I totally agree. I use the word promiscuous from its strict definition. Frequent sexual encounters with indiscriminate partners. Nowhere in the definition of promiscuity can you make an assumption that no one is being harmed

@skeptic99 You think us women have a "need to own and control a man?" Ewww...that is quite a sexist (and wrong) comment. And women tend to be more interested in marriage than men? Please...not in my world.

I suppose I follow a Buddhist idea of sexual misconduct. I don't give a s*** what anybody else does, but if you use your high sex drive and your desire to have sex with as many people as you can and use it as a weapon to injure others that is what I determine being promiscuous

Lol yes, you understand!

Let me clear up a part of what I said. I don’t hold any judgement over another’s life choices . Just mine and that is what I try to live by.

I said assumes you are promiscuous

@Kojaksmom and the difference is???!

@AnneWimsey I will indeed announce that I'm agnostic I don't want to date a Christian

I have a tendency to disagree perhaps sexual misconduct is a more appropriate term. Say you're married you have four kids. you later find out that none of your kids are biologically yours, and you had no idea. Would you be angry at your wife because of her careless Reckless and immoral l Behavior? Sexual promiscuity I believe is very different from alternative forms of relationship f**

@Kojaksmom In how steve is talking no you wouldn't. Because the couple decided on that open relationship. It is no fault of her own that she got only got pregnant from other men while following the agreed upon terms off the relationship.

@Pernbronze that to me is not promiscuity. that is what I refer to as an alternative form of relationship screwing. If that's going to be the case, in an open relationship, know a man shouldn't care if he's raising someone else's kid
.

@Kojaksmom If your in a monogamist relationship then promiscuity is morally wrong. What the real problem is as I see it is If you truly care for your partner It's the trust and the damage you cause to that person and the relationship your cheating on. (assuming you really care). It's the hurt you impose on your partner thats immoral.

Sexual immorality to me is a difficult topic because human f** essentially is about breeding and not about satisfying our own needs. A theory has been put forth that males are responsible for the concept of marriage. The thought process behind that is that it's difficult for a man to know for sure if a female is carrying his offspring. Marriage ,I believe ,is important if you're going to be a breeder. Family is basically one of the few ways which we know who we could breed with and who we shouldn't.

@Kojaksmom Natural, healthy sexuality includes 'breeding' but is so much more and so much more important in the cohesiveness of a pair and a family. Limiting it to breeding, as Patriarchal, pathogenic notions of sexuality do, I believe is at the root of many physical and mental illnesses.

I always assumed monogomy was created for 2 reasons, to guard from jealousy and to prevent the spread of disease.

@Akfishlady I always thought bearing and raising children is keeping women in line. My concept of promiscuity is using your sex drive as a weapon. To say that your sexuality has nothing to do with your morality basically is saying that your only fucking yourself . there are consequences to your actions when you involve another person. The morality comes through when you take into account the other person.

@Pernbronze , and perhaps to ensure that you're not f** your offspring

Exactly!

Promiscuity is, I'm my opinion , sex with large numbers of indiscriminate people. It's quite impossible to achieve this without being disrespectful ,dishonest and causing hurt feelings, confusion and possible life threatening health issues for others. It's quite different from other forms of alternative relationships which the truth is put out on the table and everyone knows the consequences.

Especially depending on which definition of promiscuity is being used, anywhere from some to many people believe that promiscuity is immoral (something that is bad, as opposed to something that is good). If by "promiscuity" one is referring to non-discriminatory sex, a lot of people would consider that bad - if only because of the increased likelihood of passing around diseases and interfering with the relationships of others.

If by "promiscuous" one only means "many transient affairs" there is a whole lot more room for debate, and agreeing to disagree after just hearing each side, without any or much debate, seems very reasonable.

