A Reader Asks: What is Promiscuity?

I like sex, a lot. A lot more than I have it, tragically, and that’s not for lack of opportunity, but, rather, because I have moral preconceptions and perhaps even fears that I just can’t get past (IE: STDs, my Catholic youth, etc.).
I’ve said before that anyone can get laid if they set their standards low enough. I still believe that, and doubt that will change anytime soon. But I went and made a comment in response to one of my readers’ comments a couple days ago and have since received an email asking me my definition of promiscuous. That alone would have given me pause for thought, since definitions are generally arbitrary, but the moral semantics of it, that’s a different beast altogether. But then the reader went on at length and that then left me utterly flummoxed. This is the hefty tome I received:

What makes one promiscuous? It seems that promiscuity has a negative connotation; Is this because of a description based on religious, cultural, moral or philosophical matters? IE: Experiencing sexual desire is limited to procreation only; monogamy; one man with one woman… And if this doesn’t fit the scheme, are we sinning or acting amoral? Is it gender related? If a woman sleeps around, more than likely she will be considered a slut. Say a man has the same amount of sexual partners… “well, boys will be boys and need to be experienced.” I don’t think a man would be “accused” of sleeping with too many partners — oh, maybe in the gay community. Okay, so what is it – the quantity? How many times with different partners – 3, 10, 25 – what is the cut-off number? Or is it a matter of timing/frequency – a different partner every month? I know some people can’t even remember the names of their lovers! And are you promiscuous if you (even just once) sleep with someone for other reasons than “just” making love? I am thinking about a “sugar daddy”, IE: financial gain other than prostitution. Or is it then a matter of feelings and emotions; consequently, the lack of emotions and/or just a fulfillment of desires and needs? Would a married family man be considered promiscuous if he (once) had sex in a swinger club — kissed the wife good-bye in the morning, and in for a quickie with another woman the same night?

What, are you trying to make me work for a living? Hardy-har-har.
Here’s what the dictionary wants us to believe, for starters:
1. Having casual sexual relations frequently with different partners; indiscriminate in the choice of sexual partners.
2. Lacking standards of selection; indiscriminate.
3. Casual; random.

First things first: I’m not here to judge anyone, for anything. That said, I think the point of the definition above is that anything outside of a regular relationship, as soon as casualness or randomness enters the picture, is promiscuity. However, the tone that the word takes on depends on the perspective of the speaker. Are you judging the behaviour? If so, then the word is a negative one. Are you simply stating fact? Then it’s merely a pragmatic, honest descriptor.
Fact is, I’m actually a pretty old-fashioned girl, in some ways. I want one guy to shower with affection, and nothing more. (Although I don’t wish to be married, but that’s another posting for another time.) I don’t want to experience a rainbow of lovers, I have no interest in that. I feel a sexual relationship gets better the longer you’re in it, provided you maintain open communication and a willingness to experiment. If a guy cheated on me, I’d probably walk. That’s just me.
Have I slept with a guy on the first date? Yeah, absolutely, and that was promiscuity. Have I had sex outside of a relationship? Yeah, I have, and that was promiscuous. Would I have sex with someone other than a lover I was presently involved with? No, I doubt it. Would I consent to being the other woman? In the past, no, I haven’t (and I’ve actually busted a dude who lied and said he was single, when I knew his girlfriend). In the future, I really don’t know, but I’d find it hard to justify being the “other woman.”
I don’t think you can argue the literal definition of what promiscuity is. I think the nature of the sex you have (with emotions, without, with a commitment, without) defines whether it’s a promiscuous act or not, and that’s not really a matter of semantics, but rather, simple fact. The question then is, is that amoral? And what’s the answer? Then, dear reader, you’re absolutely entering into a philosophical debate, and a difficult one, at that.
Is morality subjective? That is, does the morality of an act depend on the situation and the beliefs of those involved? The majority of the world will tell you no, that morality is not open for discussion, because X religion deems that virtue as being Y. It’s one of the oldest arguments known to mankind, except in polygamous/polyamorous societies, and one that there’ll never be a proper answer to, and certainly nothing definitive will ever tumble from the fingers of this lowly writer.
A lot of people will comment that it’s not the act itself that indicates morality or the lack thereof, but rather, the underlying intention. Yada, yada, fucking yada.
Ultimately, I think what it all boils down to in life is, can you sleep at night? When you wake up in the morning, do you feel a little more whole, or a little less so? Are you satisfied with who you are, with what you do or have done? Can you own up to your actions on your own terms? (Owning up to things in a social, public forum is not necessarily an indicator, because there are a lot of judgmental assholes out in the world, whether it’s Pat Robertson or the dude down the street.) Granted, sociopaths have their own little club where they feel none of these questions apply, and then you indeed have to look at what a moral median might be for society at large, which is how we get laws in the first place.
I know what gets me to sleep, I know what keeps me up nights. I know what leaves me tinged with disgust, I know what leaves me with warm fuzzies day in, day out. I have few illusions of the moral high-ground I’ve set for myself, and while those standards are ones I strive to hold true to, I wouldn’t judge another for failing to meet them – unless they were involved with me, because then it should become an understanding, something to strive for together, something to embrace. Ah, proof: A romantic at heart, I is.
Promiscuity simply is what it is, sex acts committed in a random, casual manner; a hedonistic enjoyment of the flesh. And that’s not all bad, particularly if both parties are on the same page. When people get hurt, when disease gets spread, when irresponsibility transpires, then it’s something I frown on, that I judge. The rest of the time, well, we’re all adults, and if there’s agreement, then that’s all that matters. It’s the interpretation of those acts that get us into these arguments of semantics. The definition is clear, but it’s the moral interpretation of what “random” and “casual” mean that have you asking your question. Semantics, my friend, are indeed a bitch.
But what do you think of promiscuity? What do you think of my two cents?

