Yeah, I thought the whole "great in bed" line was pretty sad. He's willing to contribute towards promiscuity but not willing to tolerate.
Oh, I don't disagree. The first thing that popped in my head was let's say a woman has serious relationships with 5 men over the course of 10 years. That doesn't seem like a large number. Now, assuming (since this seems like a secular study) that she had sex w/ each of these partners, I wouldn't see how that would necessarily be construed as a casual attitude about sex.k2aggie07 said:
I can't speak for anyone's perception of a low or high number. Just my own.
Promiscuity is related to a casual attitude toward sex. So.. how many people do you have to have sex with before you have a casual attitude toward sex?
I mean... the opposite of casual is serious. How many serious girlfriends does the average person have? Probably 4 or 5?
Madman said:
I know part of why the guys writing caught my eye is because I am getting old. I would have rejected it straight away if I was still college age.
But after watching so many people go through divorces that I know, and looking for reasons why, I can say most of the people I know who are still married are guys who may have been poon hounds while in college or young, but their wives were "good girls".
You never know if these good girls were sleeping around but the ones I am thinking of I don't think did. The divorced friends all married girls I wouldn't think of as ****s but certainly had their fare share of sexual partners.
Quote:
But after watching so many people go through divorces that I know, and looking for reasons why, I can say most of the people I know who are still married are guys who may have been poon hounds while in college or young, but their wives were "good girls".
Quote:
I addressed your question in the next line. You can never know for sure.
swimmerbabe11 said:
I just find the "negative value" thing kind of an appalling way of looking at other people. It's not a marketplace or a stock exchange.
Agreed. Even the most promiscuous woman alive is of infinite value to our Lord.swimmerbabe11 said:
It's an awful and sinful way to look at people around you.
Proverbs 5:1-13swimmerbabe11 said:
It's an awful and sinful way to look at people around you.
Proverbs 7King James Version (KJV)RetiredAg said:Agreed. Even the most promiscuous woman alive is of infinite value to our Lord.swimmerbabe11 said:
It's an awful and sinful way to look at people around you.
There's some truth to that, but even when we aren't using logic in our pursuits of human relationships, we still instinctively pursue forms of utility. Or are you trying to pick up women down at the local nursing home?AstroAg17 said:
The negative value thing is just a utilitarian assessment of someone's social relationships. Some people operate like that. Some don't. I think most are somewhere in between, where they are utilitarian at times and less logical at other times.
I think you misread the point. It wasn't a value judgement about the person, but rather the relationship. If I get married to a woman who is guaranteed to divorce me and take my half my ****, that relationship has a negative expected value. I believe that was what was meant.swimmerbabe11 said:
It's an awful and sinful way to look at people around you.
I think it actually refers to a negative expected value as the probability of divorce is high enough that the expected value is negative due to losing half his crap in divorce.AstroAg17 said:
The negative value thing is just a utilitarian assessment of someone's social relationships. Some people operate like that. Some don't. I think most are somewhere in between, where they are utilitarian at times and less logical at other times.
k2aggie07 said:
This thread reminds me of that old stand up about driving. Anyone going slower than me is an idiot and anyone faster a maniac.
Anyone who has a lower number than me is a prude and anyone higher is a ****.
Okay, I laughed. Well played.AstroAg17 said:Agreed. Jesus loves everyone, even your mom.RetiredAg said:Agreed. Even the most promiscuous woman alive is of infinite value to our Lord.swimmerbabe11 said:
It's an awful and sinful way to look at people around you.
Quote:
The premise: too much promiscuity is a warning flag for a burgeoning relationship.
schmendeler said:
I think if someone had a lot of partners, I would wonder about their risk-taking attitudes. but I also wouldn't expect them to ignore it about me if I had also.
there is a non-trival amount of risk that is undertaken any time you have sex with someone new. After all you are placing yourself in the most vulnerable state you possible can, and typically in unfamiliar physical settings and with an unknown actor.k2aggie07 said:
I'm not sure I agree that sexual activity should be treated the same as any other behavior. Any behavior has risks, and some may be perceived as more inherently risky than others. I'm not sure that the riskiness of the sexual activity is the main reason to disqualify it. There are myriad implications that would make me take risky behavior A (sexual promiscuity) under a different light than risky behavior B (let's say, skydiving).