Why should we assume promiscuity is any better than puritanism?

[DerekG]

Disclaimer: I don't support censorship, so please don't make accusations, nor do I yearn for a return to the Victorian era.

Many of you aren't going to like this thread, but the prevalent "boys will be boys" attitude that is infesting the prostitution thread in LBN disturbs me.

Much is made on this site of the Religious Right--and for good reason. The Christian dispensationalists are indeed a threat to the world--Bush believes, as Reagan did, that the end is nigh. And they have no problem with speeding the process up a bit.

On smaller matters, though, I can't take them as seriously as many of you--especially in regards to the sexual puritanism that will supposedly threaten to overtake us. This was a popular fear during the Clinton impeachment trial (even as the president's enemies--Hyde, Gingrich and Barr--were cheating on their wives themselves).

These modern day Puritans aren't good for this country--their insistance on teaching "abstinence only" programs has been catastrophic. But this folly will not last, for our society is culturally (I repeat, culturally) liberal. Watch television for a minute, and try to convince me whether sexual puritanism is coming back. It's not. In fact, we're exposed to sex and violence on a constant basis (and NO, I'm not arguing for censorship).

But I'd argue that while sexual repression is indeed abhorrent to the individual and society, its antithesis is equally disturbing.

Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. had serious qualms with the hippie counterculture; he feared that their hedonism, while understandable, would eventually give way to a kind of nihilism. The book "Acid Dreams" justifies his fear, as we find that the CIA helped introduce LSD into the movement, turning wide-eyed optimists into drug-addled nihilists (and it helped that they systematically murdered the four major leaders of the 60's). Cornell West, in the chapter entitled "The Necessary Engagement of Youth in our Culture" from "Democracy Matters," denounces the media for its role in perverting the concept of love and intimacy:

"The incessant media bombardment of images on TV and in movies and music convinces many young people that the culture of gratification--a quest for insatiable pleasure, endless titillation, and sexual stimulation--is the only way of being human."




Folks, we may be pissing off the right-wing theocrats, but we're in lock-step with Corporate America.

[benburch]

1. As a kinky promiscuous bisexual...

I am wondering why you are disturbed by me?

I am Leather-kinky, bisexual, promiscuous, and a sexworker's rights activist. Why does that bug you? Can you elucidate?

[DerekG]

9. I don't care what you do

What I'm disturbed by is the notion that promiscuity is perceived to be a rebellion against our culture, when it's apparent that consumerism is a far more powerful spectre in American society than is religious fanatacism (it's especially insidious when the two are combined--hence the rapture market).

[benburch]

26. I don't do it to rebel.

I do it because it is who I am.

The fact that it makes religious nutcases uneasy is merely a bonus as far as I am concerned.

And I know a lot of people in the leather community, and I don't know of any of them who are into this because it is rebellion, though likely you could find some really young folks for whom that would be the case.

[sangh0]

33. You might want to look into the history of the gay rights movement

Before Stonewall, gay activists were fighting to "assimilate", which meant that they wanted to be recognized as monogomous couples. It was only after Stonewall that promiscuity became perceived as a way to "gay liberation".

You, personally, may not do it to rebel, but the culture in which you engage in promiscous sex was brought about by the gay community's desire to rebel against the restrictions the rest of our society placed on them.

Now, I know the response - "I'm a free and independent person, and just because someone else in the past did it for that reason doesn't mean that I do the same things for the same reasons. Culture isn't fate"

Now, consider this - Do you really think you could engage in promiscous gay and bi sex if you were living in the 1950's?

[George_S]

36. What is your source, sangh0? n/t

[benburch]

46. I know that history intimately.

What changed was not behaviour. What changed was the feeling that the behaviour had to be hidden at all costs. Remember that being known to be gay meant being discriminated against in all of life's everyday activities including employment and housing.

I knew older gay men back in the 70s who had been promiscuous long before Stonewall. Of course there was much more opportunity once people could be more out!

[La Lioness Priyanka]

51. i agree with him

all the history i have ever read state this as well

[sangh0]

74. "What changed was the feeling...."???

The change in feeling did lead to a change in behavior. It's hard to seperate what one thinks and believes from what one does. Actions stem from our thoughts.

I knew older gay men back in the 70s who had been promiscuous long before Stonewall. Of course there was much more opportunity once people could be more out!

You're right. I phrased it unclearly. I didn't that there were no promiscous gay men before Stonewall, even though that's what my words say. What I meant was that promiscuity, as an accepted sexual lifestyle, was not widely accepted and approved of in the gay community, and was definitely not seen by most homosexuals as a way to "liberation" for homosexuals before Stonewall. The point here being that the role of promiscous gay sex in gay culture has changed, and that the change is related to the belief that promiscous gay sex was a form of liberation for homosexuals, an idea that became more common after Stonewall.

So yes, you could have been promiscous before Stonewall, but you couldn't be promiscous in the same way (ex. "openly") as you could now. You would also find yourself the target of some hostility from within the gay community for your promiscuity because at that time, gay activists were more focused on assimilation than liberation.

Of course there was much more opportunity once people could be more out!

This is similar to what I am trying to say, which is that the culture you find yourself in does have an effect on your behavior.

[benburch]

85. Bullshit.

Goes against everything I know of leather history and gay history.

[greekspeak]

55. Good Christ on a Pogo Stick, Sangh0

"It was only after Stonewall that promiscuity became perceived as a way to "gay liberation."

Did it ever occur to you that promiscuity has always been there, alive and kicking, but in the back alleys like abortion was? What Stonewall did was to tell the U.S. for the first time that there are queers, like it or lump it. Stonewall simply unmasked people, allowing them to know that naughty things really did happen. There have been bathhouses, "newstands," and dirty movies since before Stonewall.

