On Topic Discussion Are promiscuous guys relationship material?

[Devois]

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.

I'm trying to say is that promiscuous people don't necessarily think that promiscuity is best for them under all circumstances. You were thinking of offering something his friends and various strangers don't give him and he may well prefer that to, well, variety of partners.

 

[SLOPPYSECONDS]

peapull wike glop a morh howeva folkees wanna it
_!_

sssssh"

tinku

"blow nose"
! attttchhhhhoooo!

 

[LuckysRevenge]

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.

Agree with you on what issue?

 

[LuckysRevenge]

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.

pro·mis·cu·ous/prəˈmiskyo͞oəs/
adjective
having or characterized by many transient sexual relationships.
demonstrating or implying an undiscriminating or unselective approach; indiscriminate or casual.

Do you mean having a bunch of hook-ups? Or someone who simply has sex outside of a relationship?

This thread makes my head hurt. it sounds like everyone is yelling past each other and on different wavelengths.

 

[zombiekiller]

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

I'm not understanding why you feel it necessary to assign a moral value to certain things. There are people who prefer to be in faithful relationships and actually value the intimacy resulting from them while others prefer to have promiscuous sex with no strings attached. Neither is wrong or right.

Trustworthiness in the sense of loyalty in a relationship is also according to personal preference. I've known many guys that admit they have cheated and will cheat in the future. A few have even expressed their belief that it is not really cheating if there's no emotions involved. I don't think what these guys do is wrong and I certainly don't think they are bad people. I also don't think I can ever trust them in a relationship. I walked away from one of my biggest crush because of this. He admitted that he cheated on his ex and he will probably cheat in the future.

There are people who don't mind dating or just sleeping with these guys. I'm simply not one of them. Just my personal preference. Neither good nor bad.

 

[MrMojoRisin]

Agree with you on what issue?

Agree with me on how we view sex.

 

[MakeDigitalLove]

I'm not understanding why you feel it necessary to assign a moral value to certain things. There are people who prefer to be in faithful relationships and actually value the intimacy resulting from them while others prefer to have promiscuous sex with no strings attached. Neither is wrong or right.

For the last time. I am not assigning a moral value onto who is trust worthy or not, there is already one there whether you like to admit it or not. You just don't want to admit it because it makes your opinion sound worse.

The truth is that you continually making yourself sound worse by saying something like "people who prefer faithful relationships" and "people who value intimacy" as if people who are promiscuous don't or can't have these. You are implying these things yourself, not me. You can say you don't think it is wrong or right but when you word things the way you do, you are giving different impressions.

If you have a problem with the way people see your posts. Then maybe you should re-read them before posting them and have a better understanding of the English language. I'm personally not buying the ignorance that you are trying to portray here.

 

[zombiekiller]

For the last time. I am not assigning a moral value onto who is trust worthy or not, there is already one there whether you like to admit it or not. You just don't want to admit it because it makes your opinion sound worse.

I'm actually chuckling a little bit at the irony here. I've been telling you that you don't need to assign a moral value to everything and you went ahead and assigned a moral value to my opinion LOL.

The truth is that you continually making yourself sound worse by saying something like "people who prefer faithful relationships" and "people who value intimacy" as if people who are promiscuous don't or can't have these. You are implying these things yourself, not me. You can say you don't think it is wrong or right but when you word things the way you do, you are giving different impressions.

Let me take this from another angle to try to convey what I've been saying.

What is the best predictor that we can utilize for someone's future behavior? No, not a crystal ball. No, not a psychic either. The best predictor for someone's future behavior is... their past behavior.

Companies use this method to shift through all the candidates for their prospective employees. The criminal system uses this method to decide what kind of sentencing to give out. On a more personal level, we all use this method to decide who to trust and who not to trust.

Let's look at promiscuous people. They treat sex like it's just another thing in life. They go from one random person to the next to get pleasure. And as I've said many times before, some of the promiscuous people don't even consider cheating as cheating. To them, it's just another thing in life. No biggie.

So, if a promiscuous person has spent years being promiscuous and not care much for intimacy and faithfulness, why on Earth would I think he can all of a sudden turn around and value things like intimacy and faithfulness?

