Is it natural to be a slut?

Scroll to see replies

Hmm, I think both males and females sleeping around is a bad thing, unfair for men to be labelled as a 'lad', while girls are labelled as 'sluts'.

Reply 21

tiamaria2

Original post by TasteLikeChicken

Hmm, I think both males and females sleeping around is a bad thing, unfair for men to be labelled as a 'lad', while girls are labelled as 'sluts'.

Why is it a bad thing, sleeping around?

Reply 22

EllieC130

Technically yeah however being that we're a more self aware species I think there's an identifiable natural and unnatural way one can slut around.

Sleeping around for the sex, typically with single people, is natural.

Sleeping around with people in relationships to show that you can anyone isn't so natural in my opinion as it's less about instinct though it could be argued it links to the idea of competitiviry with a species I guess.

Reply 23

LakAnne

You can't compare humans to animals. We have a brain to think, and even before the advent of religion and what not, I believe controlled polygamy or monogamy was the norm. Firstly, because they was no birth control and child birth hurts. Secondly because they were no DNA tests, and lastly something to do with time investments when raising offspring and emotional feelings of attachments and jealousy. I doubt many animals feel love and jealousy.

Reply 24

DannyYYYY

Original post by LakAnne

Humans are a species in the animal kingdom.

Reply 25

TasteLikeChicken

Original post by tiamaria2

Why is it a bad thing, sleeping around?

Sorry, forgot to say in my opinion.
What I was meant to say is, it should be seen as equal for both, not a negative for women, and a positive for men.
I would just rather be intimate with one special person, than a collection of people I don't care about, that's all I meant to say, no disrespect intended.

Reply 26

P357

Original post by LickingCarpet

Society has always deemed promiscuous behavior to be wrong. Is it not natural to be like this? In the animal kingdom it is instinct to have sex many times with different partners to reproduce, surely human nature is programmed the same way but society has made us see this as being wrong.

1. No they are not. Animals have breeding seasons and even they don't just go for anyone. People don't have specific seasons and we're not 100% the same,only on a biological fundamental level.

2.It is not natural at all. People have evolved to enjoy sex so that they can be driven to seek out a mate to procreate. Procreation and the upbringing of said off-spring is hard-wired as the ultimate goal. Hence the "family unit" and "emotional bond" thing,so that offspring can be taken care off. Hence why women are picky with men (i.e. has to be strong and certain not to bail on providing for his offspring) and why (*normal)men are programmed to prefer less-promiscuous women - to ensure it's his offspring he's providing for yada yada yada. Besides,testosterone is responsible for a high sex-drive and women with a high testosterone level(i.e. dykes) are not appealing(possibly because that would also entail a higher level of aggression which would mean that said woman would make a poor carer for said male's offspring....men are wired to dislike that).

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 27

Birkenhead

I find it irritating that people here are degrading human beings to mere animals which are incapable of restraining their basest natural instincts. Live and let live, of course, but I reject the idea that because rampant ****ing is commonplace in the animal kingdom that this behaviour among humans is therefore objectively justified and even to be encouraged. We are infinitely more intelligent and complex than other animals and I don't think it's overly romantic to expect human beings to afford a meaning to sex that transcends satisfying primal urges but is an expression of exclusive intimacy and affection for loved ones.

However, the argument that promiscuity is natural is not at all convincing in the first place. Not only are there swathes of species which lead monogamous sexual lives - I struggle to think of many truly promiscuous animals at all - but from a human evolutionary perspective, evolution being the source of all of our instincts and urges, it makes no sense at all to sleep around for men or women. For men, sleeping around would continue your genes in the short term but you would be spread over too much bread and without being able to support the women and children there would presumably be a good chance that the offspring would not survive infancy to continue your line. For women, pregnancy is only possibly every 9 months so promiscuous sex achieves nothing for continuing the species, and Maid Marian's much lambasted idea that it's natural for women to be more discriminate is spot on because without a stable and industrious man to feed and protect the family at all times, the woman and child would be vulnerable to predation and other dangers.

There would also presumably be a greater chance of illness and death among those who slept around as a result of STD's.

Evolutionarily, humans have piss all to gain from promiscuous sex and risk much, and since our instincts and urges are products of evolution it makes no logical sense to say that sleeping around is natural on any scientific basis I can see. If you want to be a slut then power to you but ask yourself why you feel the need to justify it to others from a flimsy scientific standpoint if there is nothing that in your heart of hearts you find questionable about it.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 28

ChaoticButterfly

Is everyone also against condoms for being unnatural?