Stonewall gave gays more freedom to be who they are. Unfortunately, Reagan and AIDS hit at around the same time, deflating many gains gay people had gotten.

My answer to your question, "Do you really think you could engage in promiscous gay and bi sex if you were living in the 1950's?," is a CATAGORICAL YES.

[sangh0]

75. Read my post again

Did it ever occur to you that promiscuity has always been there, alive and kicking, but in the back alleys like abortion was?

I didn't say there weren't ANY promiscous homosexuals before Stonewall. What I said was that the promiscuity was not PERCEIVED by the gay activists (and the gay community as a whole) as a way to "gay liberation"

What Stonewall did was to tell the U.S. for the first time that there are queers, like it or lump it.

No, it did more than that. Together with the Sexual Revolution, which led heterosexuals to reject the idea of "normal sex", it led society at large (including gay communities) to have a more tolerant view of promiscuity.

My answer to your question, "Do you really think you could engage in promiscous gay and bi sex if you were living in the 1950's?," is a CATAGORICAL YES.

Yes, you're right. I phrased that question poorly. I should have asked "Could one engage in promiscous homosexual sex before Stonewall in the same way one could after?"

Before Stonewall, one could be arrested for merely being in a gay bar. After Stonewall, that became less and less frequent. Nowadays, that happens rarely, if at all.

[Politicub]

58. Interesting theory, but I don't see your point

You also say, "Do you really think you could engage in promiscuous gay and bi sex if you were living in the 1950's?"

And I believe the answer is yes. Anatomy hasn't changed since the 50s. So, Indeed, she, you or nearly anyone else could enjoy the delights of "promiscuous gay and bi sex" in the 50s. It probably would have been even hotter because it was so taboo then.

[sangh0]

76. My point

is that individual claims that their own promiscuity has nothing to do with culture (ie. that the promiscuity is merely their own choice) are inaccurate.

And I believe the answer is yes. Anatomy hasn't changed since the 50s. So, Indeed, she, you or nearly anyone else could enjoy the delights of "promiscuous gay and bi sex" in the 50s. It probably would have been even hotter because it was so taboo then.

Not just taboo; It was illegal too. It wasn't just "hot". It was a potential catastrophe to anyone who engaged in it. Families, careers, and even lives were destroyed because someone got caught engaging in gay sex. That rarely happens today.

Besides, as i described in a couple of other responses, that question was poorly worded. SOrry for the confusion.

[Politicub]

84. That's heavy

And rooted in postmodernism. Since I only have a basic grasp of postmodern theory, I can neither agree or disagree with you, so we'll just "be." OK?

[H2O Man]

87. read James Baldwin.

It'll help you understand what this person is saying to you. And you might find you enjoy Baldwin. Just a suggestion .....

[Politicub]

91. Thanks - I'll check out some of his stuff

Any particular titles come to mind?

I always like it when I get turned on to new authors.

[H2O Man]

92. "The Fire Next Time," "Another Country,"

and "Nobody Knows My Name" are my favorites. Baldwin is one of the most intense authors from the time period being discussed. While his talents go far beyond being either black and/or gay, one gets a sense of the frustrations he felt from an uptight, hateful society.

[Maddy McCall]

2. Why should you assume Puritans were not promiscuous?

[politicat]

48. The historical data shows that a significant # of puritan marriages were

premarital pregnancy marriages. (See The Midwife's Tale by Laurel Thatcher Ulrich for the actual numbers.)

The difference between them and us is they got married.

Since I don't know what your definition of promiscuity is, I don't how to talk to you about it. Am I promiscuous because I've been in 4 long term relationships and had a couple of short term relationships? Or is promiscuity defined as more than 1 sex partner per month on average? Or per week?

It's a subjective call. I consider myself rather conservative when it comes to my sexual behavior - and I'm bisexual. I happen to be very monogamous, so that makes things difficult, but I know I'm definitely on the conservative end of the scale.

Pcat

[Vickers]

3. I simply can't understand why folks care who other folks are fucking

on either side of the political spectrum.

:shrug:

Unless it's my sister they're messing with.

:P

[La Lioness Priyanka]

8. i agree completely

[Blue Wally]

66. As my mother once told me.....

"Unless it's my sister they're messing with."

I should always remember that the girl is sombody's sister.

[liontamer]

95. you must love only children huh

:evilgrin:

[Goldmund]

4. Very interesting points.

But I think that there is one substantial difference: the puritans consider their moral tenets universal, and therefore consider it valid to impose their standards onto others; in their most viral form, they are in favor of legislating mandatory puritanism (hence "abstinence only" education, talk of criminalizing adultery, etc). The hedonists, or the nihilists, on the other hand, are in favor of a _permissive_ culture, which _allows_ for hedonism -- but does not tangibly (as in, legally, legislatively) force any individual to engage in it. Shallow nihilism is a cultural problem; puritanism is more than that, it's a social and legislative problem.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

5. i think peoples individual sex lives is none of our business

i.e: if you dont want to have sex till marriage and will only have sex with one partner for the rest of your life thats great, for you.

and if you want to have sex with dozens of people its also fine, for you.

adults should have a right over their own bodies that should not be restricted by society.

also on that thread supporting sex work is not necessarily supporting johns (like we support the troops but not the war)

[KlatooBNikto]

6. Because promiscuity promotes freedom.Puritanism is authoritarian.

Every redblooded American believes in freedom.By the way, promiscuity is more enjoyable.Puritanism sucks.