Looking at past behavior to predict future ones is not a perfect system. I'll be the first to admit that. But it's the best we've got at our disposal. Until we have a working crystal ball, I'm sticking with it.

If you have a problem with the way people see your posts. Then maybe you should re-read them before posting them and have a better understanding of the English language. I'm personally not buying the ignorance that you are trying to portray here.

Here's the thing. How many times have I said to you that I don't assign a moral value to everything and that you shouldn't either? And yet you went ahead and assigned a moral value to my opinion. What's worse, you seem to be thinking that my opinion is objectively wrong and yours is objectively right.

I knew this was an uphill battle. What I didn't realize was how convinced you are that your opinion is objectively right. My mistake.

 

[JohnnyAnger]

So, if a promiscuous person has spent years being promiscuous and not care much for intimacy and faithfulness, why on Earth would I think he can all of a sudden turn around and value things like intimacy and faithfulness?

Because people go through different stages in their lives. I have been promiscuous in the past, but the moment I found someone I actually loved I stopped. I think, in fact, most people go through that. Some people just stick at it because they can't or don't want to find someone they trust enough to form a relationship with.

In your mind though, you are saying that promiscuous people just can't stop. Lots of them in fact don't even view cheating as a bad thing. I just don't see this as being true - I mean a lot of us in this thread have said that in our pasts we have been promiscuous, but are no longer.

 

[MakeDigitalLove]

I'm actually chuckling a little bit at the irony here. I've been telling you that you don't need to assign a moral value to everything and you went ahead and assigned a moral value to my opinion LOL.

I knew this was an uphill battle. What I didn't realize was how convinced you are that your opinion is objectively right. My mistake.

There is no irony here outside of your last sentence here. I don't think my opinion is more right than others, thinking someone is trustworthy or not has everything to do with morals. Wether you want to or not, when you say someone is not trust worthy you are making a moral judgement, it doesn't matter what you think you are not because you are. The problem is that you are failing to understand what moral is.

You are making moral judgements on something that you're not but are pretending that you aren't doing that. You are also speaking in a position of promiscuous people when you are not one yourself, just because you know a few. The world doesn't work that way and just because you know a few of these individuals doesn't mean they speak for everyone.

 

[JohnnyAnger]

^ Agreed, terms like trustworthy and untrustworthy are not morally neutral terms. They have clear positive/negative connotations to them, to pretend otherwise is just strange.

You can say you don't care that someone is untrustworthy, but you cannot say it is a neutral trait. It is clearly a negative one. There is a reason that phrases like "honesty is good" are used as starting statements in moral realism.

 

[zombiekiller]

There is no irony here outside of your last sentence here. I don't think my opinion is more right than others, thinking someone is trustworthy or not has everything to do with morals. Wether you want to or not, when you say someone is not trust worthy you are making a moral judgement, it doesn't matter what you think you are not because you are. The problem is that you are failing to understand what moral is.

You are making moral judgements on something that you're not but are pretending that you aren't doing that. You are also speaking in a position of promiscuous people when you are not one yourself, just because you know a few. The world doesn't work that way and just because you know a few of these individuals doesn't mean they speak for everyone.

I'm not pretending anything. I really don't see why we have to assign a moral value to everything. Walking in the park is morally neutral. Sitting in a chair is morally neutral. Playing soccer is morally neutral. It's neither good nor bad.

I'm well aware that overwhelmingly most of society considers trustworthiness to be a good trait and untrustworthiness to be a bad trait. I get that. I used to think this, too.

A number of years ago, I started questioning what I perceive as good or bad. And since, I've come to realize that people with traits that I used to consider bad traits aren't bad people. Then I took another step and realized that whether these traits are good or bad are entirely subjective.

I regularly participate on another forum that's more work related. Over there, the majority of people there honest-to-god believe that doing the minimum they can get away with at work is a good thing and people who take the extra steps to do a stellar job are fools. Their reasoning seems to be that in the corporate world there is no reason to do a good job because you get the same result regardless.

I happen to disagree completely with such attitude. I take pride in the quality of my work. At the same time, I don't think being lazy at work is morally bad. I think it's bad in terms of work ethics, but it's morally neutral.