Should we all be living up trees?

Reply 29

karmacrunch

Original post by ChaoticButterfly

Is everyone also against condoms for being unnatural?

Should we all be living up trees?

We would have an influx of children.

Loads of people would fall put of them... for various reasons. :rolleyes:

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 30

ChaoticButterfly

Original post by karmacrunch

We would have an influx of children.

Loads of people would fall put of them... for various reasons. :rolleyes:

Posted from TSR Mobile

They were rhetorical questions.

Basically this thread is stupid.

Also people are forgetting genetics is not the only thing that drives us or evolves. You have environment and societal factors. Evidently quite a large chunk of women do sleep around. The need for a women to only have sex with someone she deems fit in terms of whether he will stick around is minimized when contraception and safe abortions exist. Here the environmental and societal factors have changed. Having a fling for women is not really risky in terms of disease or getting pregnant compared to how it used to be. Evolution is about adaption, humans can adapt and have sex just for fun if they so wish with whatever evolutionary consequences that may have. There is no right vs wrong way, just accidents.

Basically the environmental effects of being able to control when you get pregnant and social progress in terms of attitudes to women and sex can have a massive effect on the sexual activities of human societies. Whatever happens... is natural.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 31

zKlown

Original post by LickingCarpet

It's not bad in my eyes, but I understand why say a father would be concerned if their daughter acted in a certain way. It's a dangerous society.

We live in social constructs that if you really go into them are weird. Clothes are weird, they serve no purpose and we're only "offended" by nakedness because we've being brought up to think like that. Again not saying this is wrong, I guess we're not wild animals anymore.

Reply 32

karmacrunch

Original post by ChaoticButterfly

I realised. I just wanted to answer them. :rolleyes:

Agreed with you for the vast majority of it. :yep:

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 33

Birkenhead

Original post by ChaoticButterfly

Condoms and safe abortions have been around for decades. If you are suggesting at the end of the first large paragraph that evolutionary instinct can be 'adapted' over this time period then I would suggest purchasing subscriptions to several educational scientific magazines at the very least.

As for how human sexual activity changes as society changes, you seem to have missed the point of the thread: whether promiscuous sex is natural; not whether it is commonplace or less risky nowadays than it was in the past.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 34

Viva Emptiness

I often look to the animal kingdom to justify my behaviour.

Which is why I have no problem telling you that not only am I slut, but I also eat my young.

Reply 35

ChaoticButterfly

Original post by Birkenhead

I assume by evolutionary instinct you mean how we are genetically hardwired. You are making the assumption that the reason women may be more picky and only have sex with a long term partner are down to pure genetics. This could be wrong. I would say environment and society play a big part as well. Plus there is the fact lots of women have casual sex both now and have done in the past. So there are obviously many factors involved.

I'm talking about social structures evolving and changing due to a change in the environment (contraception/abortion access for example). Natural section is a process that applies to many things, not just genetics. Even if it was all genetics based sexual attitudes are changing and if this was caused primary by genetics then genetics must be changing.

Ideas can evolve as well. The ideas that stick get passed on. In the last 50 years with all the feminism and jazz has seen the idea that women should be able to have sex with who they like and have access to contraception and abortions become more predominant.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 36

Cornelius

Natural means something given by nature and does not involve human agency. I assume this is the meaning of natural you're using. For example earthquakes are natural. Puberty is natural.

Things which involve human agency aren't natural. For example, my playing piano is not natural. My eating with forks is not natural. And so on.

Now tell me who the **** REALLY cares whether being a "slut" (by which I suppose you mean promiscuous) is natural or not? what does "natural" have to do with being "bad"? why are you using "natural" to mean "good" (or conversely, "unnatural" to mean "bad") when it doesn't?

Reply 37

TheAnusFiles

Original post by Kabulkid

cos god didn't say it is...

which god

Reply 38

pjm600

Original post by LickingCarpet

That's a tad sexist.

So's life.

The established theory is that as men produce large amounts of sperm they don't need to be as selective with who they procreate with. Women on the other hand invest a lot more in procreation, as in they could die during childbirth etc, so need to insure their offspring are looked after.

From an evolutionary psychology standpoint it's expected that generally men will be more promiscuous than women.