Chastity or Promiscuity? Which is best and why?

[Evangelicalhumanist]

It's interesting that you ask a question ("chastity or promiscuity, which is best") as if there were a single answer that fits all people.

I question that premise, actually.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Really? No it's on the same level actually. They share the same boat.

An educated guess is a guess supported by information. An inaccurate source is...inaccurate.

We do? No we don't.

What in particular?

You may not agree that there is evidence for God, just as I don't agree there is evidence of LUCA, but disagreement never killed no one.

A better way of putting this is that we don't agree on what evidence is suitable for the claim being put forth. In this case, the biological roots of marriage to support the idea that it is a universal human interest has more tangible proof than the claim that it is a dogmatic institution rooted in the cultural needs of a a single group of people because it says so in a book claimed to be the word of a being worshipped by that group.

I am not saying this is right, per se, only that my claim has more substance to it for a secular culture.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

The whole problem though, is that this comes with the risk of kids. That's a big part of why marriage was always traditionally so essential, so I guess these people doing it outside marriage better have a solid plan for that possibility. Do they both agree 100% to abort, or will they marry if it happens. So the bonding is not free from some very serious risk assessment. So long as they have it figured out, they can do what they want

This is a risk and it is a part of the agreement. In my experience, not only is safe sex a requirement, sexual intercourse occurs only after roundtable agreements where each party is aware of the risks.

 

[nPeace]

I guess I'd argue that since promiscuity seems so natural and so prominent in today's times, (at least in western culture) my conclusion is why fight it? I often wonder how this can possibly be a christian culture where people act and dress as they do, they are clearly more and more carnally blatant, so it must be such a jarring uphill argument for those with your views. I let this stuff go a long time ago

I don't think Christianity ever really took this kind of thing seriously for long anyway.

I agree, but no one here is fighting. I don't fight Satan's world. I am just speaking.

 

[anna.]

Wouldn’t all women be safer in a world that practised chastity before marriage? Women please have your say.

For instance [in the future] should a woman ..., who is unsurpassed in her beauty and adorned with the most exquisite and priceless jewels, travel unveiled and alone, from the east of the world to the west thereof, passing through every land and journeying in all countries, there would be such a standard of justice, trustworthiness and faith on the one hand, and lack of treachery and degradation on the other, that no one would be found who would wish to rob her of her possessions or to cast a treacherous and lustful eye upon her beauteous chastity!...’ Baha’u’llah

Would you apply exactly the same definition of chastity or promiscuity to men as well as women?

 

[Vinayaka]

Would you apply exactly the same definition of chastity or promiscuity to men as well as women?

I would add gays to that.

 

[nPeace]

An educated guess is a guess supported by information. An inaccurate source is...inaccurate.

It is still not accurate, because you have information. Something that is not accurate is inaccurate... Just like an inaccurate source.
No difference.

What in particular?

Everything.

A better way of putting this is that we don't agree on what evidence is suitable for the claim being put forth. In this case, the biological roots of marriage to support the idea that it is a universal human interest has more tangible proof than the claim that it is a dogmatic institution rooted in the cultural needs of a a single group of people because it says so in a book claimed to be the word of a being worshipped by that group.

I am not saying this is right, per se, only that my claim has more substance to it for a secular culture.

No. I was disagreeing with your claim that there is no evidence of God, and I think we have enough evidence to know where marriage originated, also.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Would you apply exactly the same definition of chastity or promiscuity to men as well as women?

Actually, throughout human history, we have not done that. The rules were always very different for men and women.

The opening scene of Shakespeare's King Lear gives a classic example, where the Duke of Gloucester admits that he has a son out of wedlock, but makes it clear that this is normal for men, but not for women. As he says,

"But I have, sir, a son by order of law, some year
elder than this, who yet is no dearer in my account:
though this knave came something saucily into the
world before he was sent for, yet was his mother
fair; there was good sport at his making, and the
whoreson must be acknowledged."

Isn't what he's doing is saying "I was okay having good sport with this woman, but she, obviously, was a whore for letting me?"

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I would add gays to that.

I've been faithful to my lover for over 25 years now.

I'm not expecting a reward or prize. And the trophy could only be really, really tacky.

 

[anna.]

Actually, throughout human history, we have not done that. The rules were always very different for men and women.

The opening scene of Shakespeare's King Lear gives a classic example, where the Duke of Gloucester admits that he has a son out of wedlock, but makes it clear that this is normal for men, but not for women. As he says,

"But I have, sir, a son by order of law, some year
elder than this, who yet is no dearer in my account:
though this knave came something saucily into the
world before he was sent for, yet was his mother
fair; there was good sport at his making, and the
whoreson must be acknowledged."

Isn't what he's doing is saying "I was okay having good sport with this woman, but she, obviously, was a whore for letting me?"

Exactly my point, so for the purposes of this thread, would you apply exactly the same definition of chastity or promiscuity to men as well as women?

 

[Vinayaka]

I've been faithful to my lover for over 25 years now.

I'm not expecting a reward or prize. And the trophy could only be really, really tacky.

I will be at 45 next May. Poor her. We plan to go to a fancy dancy luxury hotel for the 50th. Her reward for putting up with me.

 

[Vinayaka]

Exactly my point, so for the purposes of this thread, would you apply exactly the same definition of chastity or promiscuity to men as well as women?