1. (I’ve been asked in the past what I think of polyamory, and perhaps the above gives those askers a little perspective on my response, but I will likely do an entire posting on that at some point as well, because it’s an interesting topic, and one that I feel is largely misunderstood, though not quite my cup of tea.)
2. (And in regards to the posting below, yes, I’m still broke, yes, I’m still scared a little since my financial safety net has disappeared, and yes, I could still use help. Feel free to pitch in, at any amount. Thanks!)
3. (How come I never saw that episode of Warner Bros.’ Saturday morning cartoons, hmm? I guess that was before TiVo.)

16 thoughts on “A Reader Asks: What is Promiscuity?

  1. broad abroad

    My innocent naive question snowballed into an avalanche of confusion but thanks to your comments I am now less confused – I am more promiscuous than I thought of myself a week ago. We are on the same sheet of music: deep down I am an old-fashioned and romantic girl, too but I accept (and won’t deny) I have promiscuous tendicies.

    LOL – I am trying to make you work for a living since I enjoy reading your thoughts… but I also will be officiating the next basketball game for free in your honour. Hope this will make you feel less scared.

  2. scribe called steff

    Deep down inside, I sort of want to try my hand at a little promiscuity, but it’s never really worked out well for me. I don’t think there’s much wrong with it, but one needs to play safe and be educated about the risks they take. My need for affection along with physicality isn’t something I’m overly happy about, and I’m aware of it.

    Thanks for the help, eh? People are good. 🙂 Some people, anyhow.

    But yeah, the notion of promiscuity’s one that I think about a lot. I’m pretty open with people in real life about what it is I write about, and why I do it, and it’s interesting to me how often I get judged by it, or how it alters people’s perspective on me. I think even my closest friends have been somewhat surprised at what I’ve got under the skin, but they’ve been that way ever since I started The Ditch last year.

    But when i first began this site, I had a particularly raunchy story up on it, and I took it down, because I didn’t like the way it made me feel — like I had to justify that I wasn’t that character, even though I’d written it from first-person POV and used someone I knew as the male character in it. I realized then that I had a few hang-ups about what was “promiscuous” and what wasn’t. Shortly after that, I made a point of sleeping with a guy on the first night, just to see what that was like. I didn’t go through any of the emotional fall-out I thought I would, and that struck me as very, very surprising.

    So, while I say what I say in the posting about promiscuity and the fact that I don’t really wish to be that way, it’s true that I don’t judge it. I do think, though, that if you ARE being that way or engaging in that behaviour, that you have to be honest with yourself about your motivations. Fuck that, you have to be honest with yourself about your motivations in all aspects of life, but especially about issues like that. I just wonder how many people ARE, that’s all.

    My shower’s been running far too damned long. Heh. I’m outtie.

