On Topic Discussion Are promiscuous guys relationship material?

[alphacentauri]

Absolutely not. I've learned that promiscuous guys cannot be trusted.

I agree with you 100% about this.

If they were once a male or female prostitute: Hell no.

 

[zombiekiller]

I don't think being promiscuous is a bad thing. I wouldn't be with my boyfriend for 10 years if I thought that it mattered because it doesn't. Not being trust worthy is not a good trait and people don't associate not being trustworthy anything but being a bad trait because it is. All you are doing is back pedaling.

No I'm not. I even said early on that I consider it neutral. Not my fault you are incapable of not assigning a moral value to everything.

Like I said before. I've met guys that admitted they'd cheated before and will cheat again. Even in this thread there have been a couple people admitting they cheat. Are these guys bad people because they are not trust worthy? I don't think they are bad people and I don't think being not trust worthy is necessarily a bad trait.

 

[luckynumbah7]

Speak for yourself. I've always waited until we've officially started dating.

I was, I did, and I'm still including you in the hypocrites column. Dating is a word that means different cultural practices, ethics and mores for different people involving interpersonal relationships. . For you, the cutoff line is "I just need to be dating for sex to be Good and Righteous ect Ad Nausea.

Everyone's dating is just a particular kind of consensual relationship. Consensual relationships are based on knowledge. When dealing with people, knowledge means being honest and forthcoming with a partner(S). Instead of encouraging honesty you just pretend people not in your dating style are dishonest. And you base that on when they have sex, not on the honesty involved.

Considering someone to be untrustworthy because they don't date like you (as opposed to actually being honest and forthright) is hypocritical because that's not the argument you claim to endorse but it's damn well the one you show.

 

[MrMojoRisin]

If you like someone and care about them, you probably should give them a chance.

I think maybe you are asking if someone who has lead a promiscuous life can ever be happy in a monogamous one?

I guess anything is possible, but I have to say I wonder how many guys can just turn that off so easily. I suppose age would be a factor. Someone 50 might be ready for one person, but someone 29, maybe not. It's very individual.

Do you have a particular guy in mind, Mr. Mojo?

I do, but I've told him how I feel and he doesn't feel the same way. Oh well.

It's for the best, though. I'd rather be with someone who sees eye to eye with me on these things. True, you're never going to agree with your partner about everything, but you should agree with each other on this particular issue. So I guess I've made up my mind.

 

[SLOPPYSECONDS]

wonkee line lost ins glue
-ha_
wot q again?

tinku

 

[zombiekiller]

I was, I did, and I'm still including you in the hypocrites column. Dating is a word that means different cultural practices, ethics and mores for different people involving interpersonal relationships. . For you, the cutoff line is "I just need to be dating for sex to be Good and Righteous ect Ad Nausea.

What? How many times have I said I consider these things to be morally neutral?

Let me reiterate. To each his own. If you like sleeping around and still call yourself single, god bless you. I have always and will always only sleep with people I'm romantically involved with. It's my choice. It's neither right nor wrong. There's no moral value attached to it. It's like walking in the park. Not everything has to have a moral value assigned to it.

Everyone's dating is just a particular kind of consensual relationship. Consensual relationships are based on knowledge. When dealing with people, knowledge means being honest and forthcoming with a partner(S). Instead of encouraging honesty you just pretend people not in your dating style are dishonest. And you base that on when they have sex, not on the honesty involved.

Considering someone to be untrustworthy because they don't date like you (as opposed to actually being honest and forthright) is hypocritical because that's not the argument you claim to endorse but it's damn well the one you show.

Again, I'm puzzled by what you say. I believe I've made it very clear that I don't assign a moral value to anything we've talked about here.

Let me try to be ultra clear about my position.

If you sleep around with random people and still proclaim yourself to be single, you are promiscuous. It's the definition of promiscuity.

If you are in a relationship with someone and you go ahead and sleep around, then I consider that cheating. Cheating = not trust worthy.

If you are in a relationship with someone and you go ahead and sleep around AND you don't consider that cheating for whatever reason, then you are not trust worthy.

None of the above is good or bad. It's just a way you live your life.

 

[Willie Boy]

Firstly, according to Zombie yes.

Neither you nor I are Zombie, so what he/she/it believes is irrelevant.

Secondly, everyone who was promiscuous has diseases? Because again, you are making yourself look a fool with all your 1950s moralising.

There you go again, not understanding what you read. Never did I say every promiscuous guy has diseases.... Only that there was a higher likelihood of them being infected with something as it comes with the lifestyle. And with a higher likelihood of being infected comes a higher likelihood of passing on such infections, as one can not pass on what one does not have to pass on.

Again you continue to make yourself look the fool for speaking before giving your mind a chance to catch up with everybody else. Take the time to read a full post. Then, before you throw something out read it again. Keep doing that until you understand what is being said. If you have any doubts ask questions. But please, don't just assume because you are seriously failing at that so badly.

 

[MakeDigitalLove]

You can't claim you are not attaching moral value on this when you are claiming someone is untrustworthy, because saying that has something to do with morals.