[Cheswick2.0]

10. How does promiscuity promote freedom?

As someone who was promiscuous for many years due to childhood sexual abuse I can assure you that you are wrong on that point.

[immoderate]

18. Due to...?

Why blame promiscuity? Sounds like child abuse is the culprit.

Would you be against so-called promiscuity if there were no child abuse? I know there could be a series of other objections. But the remedy has unintended consequences too.

--IMM

[Cheswick2.0]

27. you are making no sense

it is common knowledge that girls who have been abused become promiscuous. I was commenting on what promiscuity felt like and I certainly have spent enough time learning about myself and the issue of sexual abuse to know what I am talking about.
How could you possibly think you know better than I do about what I have lived and examined in detail?
Good Grief.

[liontamer]

97. sometimes that happens

but sometimes girls who are abused don't become promiscuous, some even become frigid. And many girls who are promiscuous have never been abused. So while you may have had sex that you didn't really want as a way to comfort yourself over previous abuse, promiscuity is not directly correlated with abuse, nor is having sex a marker of emotional damage.

[Goldmund]

21. As someone who is still promiscuous...

...I can assure you that it's more enjoyable.

[Cheswick2.0]

28. I doubt it

[Goldmund]

30. lol

[KlatooBNikto]

43. Dispute resolution time on DU. As the ultimate authority on

promiscuity, take it from me. Sex is better than no sex. Sex with different partners is better than the same old dreary experience as my Guru, Roger Stone, will tell you. If you think that is not good enough for you, ask Jimmy Swaggart who can swear on the Bible with tears rolling from his eyes that promiscuity is a whole lot better if you don't get caught at it.

[sangh0]

79. As the ultimate authority on sexual abstinence

take it from me; No sex is better than promiscous sex. Sex with no partners is better than exploitative sex with multiple partners you do not love, as my guru, The Dalai Lama, will tell you. If that's not good enough for you, ask an AIDS patient if it was worth it.

[wtmusic]

7. Hedonism is not only self-correcting

it is relative. Let people do what the hell they want to.

[troubleinwinter]

11. 'Taint nobody's business but my own

[patdem]

12. TRUST ME, I am no puritan, but I cared deeply about my son, and

his future relationships, and I explained to him, watching the 'Playboy' channel could ruin his sex life, because his expectations of his wife could be thwarted. This was before the VChip and he would get up at night and watch it, cause it was there! I do not know if what I said had any impact, but luckily, he is happily married with 3 WONDERFUL girls!!!

He also watched those 'Faces of Death' films and I explained...hey there are many ways to die, why would you want to be afraid because someone somewhere died because rattle snakes were infested under their sink?

I do not believe in censorship, but to make money off someone else's misfortune is as miserable as you can get as far as I am concerned.

[Goldmund]

15. "Playboy" channel?!

How could that change his expectations? You barely see a boobie on Playboy.

[patdem]

34. Because of the 'music and filters'..every thing was perfect...

and as we know, in real life NOTHING is perfect and there are no filters to soften the reality that exists amoung human beings.

No it was not the 'tits'..it was the expectation of 'perfection'...that could either make him 'impotent'..or make her look less than desirable.

[Goldmund]

38. No man should be forced to tolerate less than DDDs

Just kidding. I quit watching "playboy" when I was around 13. I actually don't see any "perfection" there -- just some silicone androids. I would have a lot more problems getting turned on by Playboy than I would by any average woman -- not even to speak about those I actually like. I still dig on porn sometimes, but not the "playboy" type -- I could hardly imagine anything less sexy.

[Cheswick2.0]

24. I had a relationship with a much younger man

he had watched a lot of porn. The relationship with him was much different than what happened with that age man 17 years earlier. He has been exposed to too much and gone so far by the age of 23 that it really had a negative effect on our sex life.

Sex was better with my ex who was a bit of an innocent at the same age and could easily be turned on by a simple look or a suggestion that we leave some party early.

[patdem]

40. I had TOO many relationships

as a young girl and just wanted my son to experience the sort of innocence you referred to. I was truly beyond hope by the time I was married. Luckily, I had a son who turned me from the Marquis de Sade to trying to raise a person who had a different experience from me.

A very long story...but I appreciate your input, and glad you understand the difference between innocent and cynical while bedding your partner!

[H2O Man]

13. Please give some documentation

to back your claim about Martin Luther King, Jr's views, as you have stated them? I'd like to see the specific article he wrote or speech he gave. Thanks!

[DerekG]

16. The source

"To the Mountaintop: Martin Luther King Jr's Sacred Mission to Save America: 1955-1968" by Stewart Burns. My apologies, I got it from the library last month, so I'll try to get it tonight and give you the passage.

[H2O Man]

29. Sure.

I do not doubt that MKL had concerns about aspects of the youth culture in the mid-60s. I am just trying to think of what section of his speeches or writings would fit with your post.

I think that in terms of sex, much like substance use, it is an error to think the choices are limited to "all or nothing." The goal should be to teach young people how to make responsible choices in their lives. Promiscuity would not fit the definition of a wise choice. Abstinence is an option, but certainly is not the only healthy choice.

In the same sense, young people drinking a case of beer a day is unhealthy. But abstinence from drinking is not the only alternative. Young people are capable of making safe choices.

[sangh0]

35. I can vouch for MLK's concern with youthful nihilism

He spoke of it after touring Northern cities. I don't have a cite, but if you really need one, PM me and I'll dig it up.

[DrWeird]

37. And MLK, ironically...

was promiscuous.

