Planned Parenthood to teens: Trust us, promiscuity is totally safe!
On Planned Parenthood’s Facebook page for teens, they posted an article answering the question: “Is promiscuity a bad thing?”
According to Planned Parenthood, “there’s nothing bad or unhealthy about having a big number of sexual partners.”…
Even the Guttmacher Institute, the former research arm of Planned Parenthood, considered “a person to be at direct risk for STDs if he or she had had two or more partners during the 12 months preceding the interview” during one of their research studies….
The article continues, saying that as long as a girl feels “satisfied and confident” with her sexual decisions, she is okay….
Planned Parenthood is initiating a dangerous sense of moral relativism to its teenage audience. Simply because a person may feel as though their behavior is okay or acceptable does not mean that their decisions are actually healthy or good for them in the long run. The part of the brain that controls decision making is not yet fully developed in teenagers.
It is understandable as to why Planned Parenthood would promote promiscuity as acceptable behavior to teens. A little more than one in four of their clients are teens, and 45% of abortions are repeat abortions.
~ Christine Rousselle, Townhall.com, October 18
[Photo via Planned Parenthood’s Tumblr page]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
The more sexual partners you have the greater risk you have for STDs and STIs (Sexually Transmitted Diseases–STDS / Sexually Transmitted Infections — STIs). It’s a numbers factor–the more you’re exposed, the more risk you have.
The behavior itself of being promiscuous can be physically, emotionally, psychologically, and spiritually damaging. Not everyone agrees with that, but I’ve seen enough to know the negative effects to those areas exist.
Okay got to the first paragraph and stopped reading. They are promoting risky behavior and they need their behinds kicked! What about HIV? Ive cared for many end stage AIDS patients and it aint a pretty way to die.
If they can “normalize” child sex and “exploring” they ensure their customer base. If it feels good do it! They promote promiscuity so they can treat the STD’s and later offer only abortion.
Follow the money trail.
Teen promiscuity in the US according to many up-to-date studies, has decreased substantially thanks to effective educational efforts and thus teen awareness of STDs risk factors is evident. PP has no credibility here and they know it.
The only thing to consider is whether they can spread misinformation effectively enough to teen mothers. I think that unfortunately poor minority teenage girls will fall for this trap.
Ive cared for many end stage AIDS patients and it aint a pretty way to die.
To proaborts this is just more population control.
From PP answer: “Since the number of sexual partners you’ve had doesn’t say anything about your character, your morals, or your personality – or about anything at all really– there’s nothing bad or unhealthy about having a big number of sexual partners.” (emphasis mine)
@ssh@ts. They completely ignore that the risk of STD’s and some cancers increases as number of sexual partners increases. ^This is another example of why I maintain PP is not interested in improving or maintaining anyone’s health.
Planned Parenthood. Care (about money). No matter what.
I get how people think like this, honestly. If you were promiscuous and don’t realize the damage it did to you, if you escaped with no permanent STDs and babies, it’s easy to tell yourself that it was just fine, that a ridiculous amount of sex partners didn’t affect you mentally or emotionally at all. So, I get why some person would think this way. But the fact that a supposed health information site would completely pretend that physical health isn’t put at risk from promiscuity is pretty much criminal. Telling teens that they can sleep around without any consequences whatsoever is beyond irresponsible.
I agree Jack. Its incomprehensible that they would promote this kind of behavior among young people. I read that there is a strain of gonorrhea that is resistant to antibiotics and thats scary. I wonder if Barky’s daughters follow the advice on that website?
What constitutes ‘promiscuity’ anyway.
Some think that any more than one sexual partner in their entire life, to whom they are married, constitutes promiscuity.
Others think that as long as it’s less than one different partner per night (or day) they aren’t being promiscuous.
“To proaborts this is just more population control.” – put it on a placard, please.
Telling teens that they can sleep around without any consequences whatsoever is beyond irresponsible.
Hear! Hear!
“What constitutes ‘promiscuity’ anyway.
Some think that any more than one sexual partner in their entire life, to whom they are married, constitutes promiscuity.Others think that as long as it’s less than one different partner per night (or day) they aren’t being promiscuous.”