What does this have to do with our conversation? I happen to work with some of these people who believe that they should do the minimum they can get away with. I don't trust them. Some of them work under me. I never assign any important task to any of these guys. I just can't bring myself to trusting them. That said, I don't think they are morally bad people or what they do or don't do are morally bad things. They happen to not agree with my standards.

I'm finding it odd that after years of trying to convince society at large that homosexuality is not morally bad, you guys are now trying to assign moral values to other things that do not concern you.

 

[zombiekiller]

I should add that for generations the church assigned moral values to erroneous things like what sex positions are sinful and all of that. At the time, those things were obviously wrong to them. We'd since moved on from those views.

Being trustworthiness and untrustworthiness are human traits. I know many people who are trustworthy and also an equal number who are untrustworthy. I don't think they are good or bad. It is only my personal preference to associate more with the trustworthy ones. I also understand that there are those out there who associate with the untrustworthy people. That's their choice. We should not be assigning moral values to erroneous things like that. Just leave them be.

Dare I say stop judging people?

 

[JohnnyAnger]

The judgement is created when you assign someone trustworthy/untrustworthy. Not when we say there are moral judgements tied to those statements. I am not calling anyone trustworthy or untrustworthy - that is just you.

If you want to use more neutral terms, then that is fine. But right now you are not picking neutral terms.

 

[zombiekiller]

The judgement is created when you assign someone trustworthy/untrustworthy. Not when we say there are moral judgements tied to those statements. I am not calling anyone trustworthy or untrustworthy - that is just you.

If you want to use more neutral terms, then that is fine. But right now you are not picking neutral terms.

I know that in college they try to instill into you that you can never say anything about anybody. It's the politically correct thing to do. But out here in the real world, we have to determine who we can trust and who we cannot trust.

Let me repeat. Person A has always slept around and treated sex like it's just another thing in life. He sleeps with guy after guy while maintaining the no-string-attached attitude. He proudly proclaims himself to be single. Sex isn't special to him. To him, sex is like starbucks coffee. It tastes good, so he gets it.

Then one day, Person A meets Person B. A tells B he's all of a sudden a changed man and that he now all of a sudden treats sex to be an intimate act and not just like starbucks coffee. He asks B to trust him.

I know that the politically correct thing for B to do is say oh yes honey I trust you.

But come on, do you honestly expect B to trust A? Do you honestly expect me to trust someone like A?

The trustworthiness/untrustworthiness isn't just a value I'm assigning to someone. It's a fact. Until A does something to prove himself that he doesn't treat sex like starbucks coffee, I'm going to go with the best predictor at my disposal, which is his past behavior. To hell with political correctness on this one.

 

[MakeDigitalLove]

"In the real world", there you go again. In the real world someone would know walking in a park, playing soccer or sitting in a chair has nothing to morals. Like what the fuck are you even on about at this point?

 

[zombiekiller]

"In the real world", there you go again. In the real world someone would know walking in a park, playing soccer or sitting chair has nothing to morals. Like what the fuck are you even on about at this point?

Then why in the world would you assign moral values to people's erroneous personality traits?

 

[MakeDigitalLove]

I am only reading bits and pieces because most of what you are talking about seems to be non-relevant. But sex doesn't have to be a special thing for everyone, not everyone finds the same things to be intimate. It seems like your problem is you can't see things outside of your own perspective. Which means you should stop talking about things outside of your perspective if you aren't willing to do that.

 

[MakeDigitalLove]

Then why in the world would you assign moral values to people's erroneous personality traits?

Do you honestly not understand the difference between the activities you describe and personality traits?

 

[zombiekiller]

I am only reading bits and pieces because most of what you are talking about seems to be non-relevant. But sex doesn't have to be a special thing for everyone, not everyone finds the same things to be intimate. It seems like your problem is you can't see things outside of your own perspective. Which means you should stop talking about things outside of your perspective if you aren't willing to do that.

I understand that sex isn't treated as intimate by everyone. Which is exactly why I've been saying all along that it's neither right nor wrong to think sex is an intimate act or not think sex is an intimate act. I've also been saying that if you do not think sex is an intimate act then more power to you.

I'm just saying that for me personally I think sex is an intimate act and I could never trust someone who treats it like starbucks coffee.