[H2O Man]

50. Again, for sake of discussion

let's keep things public. I could go through, for example, "A Testament of Hope," which is the "essential" writings and speeches of King, and I could find at least a dozen examples of his general concerns about the viewpoint we refer to as nihilism. What I'm curious about is how the poster has connected this with their own views on sexuality. My guess is that there are considerably fewer King quotes that fit that description.

I enjoy conversations about values, and I do respect other opinions. But there was what appeared to me as a slight scattering of topics: from sex to MLK to LSD to the CIA. I was hoping more to see if there is any King quote -- not a quote from an author who believes King may have implied this.

[sangh0]

77. Thanks. Now I see

and I don't remember any MLK quotes that specifically address the issue of promiscuity and nihilism. I think I'll re-read MLK's Playboy interview. Maybe there's something there. :-)

[H2O Man]

81. could be the playboy interview

or one of the later ones that discussed nihilism. I am more concerned about the context in regard to promiscuity. Like the prophet Jesus, Martin had many valuable insights on human behaviors and beliefs, including despair. But I'm not comfortable with those who would take those statements and apply them to their own beliefs about sexuality. Interesting subject, though.

[H2O Man]

89. Read 4 interviews

from A Testament of Hope. They include: the Kenneth B. Clark interview (1963); Playboy (1965); Meet the Press (1966); and Face to Face (1967). On the down side, none have anything that really fits the topic at hand. The up side is that reading King is always a pleasure. I'll read some more this evening.

On a related note, regarding the above conversation you were engaged in: I suggested that one person who commented on your historical perspective read some James Baldwin. Though James does not always address this subject openly, young people with open minds should read his works. Can't hurt.

[H2O Man]

64. still waiting......

.....I've been sitting here patiently for 15 hours. If you aren't able to give the reference, I may go get a couple hours sleep....

[H2O Man]

73. hmmmmm......

starting to wonder......

[DerekG]

104. I wasn't evading--couldn't make it to the library until tonight

I sent you a private e-mail, but everyone should know you were right to be skeptical; King never made a public statement on the issue.

After checking "To the Mountaintop," I yield to you, there is only an assertion from Burns:

"He was alarmed now that the two poles of liberation, personal and structural, were shooting off in opposite directions. "Do your own thing," "anything goes," whether smoking grass or looting stores, was not his idea of freedom but mockery. Neither hippies nor hipsters were looking beyond their pleasure to the "principalities and powers" that created the gaping chasm between white middle-class kids who were free to drop out and turn on and the black ghetto youth who were forced to. For the latter, freedom meant "nothing left to lose," the refrain of a Janis Joplin hit song." (p. 344)

Again, this is an assertion. Ergo, it is not proof (even if I believe Burns was right, King never made a public statement on this facet to the counterculture).



There are several King quotes dealing with his view on promiscuity (it pained him even as he engaged in it) in "Bearing the Cross: Martin Luther King, Jr., and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference":

"King's pronouncements on sexuality could be harsh: "Modern man has strayed to the far countries of secularism, materialism, sexuality and racial injustice." He spoke of "the psychological problems that bring the looseness into being," and decried "the causal basis of sexual promiscuity, the deep anxities and frustration and confusion of modern life which lead to the abuses." (p. 376)

[H2O Man]

105. thanks!

I'm impressed that you'd go back to the library. I appreciate that. Likewise, I will thank you for giving me reason to re-read a number of interviews and writings in one of my favorite King books.

I will confess that I do not have "Bearing the Cross..." and am not familiar with its text. Do you know offhand (not asking for another trip to the library) what the author was quoting from?

There is no doubt that King was tortured at times by his own tendency to, as one of his followers said, practice the gospel of love. All great men and women have faults. And there are examples of his speaking about the culture of that time producing a hopelessness in young people.

However, I'm not sure that the quotes fit in the sense of King's being an advocate of celibacy. I think -- and this is just my opinion -- that he might have quoted Benjamin Franklin: "When passions drive, let reason hold the reins."

[immoderate]

14. The reason for the incessant bombardment

of sexual images that you lament is the repression that already exists.

Just look at what the Janet Jackson wardrobe incident brought on. What makes you think that repression lite is a natural state?

--IMM

[DerekG]

20. Who's talking about nudity?

I'm referring to the FUCK-CONSUME-FUCK-CONSUME attitude promoted by the media--you'll notice that people were offended by Jackson's nipple, but had no problem letting their kids see a bump and grind dance by cheerleaders at half-time, or watching a game where a group of men knock the hell of each other, for that matter.

[Goldmund]

22. I agree.

But let me try to be a bridge between you and Derek: the tension between the repression and the bombardment of sexual images is deliberately created to promote consumerism.

If there were no repression, sexual images wouldn't be so lucrative.

[Cheswick2.0]

17. I worked in a woman's health clinic

Every time we had a clinic day and did pap smears the doctors and nurses would comment on the condition of women's cervix. They could no believe that 19 year old women were coming in with the cervix's of 40 year old women. In other words, your pap smear later in life is apt to show more precancerous conditions due to having sex with all kinds of people (and the people they had sex with etc...). Sexually transmitted diseases which are not AIDS are a much greater risk to women than AIDS.

In addition to that, the social dysfunction in this society is taking a toll on children. The difference between a stable family and one which is not is too often the presence of two parents and decent financial resources. Young women who become single mothers are more likely to live in poverty for life than any other group.

You are right, excellent post.

[FrozenNorth]

57. Disease... agree

One of my best friends is sterile now due to a chlymidia infection she got when she was only 19. The scarring from this infection is the leading cause of female infertility and cervical cancer is way up from HPV infection.

Sex is fun but it can also be a killer and alter lives forever. It's not so much a good vs. bad issue as a cause and effect one.