If we’re solely talking about physical health, the statistics speak for themselves. Anything other than long-term monogamy is riskier, with varying levels of risk depending on amount of partners, type of sex acts, etc. Don’t you think that young people deserve to know that there is an increasing risk of adverse consequences with each sex partner you have? You don’t have to put a “value judgement” on it to share true facts, which is the more sex partners you engage in sexual activity with, the more likely you are to contract an STD (maybe even a permanent one), have an unplanned pregnancy, or have other problems.
And if we’re talking about the emotional side, I do believe that hormonal releases, especially for females, can cause trauma for people who are sleeping with different partners. I read some article, can’t find it now, that associated more sex partners with more mental health issues, more drug and alcohol abuse, etc. The more sexual relationships you have, and the shorter they are, is correlated with an increase with those issues. Now, some of that is “chicken and the egg” type of thing, because people who abuse drugs and alcohol, or have mental illness problems, can also seek out more and shorter sexual relationships, but it’s really not deniable that having more sex partners and other problems are related.
The article does not say “having multiple sex partners is a good thing.” It mentions the hypocrisy and misogyny associated with people being labelled as ‘promiscuous’.
The advice it does actually offer is –
“Some things that can be unhealthy include having sex before you’re ready, having sex to try to seem impressive or cool, having sex when you don’t want to, having sex with people you don’t like/trust/care about, and having sex without using protection – like condoms and birth control.
If none of those behaviors sound like you, and if you feel satisfied with and confident about your sexual decisions, you have nothing to worry about.”
Sensible.
I’m glad you recognise the ‘chicken and egg’ aspect of correlative studies Jack.
Yes, promiscuous men are judged much less harshly than promiscuous women, which is wrong. It’s also wrong that (usually other young men, but sometimes older men and women in general) young men who don’t want to get involved in sexual relationships are judged, called “fags” or their manhood called into question. It’s a nasty mess of double standards all around. That’s not my complaint with the article.
“Since the number of sexual partners you’ve had doesn’t say anything about your character, your morals, or your personality – or about anything at all really– there’s nothing bad or unhealthy about having a big number of sexual partners.”
This is where I begin to take issue with the whole thing. Because it’s demonstrably incorrect. It does say something about your morals if you have several sex partners (it just means you are okay with non-marital sex, that’s a moral judgement either way). And saying that there’s nothing “unhealthy” about having a big number of sex partners is demonstrably incorrect as well. Like I said, the more sex partners you have increases your risk of adverse physical health problems, such as STDs or teen pregnancy. It doesn’t mean that you’ll necessarily get HIV or herpes or whatever, but it’s definitely a much higher risk than if you decided to wait until you are in a monogamous, long-term relationship with someone who also waited until they were in a monogamous, long-term relationship.
“If none of those behaviors sound like you, and if you feel satisfied with and confident about your sexual decisions, you have nothing to worry about – even if someone calls you or your behavior “promiscuous.” And that’s also a good reason to hold off on judging or gossiping about other people’s sexual history, too.”
I don’t agree with “judging” people or being mean to people, but it’s a huge, huge disservice to young people to act like having several sex partners isn’t risky, and is just fine as long as you slap on a condom. With typical use condoms are only, what, like 85% effective at preventing pregnancy, and that’s not even getting into STDs. I was “satisfied” with my sexual “decisions” for several years, because I was much too young and immature to understand what kind of damage I did to myself and probably did to my partners.
And you know I’m not some kind of Puritan, but it is seriously disturbing that people are not warning kids that there are issues associated with casual sex, especially for girls because they are the ones who get pregnant and are more likely to get STDs, and the consequences for STDs are harsher for females in general. How can these kids make any kind of informed decision if they just get a “thumbs up” and “hey, if you’re happy good for you!” type of thing? Drugs, alcohol, casual sex, etc can make you “happy” but they are behaviors associated with a lot of risk and it’s completely irresponsible to aim articles at teens that mask this truth.
“I’m glad you recognise the ‘chicken and egg’ aspect of correlative studies Jack.”
Well, yeah, correlation doesn’t equal causation. But someone who is involved in one type of risk taking behavior, like casual sex, is more likely to be involved in other types of risk taking behavior, like binge drinking. In my experience they are pretty much inextricably linked, and it’s foolhardy to ignore the correlation, whichever one came first.