  3. Anonymous

    I think we’re on the same page on this issue. I’ve had one-night stands, dated two guys at once, been married and been the other woman (not all at the same time!). The only thing that really works for me is to be the one and only, regardless of marital status. Physical intimacy without emotional intimacy just isn’t for me. And that’s what I hold out for now.

    That being said, my one unbreakable rule for all and sundry is, is anyone being hurt? If not, have fun! But play safe, kids.
    D.

  4. scribe called steff

    Yep, it’s all about hurting people, or not. I was just sending someone an email just now, in which I was discussing kharma, albeit rather flippantly, but I passionately believe in kharma. I’ve had some pretty bad things happen to me in my life, but they’ve strangely always improved me as a person, and nothing has ever really been harmful-bad and I think it’s essentially because, regardless whatever else I might be, I try not to ever hurt people. I suppose it ultimately pays out.

    I can’t help but think that yeah, sometimes a love’em-and-leave’em encounter is mutually beneficial, but I suspect that usually someone’s getting a little hurt in the deal, and that worries me — particularly if me and my sentimental heart’s gonna be that someone, y’know?

    So, instead, I be boring and behave. 🙂

    But that pays off, too, ‘cos then some guy’s always the lucky recipient of ALL THAT SEXUAL FRUSTRATION. And I haven’t had complaints, that’s fo’sho.

  5. wunelle

    A lovely post, and a wonderful and coherent summary of the issue.

    Maybe I’m a bit off course, but I think the issue comes at least partly from the division between morality as something stemming from practical consequences of behavior versus something imposed upon us without explanation from some external source (which, it must be stated, is a traditional source of white male power).

    A practical approach to morality–this is where I am–finds sexual behavior, semantics be damned, judged by its consequences: pleasure, procreation, as a vehicle for intimacy, disease transmission, etc. (as you touched on). Promiscuity as a concept rather loses its weight in this light. The number of partners, assuming we’re all adults and honest and communicative, is of no inherent moral consequence. I say this as a committed one-woman guy, something for which I feel personally hard-wired.

    Love your blog!

  6. scribe called steff

    Wunelle–

    I love it when people love my blog, makes me feel all the grief of conjuring the writing is worth it.

    Why I left religion in the first place is a really long story, but a good one, and has to do with “something imposed upon us without explanation,” statement of yours, actually. The gist of it stems from my being a smart 13-year-old and realizing the bullshit a Catholic priest was feeding me at the time:

    My folks weren’t going to Mass as they were on the verge of divorce. I wasn’t going as an extension of that, but I was still a very, very devout kid (I had thoughts of being a nun when I was younger than that, but then discovered boys) so I’d pray a little at home on Sunday mornings, keep God in mind, and go about my day.

    I asked the priest if that would be all right, assuming I’d receive the validation I was seeking, and he said no. I had to attend church to receive the sacrament of Christ, or else I was not going to get into Heaven.

    I scoffed and used the example of a well-known serial-killer at the time, Robert Clifford Olsen, one of Canada’s most notorious murderes, who killed 11 CHILDREN, and who went to church every sunday. I said, essentially, “I’m 13, live far from a bus stop, can’t get to church, and I’m not going to heaven? What about Robert Clifford Olson, who found the time to kill kids in between masses?”

    I was told he’d go to heaven if God chose to forgive him, since he was receiving the sacrament of Christ.

    I then realized that what THEY (government/church/who-the-fuck-ever) thinks of morality is essentially bullshit, and I had to live with myself, and if I could live with whatever I did, then that was just dandy.

    Anyhow, a little detour off-topic there, but it explains why I feel that everyone just needs to be able to say, A) I’m not hurting anyone, and B) I still like who I am. If you can, then that’s really something.

  7. wunelle

    I’m afraid the religion is one of those topics about which I have trouble remaining civil (especially in the era of W. and the Republican posse that swept into town to save us from Oval Office blowjobs).

    I just have nothing in me for the supernatural, which slants my outlook on just about everything. Your story is heartbreaking in that it encapsulates everything I hate about the church: the power, the fear, the guilt, the evolved mechanisms to set the hooks deeply and to maintain control. (The thought of a priest, nominally celibate, giving marital advice almost puts me into a seizure!)