[Cheswick2.0]

90. I have often thought that sinful behavior could/should be relabled

dumb behavior. What really matters is not saying something is good or bad, but smart and not so smart.

I am sorry about your friend. I saw many women headed in the same direction. It was very difficult to make them understand how "causual sex" (usually anything but casual, but rather women looking for love and thinking sex would get it for them)was endangering their health.

I think promisquity has physical consequences, but it also has spiritual and emotional consequences. The second part is the part people don't want to recognize. But I grew up in the worlds most dysfunctional "if it feels good do it" family and I saw the consequences first hand.

Puritanism and promisquity are both unhealthy.

[htuttle]

19. Behold, the answer to the puzzle of authoritarianism and sex

Here's a small comic book version of a very enlightening book:

The Mass Psychology of Fascism
by Wilhelm Reich
(as performed by the Surveillance Camera Players)
http://www.notbored.org/reich.html

Cliff Notes version: Authoritarians harness the power of repressed sexual impulses to get people to do things their way.

[6th Borough]

23. IMO, The fun-factor of promiscuity trumps any >/= arguments...EOM

[bemildred]

25. You are right, as far as that goes, but those are not the only choices.

There are sound scientific reasons to think that zoo sex is a bad thing.
But then it is true in most areas of life that one has to be mindful and
pay attention or one gets in trouble. Life is like that.

[Cheswick2.0]

31. you are right, those are not our only choices

That is why the OP said why is one better than the other. Both states are extreme and unhealthy.

[bemildred]

61. Copacetic.

The Greeks knew about moderation 3000 years ago.
The correct question is: "Do you want the government
meddling in your private life"? My answer would be
no. I don't mind education, so people can make informed
choices, but beyond that MYOB.

[BurtWorm]

44. Exactly. It's a false dichotomy.

No one that I know is arguing for rampant promiscuity. But people are arguing for rigid puritanism--and they're not omly arguing for it. They're running for office and being appointed to courts to see to it that it becomes the law of the land.

[bemildred]

62. Almost "black and white" thinking, you might say. nt

[camero]

32. Republicans like promiscuity

It gives them the double dose of railing against it in the public arena while profiting from it in the private arena.

Notice how Tipper Gore and Clinton were in the forefront of promoting the V-chip.

[George_S]

39. DerekG

How are you defining promiscuity? Do you consider any out of wedlock sex promiscuity?

[DerekG]

53. No

I define promiscuity as engaging in sex with people whom you place no emotional investment in. Casual, or "hooking up," as it were.

[UdoKier]

41. Promiscuity and a debauched media are 2 different things.

I don't care how many people of any gender ANYBODY else has sex with. More power to you.

i do however object to "Girls Gone WIld" commercials on non-pay television. I didn't ask to see that crap, and I don't want my kids seeing it at the wrong age.

So promiscuity is not a problem, it's the wanton and gratuitious depiction of it EVERYWHERE that is annoying. There is a time and place for porn, but it's getting hard to get away from it.

As for puritanism - it IS worse, because it tells you "I am pious, and you must be pious too, because MY God says so. It also forbids viewing ANY of the aforementioned smut, when any sensible society shouls simply regulate it so that kids and people who don't want to see it don't get exposed to it.

[schultzee]

42. Males are less aggressive when they have enough sex regardless

of their sexual preference, and it is males that commit the most crimes and aggressive acts.

[Blue Wally]

67. Are you calling???

Are you calling on all women to spread on demand so that men won't be aggressive??

[BiggJawn]

94. If your theory holds water...

Then I should be some mass-murderer, or King of the Road-Rage Rangers.

But I'm about the most passive man you'll ever meet.

I don't buy that "testosterone poisoning" bullshit.

[HEyHEY]

45. Well, at least it's natural

Although I think it is no-one's business what other people do with their bits, I think it is important to teach young people that sex isn't a comodity.

[jpgray]

47. Sexual repression is what should be avoided

And Puritanism has that, so it should be avoided. When promiscuity is culturally acceptable, those who want to be can be, and those who want to remain chaste can do that. With Puritanism, the promiscuity would still occur at about the same rate, it would just have more severe social consequences.

[DrWeird]

49. The puritans just weren't getting any.

That's why they all died out.

The puritans, just like anybody else who advocates abstinence, fall into three major categories.

1) hypocrites, like Henry Hyde or Sister Wendy, who say they promote abstinence but are getting a lot on the side.

2) people who are so physically repulsive that nobody would voluntarily have sex with them, so they become jealous and angry at normal people.

3) sexually deformed people. Either through some birth defect, combine accident, or toxic chemical exposure.

Face it.

It's true.

[HEyHEY]

54. Yup, I agree

[muriel_volestrangler]

63. Sister Wendy?

Are you talking about the British nun who talks about paintings? Are you saying she is (was?) having sex secretly? I definitely missed that story.

[skooooo]

52. I think it's a false issue -- consenting adults is all that matters.

[Dastard Stepchild]

56. How do we define hedonism?

From a purely personal and subjective standpoint, I have yet to meet an individual with a desire for sexual activity so overwhelming that it greatly affects their ability to function in society. I would define a troubling obsession with sexual activity as one in which the individual could not function in a "normal," expected capacity (hold a job, pay bills, interact in a non-threatening manner with potential mates). I don't necessarily see the inherent harm in being overtly sexual. Nor do I see any harm in limiting or constraining sexual activity, should this be the desire of the individual - with the disclaimer that it be undertaken at the individual level. Same with being highly sexual. I think if we remove the stigma that sex either has to be "very good - the extreme form of pleasure" or "very bad - the path to chaos and hell," we will approach a more tempered, more realistic version of the role of sexual activity in our lives.

