"Promiscuous" isn't a sexual orientation. Many women, and men, have a strong sex drive. Acting on it is something completely different entirely.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I never called it an orientation, I referred to it as sexuality. It is. I think telling someone not to act on their natural sex drive is just as ridiculous as telling someone not to act on their natural sexual orientation. Neither are anyone's business.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Perhaps rape is someone's natural orientation. The difference between being promiscuous and sexuality is the same as the difference between rape and sexuality: morals and self control. For both there are people who don't think it's morally wrong, but who don't do it because of it's negative connotations. Really, sleeping around isn't healthy anyway. So why should one be protected as a "sexuality" and not the other? And before you say it's because promiscuity doesn't have a victim, I'd like to reiterate that it's unhealthy, and the person doing it is at risk. Just like a meth user, which is illegal.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I feel like you completely misread and misunderstood my post. EXCLUDING SEXUAL PERVERSIONS. That answers your ridiculous rape comparison. Also, I'm mainly addressing the idea that women who sleep around are "sluts" which is completely sexist. Amd morality has no place in this argument. It's too subjective. As for self control, who are you to say they have none? Just because people enjoy having casual sex doesn't mean that they lack control. It means they like having sex. And where are you getting the idea that sleeping around is unhealthy? Having sex has multiple health benefits for both men and women. If you are being safe it doesn't matter if you have one partner or dozens. The "risk" is still there if you only have one partner your entire life because they could cheat on you. (I assume you meant STDs?) But again if you're safe, responsible, and not hurting anyone, people shouldn't judge because your sexuality doesn't change who you are as a person. Your good qualities aren't erased and your bad qualities aren't magnified. There's absolutely nothing wrong with having a healthy sex life. And no, sex is not comparable to Meth.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I got that, but who are you to say sexual perversions are any worse? That's like making an argument, and ending it with "And I know you could use this as an argument, but you can't now because I'm making it the one exception for no reason". The only possible reason you could have is that the general population agrees on it, which is meaningless in this situation. And if this was meant to be about sexism, why didn't you at all mention double standards, men, or sexism at all? The only possible argument you could have against perversions is morality. Without morality in play, we can't argue anything is right or wrong. There's also unwanted pregnancies, both of which could happen with multiple partners. If you have one, you can find out if they have STDs, and deal with having a baby more responsible. And there are no health benefits that you wouldn't get from masturbation. And yes, sleeping around does. Someone who takes a lot of their life to find people to sleep with is inherently different from someone not doing that. And you can't just debunk my argument for no bloody reason. "You can't compare sex to meth because I say so" is not a reason.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

What the hell do you mean "without morality"? Sexual acts including sexual deviancy that doesn't hurt anybody is none of your damn business. You shouldn't judge people by what they do in the privacy of there own home that has no effect on you. Sex can have risks; there is no denying that. However, if you take the necessary precautions you can ensure your safety. For example, you can avoid STIs by wearing protection and getting your partners screened for STIs before hand. You can avoid pregnancy by using multiple forms of birth control, avoiding vaginal sex, only having same-sex relations or just happening to be naturally infertile. What proof do you have that having more sexual partners makes you inherently different from having few or no sexual partners? That's the most judgemental thing I've ever heard.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Please keep up. OP has mentioned several times that she doesn't want morality to be in play in this, which kind of baffles me, but I'm rolling with it. Hence my meth argument that she so readily dismissed. I'm not saying I'm against promiscuity. I'm against the logic portrayed in the post. Because risk, however minutely, increases partner to partner. It can NOT be judged on the same level as orientation. Everything someone does makes them "different". Blinking once is different from blinking twice. I'm not saying one is better. However, if you spend a lot of time doing something, it becomes part of who you are, even if just a small part. If two people lived completely identical lives, until one of them had sex, that would, by definition, be different.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Sorry. I read the posts before it and I understand what you were referring to when you address the whole morality thing. The risk of STIs only increases with every partner if there's a chance your partner has an STI. If your partner tested negative for STIs your chance of getting an STI from him/her are essentially 0, no matter how many partners you've had before. Still, you contract diseases from door knobs. It would be kind of ridiculous to let the small risk of getting a disease prevent you from ever having protected sex. (Unless it's AIDs your dealing with). If what you meant by the last paragraph was people who abstain and people who are sexually forward are different but neither is superior, then I agree with you.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Fair enough. There are a lot of posts being thrown about. Again, fair. But we're going for the average person, who meets in, say, a bar. How promiscuous is someone who has all of their partners tested going to be? I'm sure a few are, but I doubt that applies to the majority. And yes, you could, but you can't get a disease just from being gay. I'd also say you can't compare the miniscule risks of doorknob touching to the literally non-existent risks of just being gay. That's exactly what I meant. Say you take an American, and an Australian. Both know everything about their home lands. In that case, it would be unfair to judge them exclusively on their knowledge of America. I'm not saying one is better, I'm just saying there are differences that come into play between two equal parties.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Rape isn't even motivated by a strong sex drive; it's about power and dominance. There's a reason why rape is commonly used in warfare. Also, if you're going to bring morality into it, it's difficult to make the argument that promiscuity alone harms anyone. Rape, on the other hand, is almost universally understood as harmful and is used with that intent in mind.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Rape isn't always inspired by sex drive. That first mean it doesn't happen. And no, it's not. Remember my whole sex/ meth thing? You're yet to argue that. And what about when it's not? There do exist cases where rape is just someone forcing sex on someone they want it, based on sex drive, no harm intended. Should that be excused?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I figured someone would bring up bestiality or pedophilia, so I added that phrase to cut them off because that's obviously not what I'm talking about. Rape is more often a crime of anger and dominance, not a crime of passion. I still say morality has no place in this argument, but the LAW sure as hell does. If no one is being victimized then there's nothing to butt your nose into. I made sure to specify women in my post, and I'm pretty sure most people understood what I meant by that. Finally, sex is SO MUCH more than just "insert penis into vagina" and the older you get the more you'll understand it isn't so black and white. Yes, you can masturbate. You can also mutually masturbate with another. It's still a sexual act, and there will be no babies. And no, I'm sorry but the Meth thing is silly.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