    Still, I mean no disrespect to every other solitary being who grapples with these things; it’s exactly because of my awareness of all that I don’t know that I both appreciate others’ attempts to make sense of it all and I reject anyone’s iron-clad explanations, most particularly when those explanations involve power and control.

    I think “I’m not hurting anyone” is about the simplest and most perfect condensation of what morality is–and ought to be–that I can think of (tho I didn’t think of it!).

    Totally off topic, but I’m fascinated by how varied the blogosphere is, and at the quality of the writing–and the thinking–that one finds here (I’m still quite new to this). I think writing and wisdom like yours would at any other time have earned you a very good living; here’s hoping it still will! My own writings are too unfocused, but I’m mulish about writing only what I want to write. I can’t simultaneously stick to this philosophy AND bitch about how I do not attract an audience!

    Sex can be a surefire winner (for getting an audience), but only if it’s well done. Your writing is brilliant, I think.

    Cheers 🙂

    (my WV is “xlfyuq.” Neat!)

  8. scribe called steff

    WUNELLE, again–

    Just when I was going to bed, too! All right. I love a good dialogue, so let’s keep the wagon-wheel rolling.

    I’m really happy Broad Abroad emailed me that question, since I’ve been meaning to write something about promiscuity for a long time, but never really knew how to tackle it. I sat down and spat that out, and just kept returning over the course of the evening to change a line here or there, so if anyone had read it right after it was posted, it had certainly morphed later. (A tip to other writers, sometimes just starting with a literal definition can be all you need to get a topic rolling.)

    Anyhow, yeah, my experience with the Catholic church, from when I was about 13 to 15 essentially turned me off religion for good. I consider myself a spiritual person still, (extremely so, considering some life experiences I’ve had) though, and was profoundly affected by my experiences in Native sweat lodges and even just sitting under the Northern Lights. I’m not sure there’s a god, but there’s something out there that makes me feel this way in here, and for that, I’m ever grateful. I quoted Ken Kesey earlier tonight to one reader in an email — I haven’t had a day of just emailing and writing in a while, and this has been nice — and it goes something to the effect of, “If you can’t find God in your own backyard in Kansas, you ain’t going to find him at the pyramids in Egpyt, either.” What I feel that means is that this God, this whatever, it’s everywhere… to feel it/he/that can only be worshipped within four walls not only built by man, but presided over by man, is a fucking ludicrous proposition — especially considering the world around us.

    (Upon reading this over, another thought occured to me — equally ludicrous — the notion that creationism is more valid than evolutionism, as adopted by some of the more aggressive Christian faiths here in North America, Islam, etc. Know why that pisses me off? Because how is it an insult to “God” to suggest that he maybe, might’ve, triggered an absolutely spell-binding sequence of events that began with a little ball of gas exploding in the cosmos, and resulted in THIS? Isn’t it insulting to suggest the simplified “he snapped his fingers, said Let There Be Light, and presto!” That’s like saying that God had to resort to a cake mix because he couldn’t make it from fucking scratch. The notion that some form of plankton evolving into a human being is just a mesmerizing notion, and maybe, just maybe this God dude can think in slightly more complex terms than some of these boneheads [sorry if I’m offending anyone, heh] are suggesting. Okay, VENT MODE off.)

    NONETHELESS, I do digress. The blog’s filled with spectacular people, just like libraries and bookstores are filled with books no one will ever read but should. I’m reading a great, beautiful, fun novel right now that fits that category, Chet Raymo’s The Dork of Cork, the tale of a 43″ tall 43-yr-old Irish dwarf-cum-author that has me thinking some interesting things about beauty, intellect, and sexuality, which is part of the reason I’ve posted the cheater-post above, so I can have a few days to fulminate and percolate something that might hopefully be insightful and outside-the-box, but in keeping with some of my more ponderous, philosophical type posts, such as this.

    You flatter me, and I appreciate it. I’m a sucker for flattery. I very well might be able to make a living writing, and I intend to pursue it aggressively before this year is through. I’ve never really attempted to, though I’ve made a few bucks on the few paltry attempts I’ve made, and right now, I’m just kind of finding myself on the literary map. Selling yourself as an artist of any kind is akin to selling your soul. It sounds preposterous, but that’s really what it is, because creation comes from within, whatever the creation, and you need to find who you are before you take that leap, or you might just lose yourself in the process. This blog is part of my quest towards that finding. Believe it or not, but it was just a year ago that I finally killed a six-year writer’s block that began before my mother’s death. So, confidence is in the offing, but it’s still being built upon.