[Ron Green]

59. Promiscuity is a stage of sexual being....

that one might grow out of, if something becomes more important than momentary pleasure. Just as with the use of drugs, I don't agree that promiscuity should be prohibited (as Puritans would have it.) That would prevent an individual from having his or her own experience and making up his or her own mind. However, it's easy to see that the Puritanical inclination in society and government only seeks to impose what should be allowed to develop: an understanding of sex in a context most beneficial to the individual, the family, and the community. And as long as unfettered market capitalism controls the message delivery system and the mental environment, sex and the promise of perfection (as many partners as you want, as often as you want!) will drive our never-ending needs.

[eridani]

60. Neither puritanism nor promiscuity is the problem.

Lack of consistent ethical standards for the way we live now is. The world can't afford any more major increase in population, but people are going to be horny for most of their lives anyway. Now, how do we learn to live with that and treat each other ethically, or at least have standards that everyone can aspire to (even if we don't always live up to them), monogamous, polyamorous, or whatever you have?

For starters, see The Ethical Slut

http://www.sexuality.org/l/wh/whes.html

Not only do your authors have a very high regard for sluts, but it turns out that they could really be poster grrlz for Sluts Un-anonymus because they've been extraordinarily sluttish themselves, and they've had an extraordinarily wonderful time doing it, too, even though they've taken their lumps as every pioneer must do. So when they talk about what it means to be ethical, or promiscuous, or sexually adventurous, or a parent, you know they've done their research on the sheets, not in the library; when they explain how it's possible to be a slut with lots and lots and lots of sexual partners and still maintain an honest, loving primary relationship, you know they speak from experience; when they lay out their Ten Commandments of Sluthood, discuss obstacles to attaining your desires and ways to overcome those obstacles, or examine the ever-debilitating problems of feeling jealousy, you know they know whereof they speak.

[sweetheart]

65. This is an attack on women, see through the fog

The people who are ultimately screwed by this faux-puritainism,
are women. Birth control has been a major step in womens liberation,
and to roll the clock back, is the ultimate wet dream for those
repressive thugs in the GOP. Any feminist knows this, however,
the issue can become obscured like it is in your post...

In the midst of that fog, do not be fooled that it has anything
to do with "sex". Corporate america, likewise is institutionally
antifeminist, and will of course chime along with anything that
keeps the status quo. You're right that the whole lot marches
in lock step, but its not just pissing off... we're talking about
the hard fought rights of people, generations of whom, have fought,
been imprisoned, and died to achieve some semblance of equality in
society..

And then the patriarchy starts all over again, with its covert
messaging. Don't be fooled.

[H2O Man]

68. Interesting post.....

I always enjoy reading your contributions on DU, because you have a wonderful ability to view things from an angle that most people don't .... until they read your posts.

You make interesting points. At the same time, as a man, I find it highly offensive that the ads for hundreds of products include making 13-year old girls look like they are 25, and the unhealthy imagery that goes with that. I'm not sure that the forces behind this are only male. The consequences do, of course, seem to dehumanize women of all ages.

Our societies' attitudes about sex are obviously unhealthy in general.The original post has at very least some truth to it in the sense that the media promotes unhealthy attitudes. I'm curious what you think about that?

[sweetheart]

70. The media is the public common

Thank you for your flattering comment. I once had the benefit of
a very wise buddhist master, and it is my wish that his guidance
molds these words.

He firmly believed in women's liberation, and womens enlightenment
as the core imbalance in our world today. When women are repressed,
men suffer as well, as we all have both masculine and feminine inside
us, one being dominant. To say the left hand is useless because
you're right handed is the folly of the patriarchy.

Promiscuity and youth-culture sexuality is an abuse of the media
common, in that it subverts the rights of women not to be objectified.
It is the similar propaganda to dehumanizing civilian caualties as
"collateral damage". So women are the collateral damage, in a
manner of speaking, inflicted by a masculine system that sees
the intense power of female-sexuality as a sales tool.

The root to this whole mess is corporate personhood. However i see
as well the failure of our rule-based constitution to keep up with
the evolutions in electronic media... and the framers could not have
prepared their pre-electronic newtonian checks and balances, for an
age where electronic media and financial media have totally subverted
the original intent of a democratic republic.

The public media should, IMO, be regulated like they are in britain,
where they are regarded as an extension of the public park, and
answerable to ALL citizens and their long term development needs.
Media that subvert those rights for women, are an abuse of free
speech in the common. This is not about repressing free speech, but
repressing abuse of the public good (our airwaves and public mind).

With an end to corporate personhood, the media oligopoly will not
be sustainable, and as well, lose its rights to subvert any aspect
of civil society as "free speech".

Sex is a private matter, not at all a matter of the state.
.. however child abuse, and public media abuse are. Women are
trivialized and we all pay by our collective degeneration and the
rise of string-bikini beach vollyball as proxy soft porn.

namaste,
-s

[H2O Man]

72. thank you

for your interesting answer.

A large part of my formative years was spent at Onondaga, part of the Haudenosaunee, or Six Nations Iroquois Confederacy. It's a matriarchal society, and male and female are recognized as equal.... though obviously not exact. One of the benefits was that while beauty is recognized and appreciated, it is not limited to physical appearance. Hence, women from my generation were not going to worry a bit about being 10 pounds over the weight that a chart in a doctor's office suggested they should weigh.

But tv has had a negative role there. I'm thinking back even to a September '87 article in National Geographic on the Confederacy, that included a photo of some little girls dressed and dancing like Madonna. So tv has an influence even upon strong traditional values.

