Human promiscuity is objectively incorrect

[Zaccheus]

Promiscuity is largely caused by unhealthy bonding with a dysfunctional parent, usually dysfunctional single parent.

Increasingly for several decades it’s caused by society’s relentless propaganda bombardment, telling children and teens that sex is the most important part of life and that there’s nothing wrong with sex outside marriage.

 

[Zaccheus]

QwertyGirl:

So false.

You should have prefaced your statement with “in my opinion”. Instead, you stated it as fact. Please be careful with this. We have some readers here who believe what they read.

I agree with QwertyGirl but chuckled at your response.

 

[Aquinas11]

what you posted is…

You should have prefaced your statement with “in my opinion”. Instead, you stated it as fact. Please be careful with this. We have some readers here who believe what they read.

You are well aware that what you posted is false. Honesty is important, here. Please be honest.

 

[Aquinas11]

It was a logic-based argument, thus “source, please” doesn’t even address the logic supporting the argument. It’s like saying “A>B and B>C therefore A>C” and someone replies “source, please!” They wouldn’t understand they need to refute the logic supporting the conclusion. Note that nobody challenged the logic supporting the conclusion.

 

[Zaccheus]

It was a logic-based argument, thus “source, please” doesn’t even address the logic supporting the argument. It’s like saying “A>B and B>C therefore A>C” and someone replies “source, please!”

Is the following the statement you assert is logic-based?

Promiscuity is largely caused by unhealthy bonding with a dysfunctional parent, usually dysfunctional single parent. T

If so, then I would say this is a factual claim. It is not at all clear that logic alone proves this. You need factual evidence to support a claim of fact.
.
What information have you that demonstrates that promiscuity is largely caused by unhealthy bonding with a dysfunctional parent?

It’s like saying “A>B and B>C therefore A>C” and someone replies “source, please!”

But it is possible in a given context, that A actually < B. You have to be able to demonstrate your original premise if challenged.

 

[Aquinas11]

It is not at all clear that logic alone proves this

Then feel free to state why the logical premises and arguments in the post don’t support that conclusion instead of just making an unsupported conclusion (not argument) that logic doesn’t prove the conclusion.

You have to be able to demonstrate your original premise if challenged.

And if anyone challenges the premises (nobody has even quoted them) or the logic used to connect them to arrive at the above conclusion , I’ll be happy to address that.

 

[Nihilo]

Chastity is not an arbitrary virtue.

That’s the point of the OP. If human promiscuity is objectively incorrect, then chastity is also objectively not an arbitrary virtue.

 

[PetraG]

Unbiased source, please. So false.

Actually, there are studies that show girls in particular are far more at risk to sexually acting-out when they come from homes with an absent or distance father. (In other words, women with “daddy issues” are far more likely to respond indiscrimately to sexual advances or even to seek them out.)

Here is one:

Do absent dads make for promiscuous daughters? Study finds lack of father figure triggers risky sexual behavior among young girls

Researchers from Texas Christian University in Fort Worth quizzed 64 female students on their father-daughter bond and prompted them to answer various questions on sex, including condom use and frequency.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Here is another review:

https://thepsychologist.bps.org.uk/volume-29/june/absent-fathers-and-sexual-strategies

 

[PetraG]

Now, if you are only saying that people from dual-parent homes have also been known to be promiscuous, that is of course true. Not all promiscuity is caused by issues with parents and parents are not automatically to blame for the promiscuity of their children. The children of single parents are not automatically going to be promiscuous, either. Mother Angelica came from a single-parent home. It does cause a rise in vulnerability to engage in that kind of behaviors.

It is true, however, that fathers who want their daughters to have a higher likelihood of remaining chaste would do well to spend time with their daughters and by that attention convince their daughters of their dignity and worth as human beings. Likewise with young men: that is, early sexual acting out that people regret later, not to mention drug and alcohol abuse, often stems from problems having to do with a poorly-formed senses of dignity and self-worth and a poorly-formed desire to exert self-control. These positive attributes that the promiscuous too often lack do come from healthy relationships with important adults, especially parents.

 

[Zaccheus]

And if anyone challenges the premises (nobody has even quoted them)

How can anyone challenge your premises when you have not stated your premises?

Your statement to the effect that promiscuity comes largely from dysfunctional parents is your conclusion.
You haven’t stated your premises. The people who ask your source are asking you to state your premises.

You quoted : A>B , B> C, therefore A>C. Okay, good. But in that analogy, A>C is your conclusion.

In your actual argument, “Promiscuity comes largely from dysfunctional parents” is your conclusion. You have not shown your premises.

 

[Zaccheus]

Double posted, so deleted extra post.

 

[Aquinas11]

How can anyone challenge your premises when you have not stated your premises?

