-
Lacks a stable partner, therefore the lifestyle offers no security.
-
Diminishes the sacredness of sex.
Anything else people might like to add?
How do you get from 1 and 2 to promiscuity being destructive?
How do you know sex is sacred?
How do you know stability=security?
In every argument, there are common grounds upon which to fight.
If you are so detached from reality that you don’t know how to stand on common ground, there is no point to have an argument in the first place.
Please submit your case on the virtues of promiscuity.
You didn’t say who or what it was destructive for. If we’re talking about the individual then isn’t “security” completely subjective and either someone may not wish security in their lives in which case it is not “destructive” or someone’s idea of security may be attainable without a stable partner.
Again does having multiple sexual partners diminish the sacredness of sex, or does having sex with the same person multiple times - so much so that it becomes nothing more than a routine - diminish the “sacredness” of sex. Is masturbation sacred?
Marriage also has the ability to be destructive. Marriage, the opposite of promiscuity.
Over a lifetime a man is capable of falling in love with many women, and vice versa. Each one of these loves has the capability of being sacred within the context of sexuality.
The practice is mentally distructive for all the parties involved.
Promiscuous people have sex with multiple partners on a continuous basis are not emotionally committed to any one partner. And is likely to have trouble developing a committed relationship.
Marriage is a bondage. When people marry, they become each other’s property. And they develop trust.
sex is a powerful, emotional expression. If one does it with many people, it becomes “nothing more than a routine”. While marriage is more than sex. Marriage is never destructive if one marries the right person.
If A has sex with multiple partners, then no one partner can claim A is their wholly property. That diminishes the bond between A and any given partner.
How would me asking you to clarify your argument mean that i am detached from reality?
Ever read any Plato?
If the ground is common, why would anyone fight over it? Do all arguments involve debate?
GCT.
you are asking fundamental questions, like the relationship between stablility and security. Which I think is obvious. But I’ll explain nevertheless.
In a stable relationship, each party can rely on the other for security.
common ground just means we are not comparing apples to pears.
There is a tribe in South America (or South Africa, I can’t remember at the moment) where being promiscuous actually promotes security, not hinder it. In this culture it is believed that a woman’s baby can have multiple fathers. For this reason, a woman generally tries to have sex with several men, as all those that slept with her are responsible for the child’s well-being.
To us this sounds ludicrous, but what’s even more ludicrous is the fact that many of us do not question our own social constructs, so much so that we demean those that attempt to point out that the “common ground” upon which we stand shouldn’t necessarily be common in the first place.
Some of you may find this interesting: http://www.alternet.org/story/13648 it offers more arguments as to why promiscuity is beneficial, at least in some parts of the world.
Are there fundamental forms of stability and security, from which we may assume there can be a fundamental relationship between the two? I suppose what I am looking for is the denotative… if there can even be such a thing in human endeavors.
What constitutes a stable relationship?
That south america story I’ve read years ago. The theory only works when there is no notion of ownership. Or multiple ownership. i.e the woman as shared property of all men. The men must see the other men as they themselves.
A stable relationship is a relationship in which two people can claim the other as their property, and stay together not happy nor sad. Basically a relationship in which the parties are content, and does not wish change.
Abraham, with the power of promiscuity, birthed a nation. (Supposedly)
And according to the old testament, we can have slaves.
Also, what is meant by promiscuity? Penetration? Swapping of saliva? Heavy petting?
As a man, I get defensive when a female that I may be trying to engage is being wooed by another. I absolutely detest this feeling. It is one of the most ugly things to ever cross my mind. Is this instinctual or may it have something to do with my nurturing?
I was raised by my parents equally. Joint-custody; switched off every week. Is there a way in which this would catalyze jealous tendencies in me?
I think that jealousy is the heart of this issue, that is why I bring it up. The struggle for power and security brings this out of us.
Remember this Buddhist parable?:
Several monks are meditating in a clearing near a farmer’s field. The farmer rushes up to them and asks them if they’ve seen a cow of his. They hadn’t, so they tell him so. After the farmer departs, the monks discuss ownership. One monk offers them this: ‘What you have not, you will never lose.’ ((this is paraphrased, and probably badly so)
The idea of marriage boggles my mind. This has to be due to the split-parenting I received. One may wonder about the mechanics of relationships in the animal kingdom and question our institutions.