I suspect that your teacher that you mentioned knew what people like my grandparents knew: that the only role of a teacher of any discipline is to teach the student self-discipline. And while that is becoming increasingly difficult as the world spins faster and faster.... your teacher recognized a good student! Keep up your good works, because your efforts are appreciated.

[liontamer]

99. excellent point

but i think it does have something to do with sex. Many misogynists only hate women they view as sexual. Thus they can degrade women, but still treasure their daughters. I remember dan quayle being asked his views on abortion and giving the party line, but when asked "what if it was your daughter" he suddenly believed in choice. There is a lot of hypocrisy involved in this issue, and I think it stems largely from sexuality somehow.

[H2O Man]

100. Good post.

I think there are closely related issues involving sexuality and control. Your post made me think of a time many years ago .... I was newly divorced, and raising two young sons. I helped form a "men's support group" for guys in similar circumstances. I was surprised how many of the group members had real problems with the thought of being "partners" with a woman. And I'm not an apologist for men -- far from it. I am an advocate of men's rights as parents etc. In forensic psychiatric social work, I worked hard to get females' domestic violence to be viewed as just as serious as men's in our tri-county area. But I was surprised nevertheless by the percentage of men in our group who wanted to be "smarter," to make more money, and to have a weighted vote in decision-making in their relationships.

(I kept about five notebooks full of observations, and have been tempted to put it into book form. "The Diary of an Angry Househusband" is the working title.)

[bloom]

107. "The Diary of an Angry Househusband"

It would probably be a best seller!

[H2O Man]

108. I'm not sure....

my relatives might be getting tired of buying my books.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

69. I see our society's attitudes about sex being unhealthy in the same way

tbat our society's attitudes about drinking are unhealthy.

The "official rules" say "don't do it, especially if you're young," but the commercial media and the advertisers say, "Go for it! It's grown up and sophisticated and nothing bad willl possibly happen to you."

I'm convinced that by telling youth that drinking is never okay, not even in moderation, we are setting them up for binge drinking. Similarly, by telling them that sex is never okay before marriage, we are setting them up for phenomena like "hooking up" and young girls giving young guys blow jobs (without expecting anything return), because that's "not sex."

[Tsiyu]

71. What folks do in privacy is NOMB

However, a promiscuous lifestyle is a potential hazard to health - mental and physical.

Sex is therapeutic and beautiful and every adult should be able to enjoy it, but I believe some folks are plain addicted to it as a coping mechanism or simply due to suffering from the "I Got No Life" syndrome.

One the other end of the spectrum are the "Sex is only for procreation" crowd. Sheesh! I would say their obsession with "cleanliness" and "purity" is more damaging to society than the more open mindset of "live and let live."

Neither choice is the best choice for an adult human.

[rumguy]

78. Who assumes that?

I certainly don't...

[Swamp Rat]

80. What do you mean we? Many folks at DU do NOT walk lock-step with

corporate America.

From your post #53:

"I define promiscuity as engaging in sex with people whom you place no emotional investment in. Casual, or "hooking up," as it were." - I don't. Casual "hooking up" is natural behavior universal to all humankind. Within this limited definition is an artificial construct, not unlike a puritanical idiology.


edit: Swamp rats can't spell

[Character Assassin]

82. They are two sides of the same self-delusional coin.

Having experience in both, I now eschew them equally.

[IrateCitizen]

83. Several thoughts on this...

First, as someone who is in a marriage that is in a slightly different "lifestyle" than most, I'm not too sure I'd agree with you that those of us who adopt any measure of promiscuity are in "lock-step with Corporate America." In fact, in my case I'd say it's quite the opposite.

Corporate America is not about the promotion of promiscuity. Rather, it is about the commodification of everything -- including sex. When promiscuity in any way is approached in this manner -- like many of my college friends who were interested in bragging about how many times they got laid -- it IS damaging, because it's about using others for personal gratification. But, promiscuity can also be approached in a manner that lies far outside this realm, it can be approached in a way that is more about SHARING than TAKING.

In fact, such rituals have gone on for some time in indigenous societies throughout the world. Within modern-day "lifestyle" communities, you can often find the same kind of attitude at work. The focus isn't necessarily on just getting your rocks off as much as it is about taking part in, and sharing in, a sensual experience.

Human beings are sexual animals, period. The more that the "puritans" try to deny it -- often doing so as a projection of their own shame and self-loathing of their sexual desires -- the more that it will seek avenues of outlet and expression. Perhaps this helps to explain the excesses of the 1960's and 1970's in response to the repressive attitudes of the 1950's. On the other hand, if we engage in a commercialized, commodified expression of our sexuality, we are damaging ourselves as well.

What we should aim for is a society and culture that allows people to freely explore their sexuality without either fear of repression or degrading it through commodification.

[SemperEadem]

86. the only thing that has changed

is that it's being discussed out in the open and not forced into a dark closet... truth never stays hidden forever.

human behavior has not changed one iota in centuries. 100 years ago, you could find those with the same proclivities as people living today--it just wasn't discussed or openly recognized.

What helped to turn on the light? IMO, psychotherapy and most recently, talk shows. Once psychotherapy caught on, it paved the way for open discussion as a means by which to accept the truth of oneself, instead of living a life of confusion, denial and shame. It replaced the church as the 'sentry posted at the gate'.

If talk shows didn't become so hugely popular in the 80's and 90's, then the country would not have become as desensitized as they have become with regards to behavior which some in this country feel belongs in the 'shame' category. It's now harder to force shame onto people--one has to be willing to take on the mantle of shame in order for it to work effectively.