And what does cheating have anything to do with the topic of this discussion? Unless you are correlating promiscuty with cheating, which would be wrong.

 

[zombiekiller]

You can't claim you are not attaching moral value on this when you are claiming someone is untrustworthy, because saying that has something to do with morals.

And what does cheating have anything to do with the topic of this discussion? Unless you are correlating promiscuty with cheating, which would be wrong.

I do not consider being trustworthy or untrustworthy to be a moral trait and therefore does not need a moral value attached to it.

 

[MakeDigitalLove]

A chance to what? Be what they are and likely give you an infection (or two) that you don't want?

There you go again, not understanding what you read. Never did I say every promiscuous guy has diseases....

You pretty much did but implying it when you answered one of the questions from the OP. He understood what you read, if you didn't meant to imply that it was on you not him.

 

[luckynumbah7]

People often ignore how you fuck in favor of how much. How much or who isn't nearly as important as how.

http://www.menstuff.org/issues/byissue/sexmyths.html

 

[MakeDigitalLove]

I do not consider being trustworthy or untrustworthy to be a moral trait and therefore does not need a moral value attached to it.

But it is regardless of who you think.

 

[Willie Boy]

You can't claim you are not attaching moral value on this when you are claiming someone is untrustworthy, because saying that has something to do with morals.

No, it is merely an opinion based on fact. Someone who is promiscuous is likely not going to remain in a relationship, but to sleep around, hence the term promiscuous.... So to suggest the individual is not trustworthy inasmuch as a relationship has nothing to do with morals but everything to do with facts.

And what does cheating have anything to do with the topic of this discussion? Unless you are correlating promiscuty with cheating, which would be wrong.

It goes to the question of whether they are relationship material. If they cheat on their partner then they aren't relationship material, as simple as that.

You pretty much did but implying it when you answered one of the questions from the OP. He understood what you read, if you didn't meant to imply that it was on you not him.

I did not imply it. If he inferred it, that is on him, just like your own such inference.

 

[Devois]

Personally, I fall under the category Vitamin described; I've only met gays through casual sex this year. One of those times was the first time I've seen a real gay couple kiss since 2012. So I get to have casual sex or no sex. I could hardly swear that I'd commit given the chance, but that's because I haven't found the opportunity experience what it entails. If I had a boyfriend a few years ago, I'd probably feel differently about promiscuity.

Has this guy found and rejected his opportunities? Would you prefer him to have saved himself for you, a man that he couldn't know that he'd ever meet? Or for a series of ex-boyfriends, however few or many?

 

[MrMojoRisin]

Personally, I fall under the category Vitamin described; I've only met gays through casual sex this year. One of those times was the first time I've seen a real gay couple kiss since 2012. So I get to have casual sex or no sex. I could hardly swear that I'd commit given the chance, but that's because I haven't found the opportunity experience what it entails. If I had a boyfriend a few years ago, I'd probably feel differently about promiscuity.

Has this guy found and rejected his opportunities? Would you prefer him to have saved himself for you, a man that he couldn't know that he'd ever meet? Or for a series of ex-boyfriends, however few or many?

I'm not entirely sure what you're asking here, but I'll do my best to answer anyway.

I wouldn't have a problem if he had a series of ex-boyfriends. Those are relationships that are based on more than just sex. I wouldn't even mind a few random hook-ups, it's the amount and consistency that bothers me. What bothers me is that he has a history of one-time hook-ups with random strangers and casual sexual encounters with friends of his. So if we were to be in a relationship, every time he met with one of his friends, I would wonder what they were going to do. I've dated other guys who haven't caused me to worry like that, so I just don't think it's worth it. Why be in a relationship if I'm just going to spend it obsessing over whether or not he's cheating on me? That wouldn't be a healthy situation for either of us. He treats sex so nonchalantly and that's just not me.

 

[JohnnyAnger]

I did not imply it. If he inferred it, that is on him, just like your own such inference.

I didn't infer it, nor did you imply it. You straight up said it and I read it. It is great you are trying to lord it up claiming you made no such statement. But it is written there in clear English.

 

[Willie Boy]

I didn't infer it, nor did you imply it. You straight up said it and I read it. It is great you are trying to lord it up claiming you made no such statement. But it is written there in clear English.

Point it out then.

 

[MakeDigitalLove]

I think a couple of you need to look up the definitions of facts and morals.

 

[Harke the Boeotarch]

Promiscuous persons such as myself aren't fit for human company.

3:20

 

[luckynumbah7]

I think a couple of you need to look up the definitions of facts and morals.

That wasn't done the last time the 'topic' reared its self righteous, smug little self, so why would those pesky linguistic definitions and observable and reportable through statics and scientific observation of facts come into it now? Posts of these sort are really only looking for reassurance that they're not shooting themselves in the foot. When someone says no, they're not lieing, they're not untrustworthy and their behavior isn't and doesn't promote disease then people who wish to believe otherwise .... They dance. Not very well, either. Do a brief jig and claim the judgement is.... Neutral. Mmhmmm.