They’re not promoting or encouraging ‘promiscuity’ Jack. They’ve simply recognised what happens, told people they shouldn’t allow themselves to be judged and provided some commonsense advice.
Okay, sure lol. When my kids are teenagers and they ask me what I think about sleeping around I’ll give ’em high fives and tell them “as long as you’re happy and wear a condom”.
“Since the number of sexual partners you’ve had doesn’t say anything about your character, your morals, or your personality – or about anything at all really– there’s nothing bad or unhealthy about having a big number of sexual partners.”
Yeah, Jack. PP’s above statement is not encouraging or promoting promiscuity. It must be our reading comprehension issues. LOL .
Great post @ 7:51 pm.
Jack, PP are taking a neutral position on this. They are neither encouraging nor condemning. They aren’t expressing approval or disapproval. They simply say ‘don’t let others judge you’ and advise “Some things that can be unhealthy include having sex before you’re ready, having sex to try to seem impressive or cool, having sex when you don’t want to, having sex with people you don’t like/trust/care about, and having sex without using protection – like condoms and birth control.”
It must be our reading comprehension issues. LOL . – yes, it must be. Because they’re not encouraging or promoting promiscuity.
Don’t judge! Unless you’re pro-life, then you’re judgmental! And gosh, it’s better to be promiscuous than judgmental, right kids? Because obviously engaging in high risk behavior is like totally healthy and while your at it, kids, stop wearing those pesky seat belts. People want to oppress your freedom if they dare judge you about your seat belt wearing! And those ‘don’t text and drive’ public service ads, what totalitarian oppression! Text away, my little hearties, text away!
The advice it does actually offer is – “Some things that can be unhealthy include having sex before you’re ready, having sex to try to seem impressive or cool, having sex when you don’t want to, having sex with people you don’t like/trust/care about, and having sex without using protection – like condoms and birth control. If none of those behaviors sound like you, and if you feel satisfied with and confident about your sexual decisions, you have nothing to worry about.” Sensible.
I’ve raised, worked with, and fostered teenagers for many years. The problem with that statement is that teens feel satisfied and confident in their decisions at the time they are making them. At one time or another, teens lack impulse control and have poor insight/judgment. It is only in hindsight and after some experience and maturity do they realize that the decision they made was not in their best interests. This includes decisions of a sexual nature, relationships, criminal and abusive behavior.
“Jack, PP are taking a neutral position on this. They are neither encouraging nor condemning. They aren’t expressing approval or disapproval.”
… That’s the point. They claim to be coming from a neutral place while ignoring facts. It would be like someone saying “I don’t care if people drink, there’s nothing unhealthy about alcohol” without even mentioning the fact that alcoholism and binge drinking are real risks associated with consuming alcohol, and that there are health risks associated with over consumption of alcohol, even if alcohol is fine for most people when it’s moderated. A ‘neutral’ position has to be a factual one, and the facts are that the more sex partners you have, the higher your risk is of STDs, pregnancy, etc.
If you read the article Jack, it’s not just STD’s they speak of in regards to what things can be unhealthy. Yes, they actually identify what can be unhealthy, they don’t encourage or promote promiscuity.
And right alongside the article is a selection of pennant type symbols, one of which leads to a vast array of information on STD’s and methods of protection.
Just finished watching a youtube video entitled “Demographic Winter – the decline of the human family”.
This video focuses strictly on data and talks about where our society is headed. It doesn’t focus on the morality of people’s sexual choices but rather on the consequences of choices.
I found it very interesting and my husband and I are thinking about showing it to our religious education students. We’re interested in thoughts from prolifers about whether or not they think teens would benefit from viewing it. Is it something you would encourage teens that you know to sit down and watch?
Prax I haven’t seen that, but I think that factual, non-judgemental, true information is usually a good idea. Teens should be informed of decisions they may make that affects them and those around them. When my internet is less slow I’ll try to watch the video and tell you what I think about it.
