Why is it still ok to judge others for being promiscuous?
We live in an age when we accept that if some people want to be homosexual, then that's ok and it has nothing to do with us.
So why is it that it's often still considered OK for people to look down on those who choose to be sexually promiscuous?
Women seem to still bare the brunt of the defamation, but also men seem to get their own fair share of abuse these days.
People used to complain that men get praised for promiscuity where as women get shunned for it. Instead of this progressing to women not being shunned for it, it simply seems to have lead to men getting shunned for it as well.
Personally I am not sexually promiscuous. It is not something I believe in, and I love being faithful to my girlfriend.
However, just like my sexual orientation, that is something which is completely personal, and has nothing to do with anyone else. If someone else does like to be sexually promiscuous, then I have no reasonable obligation to judge them for it.
As long as they aren't hurting anyone by leading people on, or by having sex with people in relationship or suchlike, then what they're doing cannot be said to be immoral.
So why is it that it's often still considered OK for people to look down on those who choose to be sexually promiscuous?
Women seem to still bare the brunt of the defamation, but also men seem to get their own fair share of abuse these days.
People used to complain that men get praised for promiscuity where as women get shunned for it. Instead of this progressing to women not being shunned for it, it simply seems to have lead to men getting shunned for it as well.
Personally I am not sexually promiscuous. It is not something I believe in, and I love being faithful to my girlfriend.
However, just like my sexual orientation, that is something which is completely personal, and has nothing to do with anyone else. If someone else does like to be sexually promiscuous, then I have no reasonable obligation to judge them for it.
As long as they aren't hurting anyone by leading people on, or by having sex with people in relationship or suchlike, then what they're doing cannot be said to be immoral.
Scroll to see replies
Original post by James222
Free country free to judge.
Also being loyal to one person is seen as a good quality in a person and the opposite seen as bad.
Certain traits are associated with good upstanding members of a peer group
Also being loyal to one person is seen as a good quality in a person and the opposite seen as bad.
Certain traits are associated with good upstanding members of a peer group
But if you aren't in a relationship then you aren't being disloyal to anyone.
The society we live in judges those who make certain choices. It is very narcissistic to demand that others should stop judging your behaviour if you choose to behave in a fashion that you already know will induce certain people to judge you in a certain way.
The homosexual movement has bypassed this obvious fact by lobbying for criticism of their behaviour or their agenda to be deemed a criminal offence, and their useful idiots in the pink mafia very noisily denounce those who dare to disagree with them on anything at all as "homophobes", the implication being that to avoid this potentially troublesome accusation one must frame their thoughts on their terms. This creates a chilling effect which discourages many of those who may have a different opinion or otherwise wish to speak their mind on the subject from doing so (recognising that their action, unlike the actions of wanton homosexuals, now may have a consequence courtesy of the social engineers of the State). What this illiberal law does not however do is stop people judging them. I could term it the socialisation of homosexual behaviour. They get to do what they want, immune from criticism, and everyone else pays for it by having their diversity of opinion and freedom to speak their mind taken away.
To the point raised, can one still call a slut a slut? It is the slut's choice if the slut wants to take offence at being labelled a slut, surely? You believe there is nothing wrong with being a slut and by their behaviour a slut would surely have to agree with you so what is the problem in recognising their choice? Actions, after all, have consequences. Naturally some in society will approve of their behaviour and some will not, the latter group may not wish to have anything to do with them. One cannot help but suspect that these moralising sluts are, like the homosexuals, wanting to have their cake and eat it.
The homosexual movement has bypassed this obvious fact by lobbying for criticism of their behaviour or their agenda to be deemed a criminal offence, and their useful idiots in the pink mafia very noisily denounce those who dare to disagree with them on anything at all as "homophobes", the implication being that to avoid this potentially troublesome accusation one must frame their thoughts on their terms. This creates a chilling effect which discourages many of those who may have a different opinion or otherwise wish to speak their mind on the subject from doing so (recognising that their action, unlike the actions of wanton homosexuals, now may have a consequence courtesy of the social engineers of the State). What this illiberal law does not however do is stop people judging them. I could term it the socialisation of homosexual behaviour. They get to do what they want, immune from criticism, and everyone else pays for it by having their diversity of opinion and freedom to speak their mind taken away.
To the point raised, can one still call a slut a slut? It is the slut's choice if the slut wants to take offence at being labelled a slut, surely? You believe there is nothing wrong with being a slut and by their behaviour a slut would surely have to agree with you so what is the problem in recognising their choice? Actions, after all, have consequences. Naturally some in society will approve of their behaviour and some will not, the latter group may not wish to have anything to do with them. One cannot help but suspect that these moralising sluts are, like the homosexuals, wanting to have their cake and eat it.