So? It's still part of someone's sexuality. Just because it throws off your argument doesn't mean you can pretend it doesn't exist. If you're judging on the grounds of sexuality alone, that would include perversions. And because what's considered perverted is objective, it derails your post. Yes, but not always. There are exceptions. Like you go on to say about sex, rape too isn't black and white. The law has shit all to do with this argument. I really hope you're not stupid enough to think everything illegal is wrong. Remember, laws are based on archaic morals. And you're potentially victimizing yourself. I didn't say it's wrong, but just like I said about meth, what you're doing to yourself comes into play. I know what sex is, thanks. Mutually masturbating with someone isn't sex. It's still masturbation. We're talking about actual sex, here. If you wanted to include everything related, you should've included it as such. I really can't take anything you say seriously if you're just going to dismiss my arguments as "silly". If I can't make this comparison, you have to provide some real reason as to why.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Son, I gotta be honest with you. It kinda feels like you're just pulling things out of your ass just to argue. In my scenario nobody is being victimized. What two (or more) consenting adults do sexually is their business and they don't deserve to be judged for it. That's what my post is about. My post is true and my logic is sound. I say morality is subjective because some asshole will come along and say "oh but god hates fags" and I want to avoid that. I brought up the law because rape is punishable. Pedophilia is punishable. Promiscuity is not but (as far as women are concerned) it's treated like a crime. Those women are belittled and it's not cool. Btw, not all laws are archaic. And no, I'm not stupid enough to think that just because it's illegal it's wrong, I honestly don't know why you even said that. As for the mutual masturbation thing, I didn't call it sex I called it a sexual act. That's the third time you misquoted me. The only point in your favor is that you're right about perversions being subjective. I should've said harmful perversions, but everyone (but you) seemed to know what I meant.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Really? Because too me it seems like they way you worded your post has nothing to do with what it's supposed to mean, and now you're blindly insulting my arguments in the hopes they're disappear and leave you victorious. I'm not saying anyone is necessarily being victimized. I'm saying that, because of the fact that even a small risk exists, you can't compare it to sexuality. Being gay has no risk. Promiscuity does. I'm not saying I'm against promiscuity, I'm against the very incorrect logic you used to come to the same conclusion. It doesn't matter if they're archaic. All that matters is that laws in general stem from morality. Really. And you think I'm full of shit...Because not only did not mention rape being wrong for any reasons other than it being illegal, you capitalized LAW. You're the one who put fucking emphasis on the fact that laws should guide behaviors. I merely bridged that to the fact that we have laws mainly for moral reasons. If it wasn't considered wrong to rape, it wouldn't be illegal. You said that sex wasn't exclusively penis in vagina, then you said that. I made the natural assumption you passed 3rd grade. and that they were placed together for a reason.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