Reality, you don’t seem to understand what I’m saying. Do you honestly think that teen sex is a neutral thing? It’s really not. How old were you when you first had sex? I’m not trying to be nosy, but I just don’t see why you think sexual activity as a teenager is something that’s positive, it’s generally something that can cause a lot of damage and heartache. I was only fourteen when I “chose” to have consensual sex for the first time, and I ended up seriously promiscuous very quickly. I thought I was a grown up and that it was fine. I wasn’t correct but I didn’t realize it at the time, I was just too young to understand I wasn’t doing myself any favors. Do you honestly think a fourteen-year-old is making an informed, safe, positive decision for themselves? We as a society have decided that driving, drinking alcohol, smoking, voting, and other things are something that most teenagers aren’t old enough to make proper decisions about, why do you think sex is different? It’s an adult activity that has the potential to be dangerous, and there’s a reason that we try to kinda protect kids from themselves, and encourage that they wait until they are older before they make decisions to engage in sexual contact.
I get why people don’t want kids to feel judged or ashamed of themselves if they do engage in promiscuity, and I certainly don’t support making teens feel like crap if they have been engaging in sexual activity. But I do believe that teens are still kids, and while they mature they need to be given all the information, and that they should be encouraged to work on other aspects of their personality and relationships before they get involved in sex. That doesn’t mean make them feel bad, but it does mean that they need to know that sex isn’t a neutral activity, it’s a very serious one with many potential issues, that they need to be older to deal with.
What if a teen thought that drinking alcohol was a positive choice for themselves, would you encourage an organization that focused on teen health issues to be “neutral” about the teen’s choice to drink? As long as it was okay with the teen, you don’t think a health organization should be open about the fact that there are many potential consequences to consuming alcohol, especially about a young age?
Do you honestly think that teen sex is a neutral thing? It’s really not. – I’m aware of that. Is adult sex always a whole lot more neutral?
How old were you when you first had sex? – I believe I had reached the age of consent.
Do you honestly think a fourteen-year-old is making an informed, safe, positive decision for themselves? – often not, hence age of consent laws.
The PP page is for ‘teens’, not just fourteen year olds. You can’t prohibit the provided information from nineteen year olds in case 14 year olds see it. 14 year olds can access all sorts of info on the other subjects you mention too.
they should be encouraged to work on other aspects of their personality and relationships before they get involved in sex – do you mean things like “Some things that can be unhealthy include having sex before you’re ready, having sex to try to seem impressive or cool, having sex when you don’t want to, having sex with people you don’t like/trust/care about…”?
What if a teen thought that drinking alcohol was a positive choice for themselves, would you encourage an organization that focused on teen health issues to be “neutral” about the teen’s choice to drink? – if the drinking age was eighteen yes. But it isn’t. But while the age of consent for sex is 16, 17, 18 or whatever then info for ‘teens’ should be neutral.
“I’m aware of that. Is adult sex always a whole lot more neutral?”
No, I still think that promiscuity is damaging to adults, and that sex is a serious thing no matter what age you are. But the difference is adults have brains that have finished developing, they have completed going through puberty, and they hopefully have the life experience and maturity to be able to engage in consensual, healthy, and emotionally stable relationships (of course adults still make mistakes, but you can’t deny that a 25-year-old in general making the decision to engage in sexual activity is different from a 14, 15, or 16 year old doing so).
“The PP page is for ‘teens’, not just fourteen year olds. You can’t prohibit the provided information from nineteen year olds in case 14 year olds see it. 14 year olds can access all sorts of info on the other subjects you mention too.”
I don’t think 19 year olds should be sold the “sex is not a big deal” thing either. PP purports to be a safe and accurate place for teens to gather information about sex and things related to sexual health. I think it’s irresponsible for them to act as though promiscuity is a neutral or positive thing as long as you use a condom and enjoy yourself. Would it have been that difficult for them to add a paragraph along the lines of “Even though sex is an enjoyable activity, it is a serious thing that can have a lot of consequences, and in general waiting until you are older to engage in sex, especially with different partners, is healthier for you in the long run”. Because that really is factual, outcomes tend to be better if you have less sexual partners and you are older when you have sex.
“do you mean things like “Some things that can be unhealthy include having sex before you’re ready, having sex to try to seem impressive or cool, having sex when you don’t want to, having sex with people you don’t like/trust/care about…”?”