Before any woman on here goes on about slut shaming I refer them to the "girls. would you date....?" thread in which the vast majority of women said that they would not date a guy who has slept with 30 girls or more....
It is something which ALL people judge each other on, not just men on women.
I think its an issue for people because they feel like if this person has had many sexual partners, what makes them special. This goes more so in the case of relationships I believe, again this is not necessarily my viewpoint but I sympathise with it.
Also people often don't like the idea of someone they sleep with constantly bumping into other people that they sleep with.
It is something which ALL people judge each other on, not just men on women.
I think its an issue for people because they feel like if this person has had many sexual partners, what makes them special. This goes more so in the case of relationships I believe, again this is not necessarily my viewpoint but I sympathise with it.
Also people often don't like the idea of someone they sleep with constantly bumping into other people that they sleep with.
It is not OK. Sex between consenting adults is nobody's business.
Original post by KingBradly
...
However, just like my sexual orientation, that is something which is completely personal, and has nothing to do with anyone else. If someone else does like to be sexually promiscuous, then I have no reasonable obligation to judge them for it.
...
However, just like my sexual orientation, that is something which is completely personal, and has nothing to do with anyone else. If someone else does like to be sexually promiscuous, then I have no reasonable obligation to judge them for it.
Sure you do - if everyone behaved in that manner you'd destabilise society and create/exacerbate a number of social problems:
That is a key finding of a new University of British Columbia-led study that explores the global rise of monogamous marriage as a dominant cultural institution. The study suggests that institutionalized monogamous marriage is rapidly replacing polygamy because it has lower levels of inherent social problems.
“Our goal was to understand why monogamous marriage has become standard in most developed nations in recent centuries, when most recorded cultures have practiced polygyny,” says UBC Prof. Joseph Henrich, a cultural anthropologist, referring to the form of polygamy that permits multiple wives, which continues to be practiced in some parts of Africa, Asia, the Middle East and North America.
“The emergence of monogamous marriage is also puzzling for some as the very people who most benefit from polygyny – wealthy, powerful men – were best positioned to reject it,” says Henrich, lead author of the study that is published today in the journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. “Our findings suggest that that institutionalized monogamous marriage provides greater net benefits for society at large by reducing social problems that are inherent in polygynous societies.”
Considered the most comprehensive study of polygamy and the institution of marriage, the study finds significantly higher levels rape, kidnapping, murder, assault, robbery and fraud in polygynous cultures. According to Henrich and his research team, which included Profs. Robert Boyd (UCLA) and Peter Richerson (UC Davis), these crimes are caused primarily by pools of unmarried men, which result when other men take multiple wives.
That is a key finding of a new University of British Columbia-led study that explores the global rise of monogamous marriage as a dominant cultural institution. The study suggests that institutionalized monogamous marriage is rapidly replacing polygamy because it has lower levels of inherent social problems.
“Our goal was to understand why monogamous marriage has become standard in most developed nations in recent centuries, when most recorded cultures have practiced polygyny,” says UBC Prof. Joseph Henrich, a cultural anthropologist, referring to the form of polygamy that permits multiple wives, which continues to be practiced in some parts of Africa, Asia, the Middle East and North America.
“The emergence of monogamous marriage is also puzzling for some as the very people who most benefit from polygyny – wealthy, powerful men – were best positioned to reject it,” says Henrich, lead author of the study that is published today in the journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. “Our findings suggest that that institutionalized monogamous marriage provides greater net benefits for society at large by reducing social problems that are inherent in polygynous societies.”
Considered the most comprehensive study of polygamy and the institution of marriage, the study finds significantly higher levels rape, kidnapping, murder, assault, robbery and fraud in polygynous cultures. According to Henrich and his research team, which included Profs. Robert Boyd (UCLA) and Peter Richerson (UC Davis), these crimes are caused primarily by pools of unmarried men, which result when other men take multiple wives.
“The scarcity of marriageable women in polygamous cultures increases competition among men for the remaining unmarried women,” says Henrich, adding that polygamy was outlawed in 1963 in Nepal, 1955 in India (partially), 1953 in China and 1880 in Japan. The greater competition increases the likelihood men in polygamous communities will resort to criminal behavior to gain resources and women, he says.
According to Henrich, monogamy’s main cultural evolutionary advantage over polygyny is the more egalitarian distribution of women, which reduces male competition and social problems. By shifting male efforts from seeking wives to paternal investment, institutionalized monogamy increases long-term planning, economic productivity, savings and child investment, the study finds. Monogamy’s institutionalization has been assisted by its incorporation by religions, such as Christianity.