The side claiming it is moral argues that it is the natural human desire, and as long as precautions against spreading disease are taken, it's probably okay. There is a further subdivision where some say that one should not participate in cheating - even if it is just sex with a partner who has promised their longer-term partner that they won't have sex with anyone else while they are in a relationship, or will disclose to their longer-term partner that they are getting involved in a sexual relationship with someone else, but ended up deciding not to keep that promise. Others will argue that it's fine even under those conditions because their other relationships are none of their business, or that something must be wrong with their relationship anyway for the partner to not keep that promise, so it doesn't really matter. There are other slight variations in the "it's moral" side, but the overwhelming consensus is "no harm, no foul."

The side claiming it's immoral claim that there is harm, so there is a foul. They claim that the greatest happiness in a relationship comes from a bond that is solidified with only having sexual relations with one long term partner, or at least one long term partner until that relationship ends, then only with the next long term partner. They consider that too many partners leads to comparisons, even if unspoken, that lead to dissatisfaction (this partner is better st this part, that partner is better at another part, a third partner is better at something else, etc.leading to chronic dissatisfaction because there is always something missing that is still fresh in their memory. Partners will also remain less adapted to what works best with each of their partners, so they are always less in rhythm than they could otherwise be). They also claim that multiple partners weakens the bond between 2 people, depriving them of the connection that would be most satisfying, and in at least some cases, causing various levels of emotional damage.

I straddle the fence. I believe that there are some people more suited to the poly lifestyle, others more suited to the mono lifestyle, a few who can make the poly + mono lifestyle work, and probably some people who are best off going through a phase of promiscuity. I'm mono, and I rather doubt that I will try the poly + mono lifestyle again. Had it worked out to be anything better than a colossal disaster spanning 3 years the first time, I probably could have been okay with it, or okay enough with it. Even if it had just turned out to be a failed experiment, I'd have been more willing to try again. I really don't think that after that I'm up to trying again though, yet it's possible that in some kind of case I might be willing - but only if that were put on the table in the beginning or, which would hurt but may be tolerable at the very least before marriage (not that it is likely at all that I would go along with the piece of paper ever again, but an unofficial commitment to make best reasonable efforts at permanency could be appealing with just the right person for that, and the expectations as would be present in marriage would apply). Changing to a poly arrangement after making a long term mono commitment would irreparably damage my trust in this person. I could possibly still be friends with this person, but that would just be the best case scenario to be expected. Of course that's just me and what seems right for me. I don't pretend to know for sure what is best for everybody, though I basically believe there is no one right answer for everybody.

Personal opinions about "morality" are irrelevant. There are no universal moral codes pertaining to sexuality. Most human societies over the vast majority of human prehistory and history did not institutionalize monogamous marriage and recognized different forms of "promiscuity" as inherently moral. Orgies were usual events throughout most of human history. There simply is no way to tie any one type of sexual behavior to "morality."

@Mike007 because when you use your sexuality as a weapon against people and hurt them that makes you a pretty f*****-up person

You can use logic as a weapon against people too. That doesn't make logic immoral.

@LukeJWalker currently there are no societies that endorse f** your children. Incest it is a universal taboo.

@Mike007 oh your welcome

Wrong. Actually in many cultures there is approved sexual contact between adults and children. In some cultures boys felate older men as a rite of passage in their young teens. In many cultures older men may freely have sex with young girls of a lower class. There are no "universals" when it comes to sexual norms.

@LukeJWalker no it does make logic immoral. It makes using logic as a weapon immoral.

I agree

I am too, the the only time sexuality and morality are divorced is when I'm doing myself only. Lol

@Kojaksmom polyamorous relationships are not immoral. Neither is casual sex. It's only immoral when there's force or coercion.

@DJVJ311 I would add lying, deceiving withholding information, ulterior motives, I'm not a big fan of a hard dick has no conscience Club.

@Kojaksmom that's all coercion in my book.

@DJVJ311 coercion is force and threats. Does not cover the ground of dishonesty and sheer assumption the other is a agreeing party..

@Kojaksmom hmmmm... I've seen articles on. "reproductive coercion" to include women lying about being on birth control and such, so I thought it was broader. My bad

One of my favorite Frank Zappa songs.

Lol true