    Anyhow, thanks for the chance to blow off yet more steam before bed. I LOVE A GOOD DEBATE! I think being sick the last couple weeks (and completely unable to speak since last Monday until today) has kept a cork in me. Feeling normal today makes me feel like yammering a mile a minute, I tell ya!

    -steff. 🙂

  9. wunelle

    I have a couple airline pilot-y posts about flying at night, being up at 35,000 feet (where you are above about 80% of the earth’s atmosphere) where the view is absolutely breathtaking. We’ve all, if we’ve got away from the cities, had those nights where the view up makes your head spin. I think anyone contemplating that view, ESPECIALLY when they know just a little something of astronomy, who is not filled with awe and wonder is kind of dead inside.

    Classical music is my first love, and I think the rapture that comes of the study of / immersion in music is something most people would think of as spiritual in character. So though I reject supernatural explanations, I accept that spirituality is a broad, blanket term that encompasses a lot of what makes us human. I try to be sensible that these elevated feelings are a thing we all have in common, however we come by them and however they’re labelled.

    “That’s like saying that God had to resort to a cake mix because he couldn’t make it from fucking scratch. ” Bravo!

    I think there is mystery and beauty and wonder in impossible abundance in the real world, things many times more fascinating than the anthropomorphically-spun stories concocted to put at rest our minds which seek to know what cannot be known (stories too often constructed to maneuver “those in the know” to the head of the line–sorry to come back to that).

    But back on topic, aren’t you kind of amazed at how this “artificial morality” has reached its tentacles into so many things that do not require it? Some kind of code that regulates basic sexual / pair bonding behavior is quite understandable, looked at from a 10,000-years-ago point of view: a woman in that environment needs assurances that there will be assistance in raising her children, and a man needs some mechanism to ensure that his resources are in fact going to the raising of his own children (and not someone else’s). Richard Dawkins and Stephen Pinker have both written about all this, and it is brilliantly summarized in journalist Rober Wright’s book “The Moral Animal.”

    Don’t mean to go on and on! Thanks for the dialog =)

    (And yes, I am looking forward to Part 2 of the latest post!)

  10. scribe called steff

    Wunelle–

    Sadly, my brain isn’t working as clearly as it did yesterday. Perhaps drinking coffee all morning and no water is turning me into an intellectual raisin. HMM. Must rectify that.

    I’ve long believed that science is as much a matter of faith as religion itself is, that if one creates an equation that proves a theory, it still doesn’t hold much more water than someone who contrives a story to prove the same thing. But apparently that’s not the popular belief, or these wars and political debates wouldn’t amount to as much as they do.

    I’m glad you like the cake mix line. Every now and then I write something that gives me a silly smirk, that’s one of ’em. I’ve believed what I said there for a while, but never had the cake line till last night. It’s a keeper.

    I’m jealous of your pilot-y night experiences. I’d love to have that experience myself. Ever want a visitor in your cockpit, you let me know. I’m five minutes from Vancouver International and I’ve got the adventure gene in me.

    I think the problem is that most people just can’t handle the idea of the unknown staying unknown. We want the answer to ‘why are we here,’ and too many of us can’t accept ‘because’ as that answer. Me, I can. I’m here to experience what I gotta, to live while I can, to learn all I can, and in the end, I may or may not have a legacy that spans a decade or two, or even a generation or two. I can hope, but really, I expect I’m just another cog in a wheel that’ll spin long after I go.

    A dead Canadian writer dude, Mordecai Richler, once said that writing is the writer’s quest for immortality. Maybe that’s why I write, maybe that’s why I’m content with “because.” Always makes me think of the college-exam urban-myth of the philosophy student who was the only one to receive an “A” when the professor gave a final exam where the only question was, “Why?” The student’s response: “Why not?”

    I’d probably have gone on at length and gotten a B, but that answer always made me think. Yeah, why not, indeed?

