I didn't explain myself very well there.

Risk has properties of probability of occurrence for the identified risk and the severity of the consequence, right? In that way, any behavior can be compared to any other on a pure risk basis. You're suggesting the promiscuity is a problem only because it has high probability, high consequence risk attributes, and that it would be comparable to other high probability, high consequence risk behaviors.

My point is that what you're actually describing is just a lack of judgment or a dangerously high risk tolerance (conscious or no) -- that itself is the risk factor. All the other risky behavior is consequential to that.

On the other hand, what I'm saying is that there are concerns beyond the risk associated with promiscuity. Even if, hypothetically, we had perfect birth control and STD prevention (effectively eliminating the majority of risks of promiscuity) a person who was "very" promiscuous ("very" being underdefined so far in this conversation) would still be problematic for me.

If you have 100% perfect contraception and no std's, attitudes towards sex would so completely transformed sleeping with a bunch of random chicks wouldn't be seen as anymore dangerous behavior as having random homeless people sleep on your couch (which is to say not insignificantly risky) or emotional risky as kissing someone (which is to say not significantly risky.)

Sex would still be a significant risky undertaking due to the vulnerable state that is required to conduct it. And a large number partners would be interpreted as having poor risk management skills.

k2aggie07 said:

---

Still not seeing my point. Forget risks. Hypothetical risk free sex environment promiscuity would still be troublesome to me.

---

You seem to be missing my point. There is no such thing, not could there ever be, a risk free sexual experience. Sex is risky. Sex will always be risky. I am not discounting the fact that there are very real evolutionary reasons why you find promiscuous female behavior bothersome.

I am just saying that I find other excessive behaviors to be just as likely to make me believe that someone of either sex is probably a bad investment of my time as promiscuity and that promsicuity is overrated as a warning flag than day something like being overly consumed by the idea of getting married. In my 20s I would probably feel safer dating a chick that had 50 partners than a single chick that had a subscription to "modern bride" and was a virgin.

In my 30s, I wouldn't even consider dating a virgin and I would rather have dated a chick that slept around than one that married and divorced her high school sweetheart.

In my 40s, I don't give a single care about how many people someone has slept with as long as they are clean.

I can't not think of this.

Duncan Idaho said:

---

k2aggie07 said:

---

Still not seeing my point. Forget risks. Hypothetical risk free sex environment promiscuity would still be troublesome to me.

---

You seem to be missing my point. There is no such thing, not could there ever be, a risk free sexual experience. Sex is risky. Sex will always be risky. I am not discounting the fact that there are very real evolutionary reasons why you find promiscuous female behavior bothersome.

I am just saying that I find other excessive behaviors to be just as likely to make me believe that someone of either sex is probably a bad investment of my time as promiscuity and that promsicuity is overrated as a warning flag than day something like being overly consumed by the idea of getting married. In my 20s I would probably feel safer dating a chick that had 50 partners than a single chick that had a subscription to "modern bride" and was a virgin.

In my 30s, I wouldn't even consider dating a virgin and I would rather have dated a chick that slept around than one that married and divorced her high school sweetheart.

In my 40s, I don't give a single care about how many people someone has slept with as long as they are clean.

---

The hypothetical I'm putting forward is to ignore the risk component. Make it anything else you like -- enjoying honey, believing that Radiohead is awesome, whatever -- things present information to us about people's priorities, proclivities, what have you that may or may not be related to the compatibility of their risk appetite or their judgment relating to risk.

What I'm suggesting is that even if promiscuity presents absolutely no change to a person's risk "profile" or appetite or judgment, it still gives us information about that person. And, for me, a person who engages in a high level of promiscuous behavior presents troublesome information for me. Where an individuals' threshold is for what is a "high level" is not really relevant. The point is - that we're talking about more than risk.

I think we're close to the same thing in what you're describing. You're no longer talking about risk, but about what a person's attitudes toward sex say about them. Which is exactly what I was getting at.

Bro - check you emails and such. Wow thats a lot of notifications.

Quote:

---

f you have 100% perfect contraception and no std's

---

A very interesting convo on this topic.

I believe there lies a fundamental that is not accepted across everyone though.

What is sex?

A simple question sure, but the implications are enormous. It is so easy to tie in all sorts of emotional connotations to it. Let's say you have a wife/husband of 20 years that you love without equal. Do y'all still call it sex? Do y'all make love? Do y'all ****?

Sex in itself is an act. Now what each individual holds special to that act is where all of the difference lies. In my eyes it is possible to have sex, make love, and ****. Each is fundamentally different to me and so the after effects are different as well. Every instance is different so umbrella statements just can't apply. i.e.

