Thinky Questions about sex?

[ravensword]

So, I'm having this interesting discussion on the CNN Belief Blog that began as getting one person to tell his story of belief, and sort of segued into a discussion about promiscuity.

And...it got me thinking about how so many "born agains" (mind you, I'm talking about a very specific subset of Christianity, not all of Christianity), talk about their "salvation" they say that before they found god, they were "promiscuous" and for me, that forms a certain opinion in my mind about what they mean. But when pressed for specifics, they mean something very, very different with that word.

Now, I have a pretty good mix of folks reading this journal, from many backgrounds and religious positions, so I thought I'd bring the discussion here too.

1) What is promiscuity to you?
2) Is promiscuity *bad*?
3) Do you apply the term to both men and women? Equally?
4) Does your use of the word rely on your religious belief (or lack thereof)?
5) Is it quantitative or qualitative?
6) Do you consider yourself promiscuous? Anyone you know?
7) Does the act of sex create or maintain some level of intimacy for you?
8) Can you have sex without intimacy?
9) Can you have intimacy without sex?
10) Does the sexual orientation of the person have any bearing on whether they are considered promiscuous?

Comments

[celtprincess13.livejournal.com]

Oooh, very interesting questions. I'll take a stab at them when I get home, since typing my answers on my phone would take days.

[ruefull.livejournal.com]

I have a minute, I'll play. *g* This is interesting, I don't think I've ever tried to put some of this into actual words before, so it may go astray.

1) What is promiscuity to you? I always thought that promiscuity referred to people that have sex indiscriminately. That's not to say just having sex for the sake of sex; sometimes, that can be a good, healthy choice. Nor is it about having a lot of sex, that's different, too. It's having sex without thought or care for consequences to yourself or others. Sex for the wrong reasons, kind of, though everyone has to make their own judgement about a good/bad reason to have sex.

2) Is promiscuity *bad*? I think, at the core, it kind of has to be, if only because it's inherently unhealthy and dangerous. It's hard to think of an upside to it, you know? So, for me, yeah. That's not to say it's sinful, because again, that's an individual judgement. But I think it's bad, yeah.

3) Do you apply the term to both men and women? Equally? I do, and I try to do so equally, though it probably gets used more for women and gay men, the category that I feel is most at risk from that kind of behavior. Plus, mother of a teenage daughter here. *g* But it should apply to both, and equally.

4) Does your use of the word rely on your religious belief (or lack thereof)? Um, I think it's only fair to say that my religious beliefs formed the initial reaction to the term, but I think now I'm more likely to use it apart from that. Yes, my religious beliefs frown on it, but I have issues with it aside from those beliefs. So, yes and no, to that one.

5) Is it quantitative or qualitative? I think it can be applied to both, but I tend to view it more qualitatively. It's not just having a lot of sex, for me, it's what kind of sex are you having, and why? But often I find one leads to the other. I don't know many people having at risk sex that aren't having quite a bit of it.

6) Do you consider yourself promiscuous? Anyone you know? No, I don't. I've been monogamous for 25 years now, but that's not to say I don't have leanings in that area. With my childhood, it would have been very easy for me to become promiscuous, and it was sometimes a deliberate choice not to be so. Even now, I know I have much more lax standard or morality, seemingly, when it comes to sex than a lot people I know. Being a bisexual switch tends to help with that. *g* As for the second question, I did know someone that I considered promiscuous, though she didn't have sex that often, in fairness. She was just utterly indiscriminate in her choices for partner/situation/timing.

7) Does the act of sex create or maintain some level of intimacy for you? I think it should, though sometimes, it's just a stress release. I think you do tend to feel closer to your partner, after, and I think for me, it almost always comes with some intimacy.

8) Can you have sex without intimacy? Yeah, sure, you betcha. *g*

9) Can you have intimacy without sex? Absolutely. Of the two, intimacy can often be far more rewarding and harder to achieve and maintain. I know lots of people that have sex, but a lot of them are terrified of true intimacy, and will break up when things start leading that way.

10) Does the sexual orientation of the person have any bearing on whether they are considered promiscuous? Fairly or not, I think it does. I think for someone my age, that lived through the whole "sexual revolution yadda-yadda", gay men got lambasted for promiscuity. Now, we're more likely to apply it to a heterosexual teenage girl, honestly. It shouldn't, but I think it often does.

[katbcoll.livejournal.com]

1) Unsafe, indiscriminate sex.
2) For health reasons, yes.
3) Yup.
4) Huh... *thinks hard* Not really. If it did, the term would only be applied to women.
5) quantitative.
6) Nope. *thinks really hard* Ooo, the folks I would have called promiscuous at one time, no longer are. They finally wised up (and oddly enough, all were men).
7) It does create some level of intimacy for me.
8) Yes, some people can have sex without intimacy. For me though, only if I'm having it with myself.
9) Yes. Yes I believe you can.
10) In my eyes, no. I know that's not the case with most folks though.

You made me have to do lots of thinking before noon and only with two cups of coffee :p For that, you get Hortense.

