Why do you think that promiscuity in both men and women is not an attractive trait? Or rather, why is it frowned upon by most religions? Was this always this way, or was there a time when we were at an ease with sex to the same extent of some monkeys?
Because humans are very jealous creatures, who don't like to share much of anything. That's what I think.
There are several reasons as to why that is the case. I'll cite some reasons I think: -lack of respect for oneself and others (you care that little about yourself to where you will just give yourself away to anyone and everyone you can/you care that little about others to commit to them) -STDs (nothing more needs to be said about that) -whether one wants to admit it or not, sex and emotions are intertwined. Granted some have the ability to totally separate the two, but most see them as intertwined. I don't know anyone who wouldn't be hurt if the person they were with decided to be promiscuous with a bunch of partners. -religions have their own reasons for frowning on it; *most religions have some sort of core morality *ancient men wanted to be able to have better control over their women, so frowning upon promiscuity was a way to keep their women from straying. Playing with sex is playing with emotions. And playing with emotions is like playing with fire, a mischeivous fire. Probably not.
Cellar_Door the reason its frowned on by religion is that pre the RCC pray was achived through sex, women being seen as divine because of there ability to make new life. The patriachal church didnt like this because it was a threat to there own power (and most specifically the goals of emporer Constines desire to use the church as another avinue for his OWN power) That being said there are biological reasons at least for jelousy in monomous relationships, that is a dilution of resorces be those reproductive (in the case of a man's jelousy) or finatial (in the case of a womens). This doesnt prohibit poligiomous relationships which both increase the mans chances of reproducing and also increase the resorces avilable to the offspring of that relationship (more protectors means greater chance of surving to reach adulthood)
Because politics and religion have been pretty much the same thing through out human history, and ownership of females had to be enforced to continue patrilineal dynasties.
since promiscuity effectively creates (or destroys) family units, and family units effectively determine issues of land subsistence/economic demands, promiscuity will continue to deeply dye the social environment of any reasonably advanced society.
I'm sure that you realize that that attitude is slowly changing in the western cultures, right? Baron Max
If promiscuity was not an attractive trait it would be hard to be promiscuous. I notice also that we have not defined the word. At what number of sexual interactions does each person here think someone moves from acceptable sexual activity to promiscuity? Or are there other criteria?
Anyone who's had sex with more partners than I have is promiscuous. Anyone who has sex in any way that I don't is a pervert. 1111
Girls who are promiscuous are hos. Because they sleep with anybody, they are not as attractive as girls who are selective. I guess mainly because girls who are selective express less desperation. Which makes for better personality. Which is attractive. Desperate sleazy hos are not attractive. They have personalities that aren't really exciting.
Now that i think about it. People like the promiscuous when it suits them, like if your looking for a one night stand. It just isn't a favorable trait for a long term relationship. Because you'd get jealous, having to share your sexual partner and all. (People get jealous when they have to share their partner emotionally). Just jealous, jealous, jealous all of the time, we don't want to share anything.
This is either redundant or incorrect. I know 'ho' is a term used to shit on women who very likely do not get paid to have sex. But then your sentence reads 'girls who are promiscous are promiscuous. Meaning they are like guys. And the last thing guys want is someone who is like them. What guys want is one set of girls they can be promiscuous with and another set of girls they can fall in love with. This latter group makes the guys feel less ugly because they are nice, innocent mirrors, rather than the more honest mirrors of the 'ho's. As would the guys who are promiscuous, since sex with a number of partners has some sort of biological uglification effect. And the last thing a guy wants to see is his own desperation mirrored back to him. He wants to tap it when he can, but that just, you know, a physical thing, like eating fast food or something. A guy knows where to go for love and she ain't giving it away. She makes him scared he ain't good enough. That's love. Their personalities would be like men's. And we know what those personalities are like... I am hoping your post was ironic. Then it's all gravity, bro.
And anyone who doesn't have sex with me is a bitch. (not quite sure what it would be for a woman speaker)
I'd say if the number of partners one has had meets or exceeds their age in years is a good start. Example, a 25 year old woman who has been with 25 partners or more.
Maybe promiscuity is threatening because 1) people tend to hate when others have freedoms they don't have or allow themselves, so those freedoms must be judged bad 2) a woman who has slept with a bunch of guys seems likely to know what she wants in bed and has enountered a number of penises, some of them large, so it might seem like she is in a better position - ha, ha - to judge performance.
I'm glad of these same things. But you are talking about literal prostitutes and I'm not sure why. The guys above were jammin' on hos.
I don't understand the word 'slob', here. Why do you assume people who sleep with _______ people are being used? Do you call anyone ho? What did they do to deserve the label?
