p>

<p>Liberal v Conservative.</p>

<p>It is so tiresome and non-productive.</p>

146

<p>What would be an improvement, anyway? Can we really “quantify” promiscuity? As someone who’s only had one sexual partner his whole life (and probably will only have one for the rest of it), I tend to find the notion of even two or three different partners out of the question.</p>

<p>That doesn’t mean that someone who’s had three partners is promiscuous.</p>

<p>I don’t have a problem with trying to perhaps curb the “free love” attitudes that so many college students seem to think are reasonable. But then again, who am I to tell someone that having consentual sex is wrong? </p>

<p>By the way, I truly dreaded the 50s. I dreaded them like a bad canker sore. They were the bane of my existence! :rolleyes:</p>

147

<p>

</p>

<p>No worse than any other debate.</p>

<p>I’ve altered many of my opinions through venues just like this. </p>

<p>But welcome to the mudpit. Enjoy your stay with the pigs. It’s more fun down here. ;)</p>

148

<p>

Must have been a real tough time for you…glad to see you pulled through.</p>

<p>By the way, why is it better for you to be monogamous, but not better to be monogamous?</p>

<p>If it is better for you to be honest, or sincere, or diligent, I would assume it would be better for all to be honest or sincere or diligent.</p>

<p>I imagine you have good reasons for being monogamous and unless you are solipsistic I would imagine you believe “the good thing to do” to be “the good thing to do” because it is good and because you can know why it is good and have determined to do so. </p>

<p>Some things are good for a reason…in fact all things that are good are good for a good reason.</p>

149

<p>

</p>

<p>I’m monogamous because the marginal cost of not being monogamous is too high (lose the relationship). It’s logical.</p>

<p>However, if someone is single, and happens to find Mr. “Right Now,” and it just seems like it’s not going anywhere, but might otherwise be an incredibly fun experience, why not? If the marginal benefits outweigh the costs, then there’s nothing immoral or insincere or dishonest. If both partners assume the risks and willing to say, “all we want is one night,” then I don’t see the problem.</p>

<p>I was fortunate enough to find the right person for the long term. Not everyone has that luck.</p>

150

<p>Same would apply to suicide pacts, I assume.</p>

<p>Anyhow, how romantic of you…a cost benefit relationship analysis: She must be so happy!</p>

151

<p>FountainSiren,</p>

<p>That’s a low blow. I mean, I’m not surprised (it is you after all.) But still. </p>

<p>So what, you don’t think people do it all the time? What do you think divorce is? It’s a cost-benefit analysis where one or both parties realize that the COSTS of staying married are higher than the BENEFITS.</p>

152

<p>

</p>

<p>Nice slippery slope there. Next thing I know, you’re going to resort to an ad Nazium and tell us that the same attitudes led to Nazi Germany.</p>

<p>But please, explain how having sex with someone, as long as both parties agree to it, is immoral?</p>

153

<p>I never said it was. </p>

<p>I said hooking-up is not as good as loving and committing to someone or something…not in the short or long run. Not in social commitments or human relationships. It’s not really disputed—medically, psychologically or civilly. </p>

<p>Not even by your fellow travelers. And I have no problem calling it “good.”
Hope that doesn’t offend.</p>

154

<p>

</p>

<p>So which is it? A low blow, or do people do it all the time?</p>

155

<p>Nor did I say it was.</p>

<p>But is alcohol never really “good,” either. But, like all other things, if had in moderation, it can be enjoyable and safe. And morality, often being relative, is difficult to really define in this case. Is it moral if they have oral sex? Or is it only immoral if they don’t love one another?</p>

<p>And is monogamy really the single best way to define a society? Why not polygamy?</p>

156

<p>

</p>

<p>Do you really even need an answer? </p>

<p>Must you always be rude?</p>

157

<p>As in the other thread.</p>

<p>If it’s meaningful and good, hold to it. Sounds like it is. Good for you and yours.</p>

<p>Meaningful is always better. Just a thought.</p>

158

<p>FS,</p>

<p>The problem I think I have with you is something that I suspect that others do too. You don’t seem to come to threads to discuss things, but rather to disparage those discussing things. You brought up the “liberal vs. conservative” notion when it wasn’t really even an issue. Why? To stir up trouble?</p>

<p>Just consider that maybe, just maybe, that bringing my relationship into this was in this case unwarranted. It was rude. It was low.</p>

<p>How can you even begin to disagree?</p>

159

<p>I asked about history, because there is no time when relationships were the ideal people want, and because of human nature, there never will be</p>

<p>If there was a time when, in a simpler world, that people waited until marriage, never had sexual relations out of marriage, where there was a true balance, we could repeat it or it would be a possibilty for most of society</p>

<p>At the times in society where it APPEARED people were “pure” they were not, at times in society where it APPEARED respectful, people were repressed and oppressed, at times in society when people judged others for their sexual relationships (in any degree) they shunned, spit on, called horrid names, and more</p>

<p>My point is that even when there was an appearance of propriety, it was cover, lots was going on, but hypcricy reigned</p>

<p>Nowaways, because of the media, it seems that everyone is hooking up, whatever, but as in the past, not all is as it appears</p>

<p>I am not saying random hooking up is wonderful and good for the people involved, but I dont think having sex outside of marriage for single people will ruin lives, or cause those people to not be able to have long term commitmitted relationships</p>

<p>If we judged everyone by their “youthful” indiscretions, no one could be the first to throw stones</p>

<p>Anyway, I fooled around some in my 20s, as did my H before we met, I had some flings, some “longterm” bfs, there were “sexual relations” or
“experiences”, and we both found each other, and that was that</p>

<p>20years later, its still great</p>

160

<p>

I was responding to the following post by you (#149). I thought you were using it to make a point you wanted to make as you saw fit. I therefore addressed what you, for your own reasons, deemed necessary to raise as an issue in this thread. Didn’t mean to hurt your feelings. You seem to give at least as much as you take, even if you are frequently feeling hurt in the exchange.</p>

<p>Oh yeah…this was what you wrote:

Indeed.</p>

<p>As I said. Glad you have an emotionally/economically sound relationship that you believe yourself dedicated to, with but a few quid pro quos in the small print.</p>

<p>So toughen-up big fella; it’s a rough world out there.</p>