Human promiscuity is objectively incorrect

[Aquinas11]

Well, actually, I think reduced fear of contracting diseases

Ok an irrational reduced fear (since facts are increased STD), thus further proving lack proper brain function

 

[Nihilo]

Nihilo:

How would one go about getting an STD if promiscuity isn’t somehow in play?

The definition of “promiscuous” is as follows:

For the purpose of this thread (and as the OP), promiscuous basically means conjugal relations with more than one partner in your life.

promiscuous​

adjective

pro·mis·cu·ous | \ prə-ˈmi-skyə-wəs \

Definition of promiscuous​

having or involving many sexual partners : not restricted to one sexual partner or few sexual partners

Which means that other person was promiscuous.

A person could get an STD from their spouse if their spouse has been unfaithful with only one other person who has an STD.

Promiscuity, again.

Or someone could have sex with only a few people in their life (which wouldn’t really count as being promiscuous) and get an STD

See above.

 

[Elf01]

And what causes condom use to go down? Reduced brain function caused by promiscuity

My guess is actually that people see an unplanned pregnancy as the worst thing that can happen when they have sex and other means of preventing pregnancy are more reliable.

 

[Thorolfr]

For the purpose of this thread (and as the OP), promiscuous basically means conjugal relations with more than one partner in your life.

Instead of trying to create your own personal definition of “promiscuous” which is different from a standard dictionary definition, you could just say, “conjugal relations with more than one partner in your life.” That way there’s no confusion about what you mean. I personally like to stick in my own writing to the normal definitions of words.

Also, if someone’s spouse passed away and they remarried, that would mean that they would have conjugal relations with more than one partner in their life, but I wouldn’t consider such a person “promiscuous” ( which they would be using your definition).

 

[ATraveller]

So, you’re right that condoms are not 100% effective, but if used properly, they reduce the chances of getting an STD or getting pregnant considerably.

People who lack self-control tend to not like condoms because they ruin their experience. It’s all about their own gratification. The modern secularist view is all about self-centredness. That’s why contraceptive use is going up simultaneously with STD cases.

 

[PetraG]

Also, if someone’s spouse passed away and they remarried, that would mean that they would have conjugal relations with more than one partner in their life, but I wouldn’t consider such a person “promiscuous” ( which they would be using your definition).

Chaste widows marrying chaste widowers isn’t a risky sexual behavior.

Having said all of that, let us not imagine that chastity is merely a matter of hygiene. People can and do get sick by doing virtuous things, such as caring for those dying of communicable diseases. Moral law isn’t a mere matter of self-preservation. It has to do with observing the two great commandments. Chastity has to do with both love of God and love of neighbor, for we are meant to be temples of the Holy Spirit. The Scriptures are quite clear about how we are to understand that:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you, everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one of your members than to have your whole body thrown into Gehenna. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one of your members than to have your whole body go into Gehenna.
Matt. 5:27-30

 

[adgloriam]

Thorolfr:

But it wouldn’t spread them if the people involved used safe-sex.

That’s not a 100% because sometimes condoms fail.
Just ask my friend.
She’s a mommy now.

We have to admit @Thorolfr that @0Scarlett_nidiyilii always has the wittiest comments, no arguing there

 

[adgloriam]

Any comments by State?

The states with the highest rates of cases were:

Alaska for chlamydia
Mississippi for gonorrhea
Nevada for primary and secondary syphilis

 

[Thorolfr]

Thorolfr:

So, you’re right that condoms are not 100% effective, but if used properly, they reduce the chances of getting an STD or getting pregnant considerably.

People who lack self-control tend to not like condoms because they ruin their experience. It’s all about their own gratification. The modern secularist view is all about self-centredness. That’s why contraceptive use is going up simultaneously with STD cases.

Does this observation of yours apply to other situations? For example, I wonder why some people don’t like to wear a helmet when they ride a motorcycle. I’m not sure if that’s because they’re secularists who are self-centered, lack self-control and don’t want to ruin the experience of riding their motorcycle and feeling the wind in their hair or if they’re just not very smart. Fortunately, some states require motorcycle riders to wear a helmet or risk getting a ticket.

 

[Thorolfr]

Any comments by State?

The states with the highest rates of cases were:

Alaska for chlamydia
Mississippi for gonorrhea
Nevada for primary and secondary syphilis

I’m not surprised that Nevada is on the list since prostitution is legal there.

 

[ATraveller]

Does this observation of yours apply to other situations? For example, I wonder why some people don’t like to wear a helmet when they ride a motorcycle.

Helmets, yes.

I’m not sure if that’s because they’re secularists who are self-centered, lack self-control and don’t want to ruin the experience of riding their motorcycle and feeling the wind in their hair or if they’re just not very smart.

And this shows making comparisons have their limits like metaphors have their limits.
My criticism of the secular view stands. A view based only on consent isn’t sufficient with something like sexuality.

Fortunately, some states require motorcycle riders to wear a helmet or risk getting a ticket.

I don’t know how the state could enforce something when the state is constantly told to get out of people’s bedrooms. That and it would be unenforceable.

 

[po18guy]

Q, perhaps rhetorical: Are you kidding?