Of course I have. They’re in the post. I’m not going to enable intellectual laziness by restating them here. People can actually read the post or they can choose not to.

 

[PetraG]

You first raised issue of “brain damage”, which is a medical term associated with permanent brain injury, e.g. from motorcycle accident, stroke, etc. Go ahead and quote me using that term if you’re “disputing” it. My post dealt with “rational risks being put on the back burner” due to addictive behavior.

You even conceded there are no reports that permanent brain damage is tied to promiscuity, so why make that assertion?

When you originally wrote that a brain isn’t functioning, I also took that to imply that you thought the brains in question were physically damaged or impaired, not that the people were avoiding using the thinking capacity they have.

Of course I have. They’re in the post. I’m not going to enable intellectual laziness by restating them here. People can actually read the post or they can choose not to.

None of us here need to earn a grade from anybody else. If you refuse to clarify when people ask for a clarification and instead accuse your readers of “intellectual laziness,” who is going to respond to that by rushing back to re-examine a confusing post?

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

I know that, but it isn’t likely that a non-religious person would accept that so it’s a moot point.

 

[Thorolfr]

early sexual acting out that people regret later, not to mention drug and alcohol abuse, often stems from problems having to do with a poorly-formed senses of dignity and self-worth and a poorly-formed desire to exert self-control. These positive attributes that the promiscuous too often lack do come from healthy relationships with important adults, especially parents.

I think that it’s true that promiscuous behavior could indeed be more likely in people who suffer from low self-esteem and that this could be due to a dysfunctional relationship with their parents. Perhaps they’re looking for the love that they never received from their parents growing up. But from what I’ve seen in talking to people who grew up in conservative religious households, including members of my own extended family, these households can be just as dysfunctional as any other and the children in them can also be subjected to psychological and physical abuse which leads to low self esteem.

And sometimes people can grow up in very good families with loving parents and still grow up with low self-esteem because of messages they receive not from their parents or a bad family life but from society or their church. This happens with many people who grow up gay and many of them are indeed promiscuous later in life. It’s not an unhealthy relationship with their parents that has caused them to have low self-esteem, but rather the message from society or their church that people like them are disgusting, defective, and prone to committing unspeakably sinful and abominable acts. And quite often, gay youth struggle with this internally on their own before they come out and even when they have good and loving parents, are afraid or ashamed to tell them.

 

[niceatheist]

Promiscuity is hardly a new thing. Syphilis was a pretty common in those old fashioned more god-fearing days as well.

 

[Nihilo]

Promiscuity is hardly a new thing. Syphilis was a pretty common in those old fashioned more god-fearing days as well.

It only bolsters the OP that human promiscuity is objectively incorrect, to point out that it has always been objectively incorrect.

 

[PetraG]

I think that it’s true that promiscuous behavior could indeed be more likely in people who suffer from low self-esteem and that this could be due to a dysfunctional relationship with their parents. Perhaps they’re looking for the love that they never received from their parents growing up. But from what I’ve seen in talking to people who grew up in conservative religious households, including members of my own extended family, these households can be just as dysfunctional as any other and the children in them can also be subjected to psychological and physical abuse which leads to low self esteem.

And sometimes people can grow up in very good families with loving parents and still grow up with low self-esteem because of messages they receive not from their parents or a bad family life but from society or their church. This happens with many people who grow up gay and many of them are indeed promiscuous later in life. It’s not an unhealthy relationship with their parents that has caused them to have low self-esteem, but rather the message from society or their church that people like them are disgusting, defective, and prone to committing unspeakably sinful and abominable acts. And quite often, gay youth struggle with this internally on their own before they come out and even when they have good and loving parents, are afraid or ashamed to tell them.

Yes, I agree.

We also should not assume that we see in ourselves what our parents see in us or that we understand how our parents see us. This, I think, is particularly an issue when parents try to develop a sense of humility in their children by avoiding praising them and telling them to take a relatively low view of themselves as a matter of being humble. I know that I had no idea how my dad saw me until years into my adulthood, when my mother mentioned it in passing, as if she thought I of course knew what she was talking about. It wasn’t that my parents ever implied that I was anything like “disgusting, defective, and prone to committing unspeakably sinful and abominable acts.” No, it was just that I had no idea that I was anywhere on their personal list of remarkable people.

I know a fellow who grew up in a religious family and he was gay. Yes, it took him awhile to work that out, even though his parents were accepting of him both before and after he came out. He was promiscuous for awhile, yes. He isn’t now, but at one time he was.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

How can anyone challenge your premises when you have not stated your premises?

It might be best to ignore it as if it wasn’t said at all.

 

[AdamP88]

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.

Condoms don’t cover all genital skin, is my point. So even at their most effective, they won’t protect against all STD’s.