[ebon-bear.livejournal.com]

1) I think I would define it as an unusually high number of sexual partners during a particular timespan. I'm going to go with more than a couple a month or so with the caveat that I may revise that at any time.
2) No, not in itself. Cheating is bad, so is letting yourself be used but if everyone involved is up-front with what they expect and use safety, there's nothing wrong with it at all. I think we complicate sex far more than we need to and we shouldn't feel bad about sharing our body with someone for no other reason than having fun, so long as everyone is honest about what they expect.
3) I tend not to use the term at all. I used to call my promiscuous friends (male and female) "slut" in an affectionate sense but I've stopped doing that now because some people misunderstood that it was meant in jest and I don't want to hurt their feelings.
4) I'm a Luciferian Satanist. My faith doesn't have much to say about the act of sex (other than being careful of the feelings of others and yourself) so no.
5) Quantatative.
6) Not that I can think of.
7) For me personally, it tends to although how much intimacy it creates varies wildly.
8) In theory, yes but I've never done so.
9) Sure but, as a guy, that's rarer. You know how women have those really close friends that you can talk about all your feelings with? Guys don't get those. Our friendships can be as close but they tend not to have the same explicit discussion of intimacy.
10) Not that I'm aware of.

[the-ellcrys.livejournal.com]

1. Multiple partners in a short period of time. Scores over longer periods of time.
2. No, as long as there is a respect for self involved in the sexual activities.
3. Yes, although I don't necessarily use the term that much.
4. No.
5. Qualitative. My use of the word is a result of my changing opinions and ideas about sex.
6. I have been at various points in time. I know other people who have as well.
7. It can create a level of intimacy, and it definitely helps me maintain it once I'm in a relationship. I have a hard time saying how I feel; it's much easier to show it via sex and/or physical affection.
8. Yes.
9. Yes.
10. As a societal matter, yes. I think a heterosexual male and a homosexual male could have the same number of partners, but the homosexual man would be considered promiscuous. I use the comparison of men here, because I believe there's a heavy gender component to the use of the term as well, and that women who have multiple partners are considered promiscuous regardless of sexual orientation.

[spike-xans-gal.livejournal.com]

Promiscuity is only bad if you don't make your intentions known to the person you are intimate with; or you do something that could harm your partner, unless they have agreed to it.
6/ I might as well be a nun for all I get....lol...that's what slash fic is for.
8/ yes so long as all involved know what's happening.
9/ my best ever "relationship" is with my "best mate". We said 'no sex' years ago and 5 years on it's till the best. We have even been on holiday together.
10/ no, just no

[celtprincess13.livejournal.com]

1. When I think 'promiscuity', I think of indiscriminate sexual activity with multiple partners (not necessarily at the same time, although that fits too). And by 'indiscriminate', I mean outside the confines of a relationship.
2. I don't see it as inherently bad, no. As long as the person is being safe and doing things within their consent, it can be a good way to explore things. I think it can be emotionally unsatisfying and I think it's mostly the province of the young (teen, college). That said, I'm sure there are people older than me who I would consider promiscuous.
3. Yes. I think men have a tendency to be more promiscuous precisely because they don't tend to form emotional attachments with sex.
4. Nope. I try not to let religion dictate anything for me, to be honest.
5. Hmm. Both? Because part of it, for me, is based on number of partners which of course is measurable. But the other part is more opinion-based, such as the amount and kind of emotional attachment that's associated.
6. Myself, no. I might be, if I had the opportunity but then again, I didn't do it when I did 'put myself out there', so probably not. As for friends, I can only think of one off the top of my head. And of course, several athletes and celebs are what I would call promiscuous.
7. For me, yes.
8. It's hard to have even decent sex without some level of intimacy.
9. I think sex with intimacy is the best kind but it isn't a requirement and it can be stellar without it.
10. Nope. Sexual orientation doesn't even come into the equation for me. I know there's some sort of idea that gay people are "more promiscuous" but in my friends/acquaintances, I find the opposite to be true.

[jeeronie.livejournal.com]

Ah, I like your thought provoking questions!

1) What is promiscuity to you? Having sex with many different people though I've never tried quantifying how many. I think that depends on circumstances, how many would mean promiscuous.
2) Is promiscuity *bad*? Not unless it hurts anyone (promiscuous person included). But it is tricky because sometimes people's expectations are not clear.
3) Do you apply the term to both men and women? Equally? Yes and I have a huge problem with the way society applies different standards here.
4) Does your use of the word rely on your religious belief (or lack thereof)? I don't associate it with religion but I don't really judge much of anything based on religion so I guess that reflects my lack of religious beliefs...eh.
5) Is it quantitative or qualitative? Quantitative. In the sense that casual sex or serial dater are not so different, I mean.
6) Do you consider yourself promiscuous? Anyone you know? Not really... I guess my threshold for the term is a bit high.
7) Does the act of sex create or maintain some level of intimacy for you? All by itself? I'd say no.
8) Can you have sex without intimacy? yes
9) Can you have intimacy without sex? yes
10) Does the sexual orientation of the person have any bearing on whether they are considered promiscuous? For me no. I keep hearing that gay men are more promiscuous but like most shit people say about gay men I don't think they thought it through.

Hope that helps :)