“Our goal was to understand why monogamous marriage has become standard in most developed nations in recent centuries, when most recorded cultures have practiced polygyny,” says UBC Prof. Joseph Henrich, a cultural anthropologist, referring to the form of polygamy that permits multiple wives, which continues to be practiced in some parts of Africa, Asia, the Middle East and North America.
“The emergence of monogamous marriage is also puzzling for some as the very people who most benefit from polygyny – wealthy, powerful men – were best positioned to reject it,” says Henrich, lead author of the study that is published today in the journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. “Our findings suggest that that institutionalized monogamous marriage provides greater net benefits for society at large by reducing social problems that are inherent in polygynous societies.”
Considered the most comprehensive study of polygamy and the institution of marriage, the study finds significantly higher levels rape, kidnapping, murder, assault, robbery and fraud in polygynous cultures. According to Henrich and his research team, which included Profs. Robert Boyd (UCLA) and Peter Richerson (UC Davis), these crimes are caused primarily by pools of unmarried men, which result when other men take multiple wives.
That is a key finding of a new University of British Columbia-led study that explores the global rise of monogamous marriage as a dominant cultural institution. The study suggests that institutionalized monogamous marriage is rapidly replacing polygamy because it has lower levels of inherent social problems.
“Our goal was to understand why monogamous marriage has become standard in most developed nations in recent centuries, when most recorded cultures have practiced polygyny,” says UBC Prof. Joseph Henrich, a cultural anthropologist, referring to the form of polygamy that permits multiple wives, which continues to be practiced in some parts of Africa, Asia, the Middle East and North America.
“The emergence of monogamous marriage is also puzzling for some as the very people who most benefit from polygyny – wealthy, powerful men – were best positioned to reject it,” says Henrich, lead author of the study that is published today in the journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. “Our findings suggest that that institutionalized monogamous marriage provides greater net benefits for society at large by reducing social problems that are inherent in polygynous societies.”
Considered the most comprehensive study of polygamy and the institution of marriage, the study finds significantly higher levels rape, kidnapping, murder, assault, robbery and fraud in polygynous cultures. According to Henrich and his research team, which included Profs. Robert Boyd (UCLA) and Peter Richerson (UC Davis), these crimes are caused primarily by pools of unmarried men, which result when other men take multiple wives.
“The scarcity of marriageable women in polygamous cultures increases competition among men for the remaining unmarried women,” says Henrich, adding that polygamy was outlawed in 1963 in Nepal, 1955 in India (partially), 1953 in China and 1880 in Japan. The greater competition increases the likelihood men in polygamous communities will resort to criminal behavior to gain resources and women, he says.
According to Henrich, monogamy’s main cultural evolutionary advantage over polygyny is the more egalitarian distribution of women, which reduces male competition and social problems. By shifting male efforts from seeking wives to paternal investment, institutionalized monogamy increases long-term planning, economic productivity, savings and child investment, the study finds. Monogamy’s institutionalization has been assisted by its incorporation by religions, such as Christianity.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by KingBradly
But if you aren't in a relationship then you aren't being disloyal to anyone.
Still promiscuity is not a trait of a desirable individual
People need someone to look down on to make themselves feel better, so they choose silly things to look down at people on, like their personal choices.
Remember all it takes 2 to tangle
Remember all it takes 2 to tangle
Original post by Huskaris
Before any woman on here goes on about slut shaming I refer them to the "girls. would you date....?" thread in which the vast majority of women said that they would not date a guy who has slept with 30 girls or more....
It is something which ALL people judge each other on, not just men on women.
I think its an issue for people because they feel like if this person has had many sexual partners, what makes them special. This goes more so in the case of relationships I believe, again this is not necessarily my viewpoint but I sympathise with it.
Also people often don't like the idea of someone they sleep with constantly bumping into other people that they sleep with.
It is something which ALL people judge each other on, not just men on women.
I think its an issue for people because they feel like if this person has had many sexual partners, what makes them special. This goes more so in the case of relationships I believe, again this is not necessarily my viewpoint but I sympathise with it.
Also people often don't like the idea of someone they sleep with constantly bumping into other people that they sleep with.
But... I thought objectifying people was supposed to be bad...? Isn't not wanting a relationship with someone simply because of how many times they've had a certain organ of different peoples bodies touching a certain organ of their body pretty shallow?
Original post by James222
Still promiscuity is not a trait of a desirable individual
They used to say homosexuality wasn't a trait of a 'desirable individual'. Again, no actual logic behind this.