Bob Marley felt that he was “…entitled to all the Queens”. Is that so wrong? Is this not a competition to pass on our genetics as our ancestors have done? Where does this taboo associated with polygamous / polyandrous relationships come from?
Don’t get me wrong, I can see some benefits to marriage, but at the same time I’m very greatful that my parent’s divorced for the sake of my own mental health. These people were not compatible. Some people seem to have something special though, so I’m not trying to discount what marriage can blossom in to. Mutual strength is the key.
Take this quaint analogy:
A pirate with two peg-legs wobbles, and will eventually fall. A pirate with one peg-leg will end up replacing the leg time after time. But a pirate with two, strong, healthy legs will stand tall, or as tall as he can with this ocean tossing him about.
The pirate with two peg-legs is an example of two weak willed lovers lost in an entanglement that is strangling the both of them. The second pirate would be the polygamous fellow. And the last pirate is simply an ideal.
Anyways, ownership is only in the mind, but it retains it’s restrictive properties nonetheless. You would do well to direct your love towards higher ideals, higher powers, higher peace, instead of smothering someone with manipulation disguised as love for the sake of security.
Surrender. Succumb. Your defeat is inevitable. When you build yourself back up on new ground, relying on a power greater than yourself, you will be stronger than ever.
That whole idea of loving someone enough to let them go comes to mind as I end this reply. It’s a beautiful thing.
I apologize for my erratic, vague, and long-winded post. Writing on this subject is therapeutic for me though, so I rather enjoyed it.
Cheers,
iZach
i-zachariah,
I am glad you enjoyed your incredibly detailed offload. I have to read your entire expression.
Promiscuity means freely having sex with lots of people. You get jealous because you think that female is your property. And only you can touch her.
Regarding the monk saying, well. “if I was never born, then I won’t die.” but according to a modern contemporary “it is better to have loved and lost, than to have never loved at all”.
The taboo came from the notion of ownership. You want to claim a certain person as your property.
The best bond in a marriage is forged by Mutual Dependency.
Ownership is only in the mind, and fear is also in the mind. Both are basic human instincts, with different interpretation given the context.
“loving someone enough to let them go”, only happens when you see that person to be intellectually close enough to you. And so will be able to spread your intellectual beliefs.
And I accept your apology.
Take it from a man who gets laid! Women want a man who can “lay the pipe” and you know what they say: practice makes perfect.
Now thats a virtue!
And according to the Old Testament, homosexuality is an abomination (sin) unto the Lord. This is also something you believe in (see here) Why is it that you support the Biblical condemnation of homosexuality in one thread, but denounce the Biblical condoning of slavery in another?
- ben
For some reason, I doubt your sincerity.
The only thing from a woman that I will ever depend upon, is her womb.
Nothing is good or evil, it is reason that makes it so.
If I were stranded upon an island accompanied by ten females, with nothing to tell me that human life is in a state of proliferation beyond, then I will make it my Duty to impregnate as many of them as I am able to.
Theoretically, I believe that God would be forever pissed off if I was to neglect my instincts in this situation.
I have a feeling that your concern regarding this subject stems from a betrayal of sorts. Is this correct?
Please cite reason to believe that ownership is a human instinct. Fear happens to be a reaction, not an instinct. The instinct followed by fear is the “flight or flight” reaction.
While I do believe that “it is better to have loved and lost, than to never have loved at all”, still it does nothing to dissuade me from the idea that my love is best directed towards a higher power.
Yes, you learn from the experience, and can reflect upon the memory of love, but this is something to be learned from. To keep pursuing relationships where only weak bonds can be made is insane.
Again, mutual strength is the key to a solid relationship. The bonds will only be that much stronger if the partners involved are of prime constitution. Two weak kneed lovers will end up hurting each other to make up for their lack of confidence. When one of the partners is a pillar of strength and the other fragile, then the fragile one will become addicted to the security.
If you truly love one that has proved to be dependent on you, then you will tell them so. This will urge them to pursue their own growth rather than letting their wounds fester under sloppily applied bandages.
And on a sillier note, I wonder what Jenna Jameson’s philosophy is concerning promiscuity, considering it is her business.
She seems to walk around with an air of confidence and strength, and she could be labelled a harlot by some…