Condoms have been handed out by the billions and disease keeps rising.

So, the solution is to hand out trillions of condoms?

Beam me up, Mr. Scott.

 

[Thorolfr]

Q, perhaps rhetorical: Are you kidding?

Condoms have been handed out by the billions and disease keeps rising.

So, the solution is to hand out trillions of condoms?

Beam me up, Mr. Scot.

Just because condoms get handed out doesn’t mean that they get used consistently and properly. To stay safe, someone would have to use them all the time. But if they’ve had a few beers, for example, they might not be thinking clearly at times and say to themselves, “Well, it’ll be OK if I don’t use a condom this one time.” People do these kinds of rationalizations all the time and underestimate the risk. And then there’s the issue of many people probably not knowing how to use condoms properly.

 

[po18guy]

And so you are saying???

The Catholic Church teaches morality and clothes firmly in place. Works every time and in every place. Unless we are actually instinct-driven animals with no sefl-control whatsoever.

 

[Nihilo]

Nihilo:

For the purpose of this thread (and as the OP), promiscuous basically means conjugal relations with more than one partner in your life.

Instead of trying to create your own personal definition of “promiscuous” which is different from a standard dictionary definition, you could just say, “conjugal relations with more than one partner in your life.” That way there’s no confusion about what you mean. I personally like to stick in my own writing to the normal definitions of words.

We’re Catholics on a Catholic anonymous internet discussion forum. My definition of promiscuous is just fine here. It’s begging the question that fornicating is in some way not immoral, to insist on promiscuity meaning something more promiscuous than I intend. More than one conjugal union partner per life is generally promiscuous, and there are many exceptions to that rule.

Also, if someone’s spouse passed away and they remarried, that would mean that they would have conjugal relations with more than one partner in their life, but I wouldn’t consider such a person “promiscuous” ( which they would be using your definition).

Right, those are some good examples of exceptions that are exceptions on their face, and even still this thread’s title holds here as well, so long as these exceptions do not in any way involve promiscuity, then there will not be STD cases either.

 

[thistle]

But some things are safer than others. If I jump out of an airplane with a parachute, that’s safer than jumping out of one without a parachute. And someone could still be killed even if they are wearing a parachute.

Condoms are sinful to use and no it is not the case of the lesser of two evils.

 

[AdamP88]

Promiscuity by itself doesn’t cause STDs, although it undoubtedly increases the risk. But it would be possible for someone to reduce the risk considerably if they were very careful and always practiced “safe-sex.”

That’s not really true. In any society that promotes sexual promiscuity there will be a corresponding increase in STD’s. Condoms break all the time. Drunk people aren’t going to consider how to practice safe sex in the moment.

Also, some STD’s can pass from skin contact.

 

[Nihilo]

Thorolfr:

One reason that there has been an increase in STDs is because condom use is down.

And what causes condom use to go down? Reduced brain function caused by promiscuity. It’s not lack of condom availability. It’s that when people are promiscuous, their brains aren’t functioning properly, thus they can’t properly weigh that pros of no condom (increased pleasure) far outweighed by cons of no condom (STD, pregnancy, etc)

That’s true. If it were rational, then it would acknowledge that promiscuity (as I’ve defined it for the purpose of this thread as basically any excursion from one conjugal union partner per life) poses a non-trivial risk to STD, so therefore ‘condom’ would be primary, and not the illicit conjugal union itself (the promiscuity). That it’s manifestly the latter, evidence STDs (OP), means that promiscuity is not rational. Promiscuity promotes irrationality. There’s another reason that it’s objective incorrect (OP).

 

[Nihilo]

Thorolfr:

Promiscuity by itself doesn’t cause STDs, although it undoubtedly increases the risk. But it would be possible for someone to reduce the risk considerably if they were very careful and always practiced “safe-sex.”

That’s not really true. In any society that promotes sexual promiscuity there will be a corresponding increase in STD’s. Condoms break all the time. Drunk people aren’t going to consider how to practice safe sex in the moment.

Also, some STD’s can pass from skin contact.

Yes but it’s genital skin, and not just any old skin, or else STD is a misnomer, and I’m pretty sure the commonly enumerated STDs are not misnomers, but are authentic STDs.

 

[Zaccheus]

We’re Catholics on a Catholic anonymous internet discussion forum. My definition of promiscuous is just fine here. It’s begging the question that fornicating is in some way not immoral, to insist on promiscuity meaning something more promiscuous than I intend. More than one conjugal union partner per life is generally promiscuous, and there are many exceptions to that rule.

I think most people understand promiscuity to mean multiple partners/ / casual sex/sex without commitment: not “more than one partner in a lifetime”. Your definition would technically apply to a widow or widower who remarried after the death of their spouse.

Also: Using your own definition can be fine if you state the definition in your first post. Otherwise you’re using an existing word to mean something different from what others in the thread are likely to think you mean.

My take on the issue: promiscuity (using the dictionary definition) greatly encourages the spread of STDs.

Consistent condom use can reduce the risk/slow the spread of STDs. Condoms can not prevent STDs from spreading: only reduce the risk.

If the rate of condom use goes down then predictably the incidence of STDs will go up. That does not mean that promiscuity is not to blame for STDs.