For the last time I referred to them both as sexuality because THAT'S WHAT THEY BOTH ARE. And involvement in (not harmful) sexual activity doesn't have anything to do with who you are as a person. That's what my post is. You're arguing semantics when I already agreed I could've been more specific. And again most people knew what I meant so I don't know why you're harping. I capitalized law because of the rape thing which really was ridiculous. And I disagree. Laws are more about an agreed upon set of ethical rules, not morality. Morals are more personal. And sex is more than penetration. But I stated myself correctly and you misread. Lol And yes I did pass 3rd grade, thanks. But this is going nowhere. You disagree with my wording and that's fine.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Okay. Let's say you take an American who knows everything about America, and an Australian, who knows everything about Australia, and we give the the "Human Worth Exam", which is actually just a lot of questions about America. Is it fair to compare the two based on that? I mean, they're both human? No, because it's deeper than that, in both cases. Just like not everything applies to all humans, not everything applies equally to all thins sexual. And it could. You're yet to rebut the fact that I've brought up STDs and unwanted pregnancies countless times. You haven't said anything of the sorts. The fact that your post is worded horribly is the only real argument I've been making. If you admit I was right, trust me, I'd know. It's not about what you meant. What if you said "I hate the Jews" and meant "I hate anti-Semitics"? Just because everyone else got it doesn't mean wording matters. And don't even say you can't compare the two. It was exaggerated for emphasis. Okay, I checked thesaurus.com to make sure I'm accurate in saying this... Moral and ethical are fucking synonyms. Do you understand half the words I'm saying?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I didn’t misquote you. To do that, I’d have to have attempted to quote you. All I did was extrapolate data from what you said. To say not all sex is penis in vagina and then say something that you’re now denying was an example is as random as saying “I like turtles. The sky is blue.” If they’re not bloody related, why’d you say it at all? As I’ve said a million fucking times, promiscuous sex CAN be harmful. Being gay on it’s own can’t. On that note, there could be someone out there who’s just desperate to be raped, and would welcome it openly. In that case, it’s not necessarily harmful. You have no idea what you’re talking about.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Having sex is not unhealthy! It's a natural biological process. It can involve risks, but if you act with tact and caution and are prepared to deal with the consequnces it can be pretty darn safe. If you are educated and responsible you can protect yourself against STIs and pregnancy. Rape is not a natural orientation. Rape is a crime. End of story. For the love of all things holy, don't compare sex to meth and rape. How the hell did 5 people YYA that anyway?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I'm not saying it's unhealthy. I said there are risks. Yes, but this is about promiscuity. There's nothing wrong with being safe, and I'm not even saying I disagree with the conclusion of this post. It's how you get there. No matter how safe you are, there's an inherent risk associated with sleeping around that just isn't there with the parts of your sexuality you can't control, so you can't compare the two. This post says nothing about orientations. It says sexuality. Whether it's right or wrong (I'd like to clarify I do believe it's wrong before I get called a rapist), crime has nothing to do with it, and doesn't inherently make it unnatural. Laws are decided by people. People can, have, and will make mistakes. Because that's what rape is. Forced sex. No matter how terrible, you can't blind yourself to what it really is.And I'm comparing it negatively. I'm saying that if you applied her logic to rape, you'd be justifying rape. That's what all my comments have been about. Her faulty logic.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

The logic is this: it's not bad if you do it in the privacy of your own home and it doesn't harm others. That logic could not ever apply to rape because rape very obviously brings harms to others. It's not faulty logic, it's the truth. I'm very curious how you define promiscuity. I've always thought promiscuity meant being sexually forward, making sexual advances or frequently engaging in sexual activity. All of those things are perfectly safe and healthy so long as you take precautions like the ones I mentioned before. If you define promiscuity as making reckless decisions about sex that will cause harm to you and others, I'd agree that promiscuity is bad. However, I still wouldn't judge people for promiscuity even then. I think it's stupid to judge people for their personal health decisions. That's why I don't judge people who smoke and eat fast food daily. It's their body and it's not my business.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

What it says is that, perversions excluded, sexuality is nothing to be ashamed of. My problem is how she can arbitrarily say perversions are bad but promiscuity specifically isn't. What makes something a "perversion" isn't set in stone. There are people who would consider promiscuity a perversion. It's too liberal a definition to have any contextually useful meaning. This post says literally nothing about harming others. If it did, I'd of YYA'd. I was comparing to to rape using ONLY the wording of the post. Precautions fail. Let's use unwanted pregnancy as an example. Every time you have sex, protected or not, you are more likely to have an unwanted pregnancy on your hands. Most things that can have a life-alteringly negative affect on yourself is illegal. Hence meth. Of course, that's not getting into the insanely pro-life religious aspects. Let's say you take two people. All you know about P1 is that they're straight, and very promiscuous. All you know about P2 is that they're homosexual. whose more likely to have an STD? I'm not saying all promiscuous people are whore, but all whores are promiscuous. Neither gay or promiscuous are inherently good or bad...