I wouldn't judge them as such, I just wouldn't want to get in a relationship with them as it would likely go nowhere.
Original post by thesabbath
The society we live in judges those who make certain choices. It is very narcissistic to demand that others should stop judging your behaviour if you choose to behave in a fashion that you already know will induce certain people to judge you in a certain way.
The homosexual movement has bypassed this obvious fact by lobbying for criticism of their behaviour or their agenda to be deemed a criminal offence, and their useful idiots in the pink mafia very noisily denounce those who dare to disagree with them on anything at all as "homophobes", the implication being that to avoid this potentially troublesome accusation one must frame their thoughts on their terms. This creates a chilling effect which discourages many of those who may have a different opinion or otherwise wish to speak their mind on the subject from doing so (recognising that their action, unlike the actions of wanton homosexuals, now may have a consequence courtesy of the social engineers of the State). What this illiberal law does not however do is stop people judging them. I could term it the socialisation of homosexual behaviour. They get to do what they want, immune from criticism, and everyone else pays for it by having their diversity of opinion and freedom to speak their mind taken away.
To the point raised, can one still call a slut a slut? It is the slut's choice if the slut wants to take offence at being labelled a slut, surely? You believe there is nothing wrong with being a slut and by their behaviour a slut would surely have to agree with you so what is the problem in recognising their choice? Actions, after all, have consequences. Naturally some in society will approve of their behaviour and some will not, the latter group may not wish to have anything to do with them. One cannot help but suspect that these moralising sluts are, like the homosexuals, wanting to have their cake and eat it.
The homosexual movement has bypassed this obvious fact by lobbying for criticism of their behaviour or their agenda to be deemed a criminal offence, and their useful idiots in the pink mafia very noisily denounce those who dare to disagree with them on anything at all as "homophobes", the implication being that to avoid this potentially troublesome accusation one must frame their thoughts on their terms. This creates a chilling effect which discourages many of those who may have a different opinion or otherwise wish to speak their mind on the subject from doing so (recognising that their action, unlike the actions of wanton homosexuals, now may have a consequence courtesy of the social engineers of the State). What this illiberal law does not however do is stop people judging them. I could term it the socialisation of homosexual behaviour. They get to do what they want, immune from criticism, and everyone else pays for it by having their diversity of opinion and freedom to speak their mind taken away.
To the point raised, can one still call a slut a slut? It is the slut's choice if the slut wants to take offence at being labelled a slut, surely? You believe there is nothing wrong with being a slut and by their behaviour a slut would surely have to agree with you so what is the problem in recognising their choice? Actions, after all, have consequences. Naturally some in society will approve of their behaviour and some will not, the latter group may not wish to have anything to do with them. One cannot help but suspect that these moralising sluts are, like the homosexuals, wanting to have their cake and eat it.
'Actions have consequences.' That is a statement that can be applied to absolutely everything and is therefore utterly meaningless.
Also, some people seem to be confused. I understand that everyone can judge whoever the hell they like. But generally if you judge someone for the colour of their skin or sexual orientation, for instance, you are looked down upon by society. I wonder why people are still looked down on even for thinking promiscuity is OK.
Original post by KingBradly
They used to say homosexuality wasn't a trait of a 'desirable individual'. Again, no actual logic behind this.
Promiscuity just hints that they don't care about their sexual partners. This may be harmful to anybody they get with, unless it's just casual sex. Men who are promiscuous tend to view women as sex objects, for instance, and I wouldn't like being viewed as a notch on the bedpost.
I'd be friends with a promiscuous person, no doubt (unless they were unbearable of course), I just would avoid any other kind of relationship.
Cause sloots be sloots
Because this is not attractive
...that's a taco by the way
...that's a taco by the way
I'd rather not be just another number personally. But as for judging, well everyone has the prerogative to make a judgement and you can't really stop that. I usually don't care enough about whether a random person is a 'slut' or not, be they male or female before any girl jumps down my throat. So in essence I wouldn't judge but if it came down to a relationship I would probably say no.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by StarvingAutist
I wouldn't judge them as such, I just wouldn't want to get in a relationship with them as it would likely go nowhere.
This is a perfectly understandable response. Some people seem to be mixed up and thinking that judging someone negatively is synonyms with thinking someone isn't relationship material.
Original post by michaelhaych
Because this is not attractive
...that's a taco by the way
...that's a taco by the way
So what you're saying is women should be judged entirely by how much pleasure one can get from their vaginas.
Seems totally fair...
Original post by So Instinct
I'd rather not be just another number personally.
So the problem is that it endangers your pride?
If you don't want to be 'just another number' then surely the answer is to not have sex with promiscuous people.
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