You didn't ask me but ...I do personally. To not would be such a double standard.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

It is still not accurate, because you have information. Something that is not accurate is inaccurate... Just like an inaccurate source.
No difference.

There is a difference between theorizing based off of tested data and making a claim based on a religious text. One is based off information--providing a level of accuracy as long as the data is sound--and the other is based off an assumption based on religious bias.

Everything.

Not likely. Adaptation in life forms is well established, as is the survival of certain innate response mechanisms through these adaptations. Likewise, it can be shown that culture arises through advances of technology.

No. I was disagreeing with your claim that there is no evidence of God, and I think we have enough evidence to know where marriage originated, also.

Then what is your evidence of God (specificallyfor this argument, that this being is the word of truth in your view of marriage)? And what is the evidence of where marriage originated?

 

[Astrophile]

Promiscuity is so rampant, that people think it is okay to sleep around with every Tom, Dick, and Harry, and then go home to their mate and children. I find it sickening and disgusting.

Or with every Tamsin, Richenda and Harriet?

 

[Polymath257]

And what about the children born from such selfish unions?
It's not good for society...it leads to unloved children, who then grow up selfish themselves and uncaring, one step from petty criminal behavior.
It explains a lot in this world.

Why would you say that?? More loving, caring, responsible adults means the kids get more love, caring, and support, not less.

 

[Polymath257]

Ultimately, yeah. And so to sink one's mind into trying to understand someone else's behavior is to enter a blackhole. Let the chaste be chaste and the promiscuous be promiscuous, I guess.

But I do tend to wonder about the relationships some people get into. Like why would my old friend get with a guy (who I also know) who has kids by like 3 other women who he left behind. That kind of thing bothers me a little bit if I think too much about it. But they both are promiscuous, so hey, why not right. I think it most likely won't last, but these people probably have hearts of steel that can no longer broken in a sense. Perhaps chastity saves you from morphing into a certain kind of person that you might not want to become, as the promiscuous risk becoming essentially bored from love.

I think a guy like that is trash. The responsible thing is to use effective birth control (maybe get sterilized) so that adding more kids to this world isn't an issue. But to not take care of the ones you produce is inexcusable.

 

[Polymath257]

The whole problem though, is that this comes with the risk of kids. That's a big part of why marriage was always traditionally so essential, so I guess these people doing it outside marriage better have a solid plan for that possibility. Do they both agree 100% to abort, or will they marry if it happens. So the bonding is not free from some very serious risk assessment. So long as they have it figured out, they can do what they want

And why do you assume every married couple wants kids? it seems exactly the same issues come up whether married or not.

 

[osgart]

Chastity is healthy for those whom are virtue oriented. Promiscuity is a risky way to live.

There will always be people who experiment with sex, and end up being pregnant, and on their own. That's a natural tendency.

A lot of self respecting , and loving people with high self worth and esteem are chaste when they finally know better.

People glorify sexuality outside of true commitment and love. I see no such glory. It's a rotten apple all dressed up to shine. And it don't! It can really damage emotionally.

It would be healthier for humanity and planet Earth if people would be more chaste.

The family structure is the healthiest thing for society.

 

[nPeace]

There is a difference between theorizing based off of tested data and making a claim based on a religious text. One is based off information--providing a level of accuracy as long as the data is sound--and the other is based off an assumption based on religious bias.

Theorizing?
Seems your initial hypothesis is rapidly evolving. So let's go back to your initial idea.
I would suspect marriage from a psychological stems from innate response mechanisms dealing with mating rituals that were eventually bred out as humans evolved year round mating and showed up in culture as it developed with our technology.
So, first, what tested data are you using. References would help.

Not likely. Adaptation in life forms is well established, as is the survival of certain innate response mechanisms through these adaptations. Likewise, it can be shown that culture arises through advances of technology.

I have no problem with adaptation... but adaptation to what?
You said...
We know that at some point in evolution a species we adapted from had a mating season.
It is hypothesized that humans adapted from some species, right?
So you don't know do you.

Then what is your evidence of God (specificallyfor this argument, that this being is the word of truth in your view of marriage)? And what is the evidence of where marriage originated?

For one thing, history and the Bible - considering how far back we can trace the history of marriage.
The origins of marriage
How old is the institution?
The best available evidence suggests that it’s about 4,350 years old.
The first recorded evidence of marriage ceremonies uniting one woman and one man dates from about 2350 B.C., in Mesopotamia. (MARRIAGE IN MESOPOTAMIA)

This date is not far from the date by calculation, when marriage was first instituted - 6,000 years ago, according to the Bible. Also, since there was a new start (according to the Bible) of life around the same time as the first recorded in secular sources, it is a strong piece of evidence that the history in the Bible is reliable.

Analyzing other pieces of evidence demonstrating the Bible's reliability, if true, gives us convincing and strong evidence of the Bible's author - God.

What is interesting, is that marriage originally was between a man and woman - not a woman and a woman, or a man and a man, or a man and a horse, or a woman and a dog, or a cow and a cow.... and we can trace the history - perhaps with less accuracy to when the original changed.

 

[anna.]

You didn't ask me but ...I do personally. To not would be such a double standard.

I welcome your answer. : )