by Anonymous 12 years ago

(Part 2) but they are different, and should be judged on different criteria. You can’t hold one to the criteria of the other. Neither do I. But I do see where people come from when they do. And looking through that mindset, can you understand how someone who supports someones sexuality, which that person has no control over, could not support someone who chooses to have promiscuous sex, at the slight risk of STDs or unwanted pregnancies?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I would be concerned if someone very close to me was making poor decisions about sex because I'd feel obligated to look out for their welfare. However, I generally don't care what other people's sex lives are like. I look at more important factors like courage and intelligence.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

If they were close to me, I'd offer my input. If it were so extreme they harmed themselves or other, I may attempt to rehabilitate them. Otherwise, live and let live.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I'm not really sure what you are arguing. Cuban_B seems to be arguing that it's stupid to judge someone's worth based on their sexuality-whether they be gay or promiscuous women. I'm not sure which part of that you disagree with. I know precautions can fail when you have sex. However, unwanted pregnancy was a poor example considering there are tons of ways to have sex with 0 risk of pregnancy: oral, anal, manual, ect.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I disagree with how she arrived at that conclusion. For example, I support gay rights and personally think that turtles are the best animal ever. So no matter what I think about turtles, I wouldn't agree with a post saying "Turtles are the best animal ever because God hates fags, amirite" And that was a mismatched, exaggerated example, but I hope you at least see what I'm getting at.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Sleeping around isn't unhealthy unless you get an STD in the same way that driving isn't unhealthy unless you get into a car crash. The point is about being safe. Of course people who have a lot of sex are at risk! People who drive a lot, eat a lot, and run a lot are also at risk, and the risk of contracting an STD is arguably much easier to minimize than the risk of car crashes, high cholesterol, or injured knees.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Yes, but I'm talking about risk factor. The odds of getting in a car crash are still infinitely more than the odds being gay alone will get you an STD. That's my point. This isn't about all that other stuff. Again, I don't disagree with the conclusion. Just the premise.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Sexuality: Capacity for sexual feelings A person's sexual orientation or preference Sexual activity https://www.google.com/search?q=define%3A+sexuality&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=hL6&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&q=sexuality&tbs=dfn:1&tbo=u&sa=X&ei=wA8rT8TKNMvsggeH8YX9Dw&ved=0CCwQkQ4&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.,cf.osb&fp=4ba478218c7d231c&biw=1240&bih=553 So your sex life and the choice you make about it are part of your sexuality.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I didn't say they weren't. So are sexual perversions. My problem was with how only objective opinion could include one and not the other, and because of that, this post has no real grounds.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I'm trying to understand what you are saying. Are you asking how a person can believe sexual promiscuity is okay while rape is not okay? Because rape is very obviously destructive and harmful because it makes other people suffer while consensual sex is just a private matter. Did I misunderstand you?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Definitely not. I'm all for people deciding who they want to sleep with. Promiscuity is perfectly okay with me. I may have done a bad job of portraying it, but I am actually incredibly accepting of others lifestyles. My only problem is how she drew the conclusion. I only compared it to rape because I do support the freedom to be promiscuous, and I don't support the "freedom" to rape. I was drawing the contrast because her argument could've applied to either, and I disagreed because I don't believe in logic that can justify rape.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

What exactly would your definition of a sexual perversion be? Many people (not me) consider homosexuality a perversion, I'm sure some consider excessive promiscuity a perversion as well.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Bestialilty, pedophilia, and things like that where someone or something is being victimized.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Sexual perversions mean different things to different people. Anything except missionary sex in the marriage bed could be considered a perversion. I think it would have been better to say, "As long as everyone (meaning the people having sex) is cool with, it's none of your damn business."

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Yeah, true. I probably could've worded this better, but I tend to be long winded and I tried to keep it as concise as possible. But to be honest, I'm not sure if what you said was much better because a 13 year old could be cool with doing a 40 year. I just feel like that should be other people's business.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

True. I figured it was implied that I was talking about people over the age of consent. Personally, I don't care who you have sex with or how you have sex as long as no one could get arrested.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

If a "promiscuous" woman likes to have sex, there's nothing wrong with her going out and getting laid. Like really who cares? As long as she's safe and not getting in the way of anyone's relationship, it's really fine. Why are people so invested in each others' sex lives? Whether they're fucking someone of their own gender or just fucking a lot, it's none of your business. If your biggest issue is with someone you don't know doing something that hurts no one, you need to go out and get yourself a life.

by Anonymous 12 years ago