    Interesting about the morality bit there. One could start arguing that, for the same reason of environmental/societal need in a world where we’re maxing out population density for space/resources available, that abstaining from marriage, engaging in sex for pleasure-only purposes, and alternative-lifestyle relationships are suddenly more morally geared towards our society surviving. One could also argue that it’s time Eugenics be instigated and that selective-design genetics would better serve society than this random “let’s fuck and have a litter” approach to child-rearing that seems to exist today. Should morals and the perceptions thereof alter with passing time? Who knows. I do know that the notion of marrying for love didn’t exist 500 years ago, and now we’re saying it’s the be-all/end-all of a relationship. I think we’re behind the times.

    (I’m not supporting Eugenics… I don’t agree with it, but I certainly think some people should be uninvited to the DNA-contribution party… Ahem.)

    Ah, now for some watah.

  11. wunelle

    Just some thoughts to bandy about (in the service of robust discussion):

    I think it mistakes what science is to think people place their “faith” in it. I think this confuses how the general, non-scientific public approaches the distant concept of science versus how a practitioner views it. It is not a matter of faith that I use my cell phone 30 times a day, though it surely needed science and its disciplines to bring this about. Now, we may put our faith in a medical treatment, but the scientists who develop medicines and treatments are under no illusions about magical properties. This is all approached from trial and scrutiny, adjustment, hypothesis and verification. Even the guesswork is carefully controlled.

    At its essence, science is the simple recording of reality, to include basic, controlled manipulation of variables and a recording of those results. The concept of faith–that is, the conviction about things for which we have no verification, or even in the teeth of contrary evidence–is something nurtured and raised to prominence by the religions who will benefit by it. The scientist has hope, but faith is not a useful concept

    Time spent around the scientific method tends to displace the notion of faith out of one, and replace it with a comfort with uncertainty, and a familiarization with probability and support. We give weight to things that are supported by evidence, and hold in skeptical abeyance things which do not find supported conclusions. The scientist’s world turns just the same 😉

    (I understand that this may be a bit time consuming! I’ll happily take a non-response as a judgment that “this has gone on long enough!”)

    Finally, I’d love to plunk you in the cockpit jumpseat for a bit of sightseeing, but, alas, it is prohibited by both company and federal regulations. Here’s hoping my modest prose provides some scant compensation! (Now, if you need someone to teach you how to fly, that’s another matter…)

    Speaking of which, I’m off to fly (or at least off to the airport to sit).

    Cheers,

    Wm.

  12. virgin

    Having been ‘the other woman’ not once but twice, I guess I’ve been more promiscuous than one might otherwise guess. I’ve also had more a fair number of ‘casual’ encounters. Although they didn’t involve sex, they certainly don’t further my claim to be Little Miss Innocent.

    While my views on what constitutes promiscuity are undoubtedly more restrictive than most other people’s, I certainly won’t be casting any stones.

  13. scribe called steff

    Yeah, it is what it is, that’s all. We all have our transgressions of judgment, we’re all a little less than what we’d like to be from time to time.

    And sometimes, we just do what (and who) we wanna, and that can’t always be so frowned upon. Life’s too short to worry about it all that much.

  14. Percy

    Can you be in love with someone other than your; partner,wife,husband,boyfriend?

    If you are in love with this other person is it ok to have sex with them? who decides?
    why is it considered ‘bad’,’immoral’, ‘promiscuous’ to have sex with this person you love, outside of one relationship. Is it not possible to have multiple loving relationships?

  15. scribe called steff

    Percy, if your partner has not consented to be one among a number, then it’s wrong. Period.

    If you’re in an open relationship, then it’s fine. It’s not like it’s a complicated moral question: What does your partner expect of you, what have you discussed?

    As far as “multiple loving relationships,” depends what you believe. I’m not that type, never will be that type. Polyamory is catching on, though. http://www.polyamory.org/

    But being in love with someone other than your partner is abolutely possible whether or not you believe in it being right or wrong. Seeing someone for who they are and appreciating it’s really not too unlikely.

    But again, if your partner has not consented to you seeing outside people in your relationship, then fucking them is wrong. I mean, that’s not brain surgery. It’s about ethical responsibility and implied trusts. Considering that one-guy/one-gal is the standard relationship, anything outside that needs to be discussed. Some people are fine by it, many are not.

    I’m sure are hell not able to give you an easy “go fer it,” ‘cos there is none.

  16. Libertine

    Good post.

    And as one who is openly promiscuous without excuse or apology, I agree with your definitions of promiscuity.

Comments are closed.