Quote:

---

Promiscuous women are terrible for long term relationships. They get to a point where they just want to be punished in bed and they have little self respect. What they turn to for "redemption" is a lust for power. Everything is a power struggle. Nobody plays mind games like an attractive woman who sleeps around. When they're done ****ing you they turn to ****ing you over. But this all leads to severe bondage in the end. It's definitely not liberating. Eventually they end up alone with their house cats. It's very sad.

---

from 7thGT.

This is such a fallacy that it is laughable.

What I will say has been measured is that women AND men who are victims of sexual abuse have a higher chance of leading to abnormal behavior and thoughts regarding sex. I would factor these victims as outliers to the whole however.

Another big part of this divide is the very real mental divide amongst generations. Within mine it is common to engage in pre-marital sex and even encouraged by most. By all standards I am "Promiscuous" myself and so are the majority of my friends. Both men and women. Sex can be a beautiful and emotional event to us. It can also be a nice stress reliever with absolutely no attachments whatsoever. Like a handshake.

So overall I am not really arguing against the original assertion, but against the fact that ALL cases are like that. Which is simply untrue.

Eliminatus said:

---

By all standards I am "Promiscuous" myself and so are the majority of my friends. Both men and women. Sex can be a beautiful and emotional event to us. It can also be a nice stress reliever with absolutely no attachments whatsoever. Like a handshake.

---

Curious: are you a man or a woman?

The disparity here is the ability of almost any woman to get laid on almost any night. Have a bad day, go to a bar, you can pick up someone almost guaranteed.

In the ancient past, this is less of a problem, as wives were not social equals, and it was perfectly acceptable to keep your wife at home, or have her escorted by friends / family if she goes out. You had the ability to enforce faithfulness.

Today, that doesn't jive. Women are rightfully considered as social equals. But, it is too easy for women to cheat. I want a women who jealously guards her faithfulness, it has to be one of the most important values she has, otherwise, the world is just too full of temptation. There is zero friction to keep you honest if you decide on a random bad day to slip, and the consequences are disastrous.

I find it hard to believe that you can spend your college years disassociating the emotional connections that are prevalent with sexual relationships, making sex a casual thing, and then turn a switch and make sexual purity / faithfulness one of the most important priorities in your life. And make no mistake, I will / would not marry a woman unless faithfulness was one of the top priorities in her life. Granted, some of that comes from religious belief. But, even if you are not religious, why would you agree to get married to a woman unless you are sure that she is going to abide by the contract to be monogamous? Just shack up otherwise. It will cost you less when things do go bad.

If I was in the market, there might be a girl that could convince me that she turned this switch. But, it would take a very long time to convince me, and she would be behind the curve when it came to competing suitors.

Some of the arguments exist for men, but they are just a bit less dangerous, simply because most men have to compete against other men in the room for a one night tryst (unless he pays cash for it).

I'm not sure your point is really valid. Most women have standards just as most men have standards. If you want to go out and have sex, you'll be able to, man or woman, so long as you have no standards.

Dr. Watson said:

---

I'm not sure your point is really valid. Most women have standards just as most men have standards. If you want to go out and have sex, you'll be able to, man or woman, so long as you have no standards.

---

Yes, we all have standards - no one is denying that.

I think the point is that all a woman has to do to find a partner is simply announce that she wants to have sex with someone and a line of willing men materialize and she will pick the most desirable man (or men), whereas if a man does the same thing there will be a very different reaction from all the women.

If a woman did that at a bar today, men would line up to ask for STD testing and make crude jokes about her.

A person today, regardless of gender can easily find sex without paying for it if they want it. Download tinder or bumble or whatever and it is pretty apparent pretty quick who is looking for a date and who is looking to get laid..and they find each other pretty fast. Although, when you look across the bar/club, it seems like it isn't all that different in person either.

(I had typed this out more eloquently, but I lost it )

Quote:

---

If a woman did that at a bar today, men would line up to ask for STD testing and make crude jokes about her.

---

Even so, she would still find a partner. If a man did that, he is much less likely to find an interested partner.

Quote:

---

A person today, regardless of gender can easily find sex without paying for it if they want it. Download tinder or bumble or whatever and it is pretty apparent pretty quick who is looking for a date and who is looking to get laid..and they find each other pretty fast.

---

And take all the fun of flirting, charm, and "seduction" out of the equation.

Quote:

---

Although, when you look across the bar/club, it seems like it isn't all that different in person either.

---

What bars or clubs have you been to? It is pretty apparent that women are in control of this market. Who gets in free? Who generally has to approach whom? Who generally has to pick up the tab? etc?