Those who refuse to go back into a 'lie closet' are not going to shut up and go away in order to make those with tender sensibilities feel safe; nor are they going to take on the baggage of someone else's issues by accepting their shame as if it was their own.

[Nikia]

88. I don't think either are good

Legally, sex is a private matter. As far as things that a responsible society should teach young people and we, as responsible individuals, should teach others, Puritanism and promiscuity are irresponsible. It is human, starting in the teenage years, to want to have sex. It is also human to want to be loved and respected as a human being. Puritanism denies sex. Promiscuity denies love and respect.

[Book Lover]

93. Orwell explored this somewhat in 1984

She began to enlarge upon the subject. With Julia, everything came back to her own sexuality. As soon as this was touched upon in any way she was capable of great acuteness. Unlike Winston, she had grasped the inner meaning of the Party's sexual puritanism. It was not merely that the sex instinct created a world of its own which was outside the Party's control and which therefore had to be destroyed if possible. What was more important was that sexual privation induced hysteria, which was desirable because it could be transformed into war-fever and leader-worship. The way she put it was:

'When you make love you're using up energy; and afterwards you feel happy and don't give a damn for anything. They can't bear you to feel like that. They want you to be bursting with energy all the time. All this marching up and down and cheering and waving flags is simpIy sex gone sour. If you're happy inside yourself, why should you get excited about Big Brother and the Three-Year Plans and the Two Minutes Hate and all the rest of their bloody rot?'

That was very true, he thought. There was a direct intimate connexion between chastity and political orthodoxy. For how could the fear, the hatred, and the lunatic credulity which the Party needed in its members be kept at the right pitch, except by bottling down some powerful instinct and using it as a driving force? The sex impulse was dangerous to the Party, and the Party had turned it to account. They had played a similar trick with the instinct of parenthood. The family could not actually be abolished, and, indeed, people were encouraged to be fond of their children, in almost the old-fashioned way. The children, on the other hand, were systematically turned against their parents and taught to spy on them and report their deviations. The family had become in effect an extension of the Thought Police. It was a device by means of which everyone could be surrounded night and day by informers who knew him intimately.

[Ezlivin]

96. Because promiscuity is WAY MORE FUN! (N/T)

[bloom]

98. corporate America and rural Pakistan

Advertisers try to create emotional responses such as pleasure, arousal, and feelings of dominance. That is what sells and that is what is encouraged. That is what is associated with cars, pharmaceuticals, beer, pop, cigarettes. The major brands that can spend the big bucks spend the big bucks making sure their ads accomplish this.

In that sense, I have no doubt that in the meantime promiscuity is encouraged.



Meanwhile - tribal leaders in remote parts of Pakistan "danced for joy" at the aspect of gang-raping a woman. Pleasure, arousal, and feelings of dominance. You betcha'

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/29/opinion/29kris.html?h...

--------------------

The Paksistan example shows how far out of whack people can get. And it isn't just from TV - they might not get much of any TV.

There is a basic morality based on self-control, respect for others, equality, etc. that I don't think any of us wants to discard.

...I think it helps to have someone articulating what are shared values are. I think it's why so many people buy so many self-help books.

It is part of why people on this board are so outraged. So many political leaders (neocons) with their morality in the gutter. Preemptive War, torture, rape, corproate greed. Maybe they are dancing for joy, too.

I don't think the values/morality of a society should be taken for granted for a minute.

I think it is a lot more than just a promiscuity/puritanism issue.

[CoffeeAnnan]

101. I have been promiscuous and I have been puritanical. Frankly,

promiscuity is better.You get to meet the nicest people that way while you get only a single cranky wife the other way.

[Nikia]

103. But spouses aren't always cranky

Why does everyone think that? Are they cranky too? Do people choose people to marry who they won't like for long?
From my personal standpoint, the few men who I encountered sexually without being in a serious relationship were major jerks as were men who I didn't have sex with but had a reputation for having promiscuous sex. Most promiscuous women who I knew either had self directed emotional problems or were major jerks too. Sorry, I just don't think that using people is very nice.
My husband is a pretty nice guy. Sometimes he is moody but is a very decent guy compared to most men his own age, 26. I wouldn't exactly call us Puritanical anyway just because we don't sleep with other people either.

[FrozenNorth]

106. Bringing home a little surprise...

The most horrible part of infidelity in marriage is partners who play around and bring home a STD to their unsuspecting spouse. Playing around is very dangerous, you can risk your own health with these games but playing russian roulette with the health of your faithful partner is criminal. They didn't sign on to sharing viruses with your latest "score" at the club.

[progdonkey]

102. extremes are extremes

First off, I'm in favor of the de-criminalization of prostitution; I don't see how exchanging money for sex is criminal behavior. I agree with you that promiscuity is just as bad as repression: extremes are mentally and physically harmful, regardless of their nature.

I would consider exchanging money for sex (and dinner for sex) immoral, though, as it triviliazes something that should have a very deep meaning between two people, and it is simply the act of two people gratifying their immediate desires: the man for sex, the woman for money. Is it criminal? No. Is outside society harmed? Only to the same extent that society is harmed when a fat person satisfies their sugar craving, or an alcoholic goes on a bender, etc.

Sure, the participants are harmed: not by each other, but by their own personal problems that lead them to seek out instant gratification. Prostitutes and Johns should not be put in prison, but rather given treatment and counseling, just like the alcoholic or sugar-addict.

When the puritanical elements of our society attempt to shame us into absolute sexual repression, we can't respond by pursuing absolute sexual expression. The first demonizes sex, the second trivializes it.