Yes and I’m glad these things were (however briefly) mentioned. But they have completely denied that having multiple partners can cause issues of it’s own even if you’re enjoying yourself, which I don’t agree with. They completely deny that having multiple partners is less physically safe, and less emotionally safe (in general). That’s why I’m saying that they are doing kids a disservice. I’m not trying to be prudish or anything, I don’t think sex is “bad” or anything. But maybe because I’m in the younger generation and I’ve seen all the damage that hook up culture has done to people my age, that now I really don’t like that people like to gloss over it and pretend that many sexual partners doesn’t have consequences. Do you know that something like 25% of people under 30 have an STD? It’s not a neutral thing. It really does remind me of people acting like binge drinking isn’t a big deal. Alcohol and sex in moderation (unless you have problems with addiction) can be a great thing for people, alcohol and sex without moderation can be disastrous.
“if the drinking age was eighteen yes. But it isn’t. But while the age of consent for sex is 16, 17, 18 or whatever then info for ‘teens’ should be neutral.”
Well, I hope you would agree that legality isn’t the end all and be all of whether something is a good idea or not.
Try this. What if the question was “Is binge drinking a bad thing?” instead of “Is promiscuity a bad thing?”, because remember the question wasn’t “is having sex with my boy/girlfriend a bad thing?”, it was about sleeping with multiple partners. Would you be fine with an answer that completely denied that drinking to excess can cause multiple problems, both physical and emotional, especially for young people? Would you be fine with an answer that didn’t mention the possibility of alcohol poisoning, liver damage, etc? Would you be fine if they failed to mention that your interpersonal relationships can be damaged by your drinking to excess? I certainly wouldn’t be satisfied with that.
If you’re wondering why I feel so strongly about this, it’s because I really do feel cheated that no one explained these things to me as a teenager. I was raised super religiously, so I was always told that sex was “bad”, which is an inappropriate thing to teach a kid anyway, but the county health clinics never attempted to explain that there are consequences to my choices, it was always “here’s your condoms, your test came back clean, go on now, have fun!”. I don’t think that’s right, I think teenagers deserve to have the information about choices that will affect their lives for years to come. I didn’t even realize until recently how much damage I did to myself, and I know I’m not the only one. I’ve talked to multiple people my age and a little older who are just now starting to realize that this hook up culture and promiscuity that is so common isn’t particularly healthy. It’s really not helping young people take care of themselves properly.
but you can’t deny that a 25-year-old in general making the decision to engage in sexual activity is different from a 14, 15, or 16 year old doing so - hence age of consent laws.
I think it’s irresponsible for them to act as though promiscuity is a neutral or positive thing as long as you use a condom and enjoy yourself. – they didn’t. They also call into question on what basis ‘promiscuity’ is being alleged.
Would it have been that difficult for them to add a paragraph along the lines of “Even though sex is an enjoyable activity, it is a serious thing …..” – that’s basically what they did. It might please you if they chose words closer to what you suggest but there are some who would be shrill unless it said “you must only have one sexual partner in life and you must be married to them first”.
But they have completely denied that having multiple partners can cause issues of it’s own even if you’re enjoying yourself, which I don’t agree with. They completely deny that having multiple partners is less physically safe, and less emotionally safe – no they haven’t.
Well, I hope you would agree that legality isn’t the end all and be all of whether something is a good idea or not. – I agree.
Would you be fine with an answer that completely denied that drinking to excess can cause multiple problems, both physical and emotional, especially for young people? Would you be fine with an answer that didn’t mention the possibility of alcohol poisoning, liver damage, etc? Would you be fine if they failed to mention that your interpersonal relationships can be damaged by your drinking to excess? – that’s not what they did regarding promiscuity.
I think teenagers deserve to have the information about choices that will affect their lives for years to come. – which is why they said “Some things that can be unhealthy include having sex before you’re ready, having sex to try to seem impressive or cool, having sex when you don’t want to, having sex with people you don’t like/trust/care about…”
Remember Jack, this is one little article amongst reams of information. It says that people who try to tar others with the allegation of ‘promiscuity’ need to be called into question. It acknowledges that most people will have more than one partner and it suggests serious considerations to be contemplated. It is being parsed and exaggerated by those who think that any sex outside of a marriage with one partner for life is tantamount to complete and utter self-destruction.
“they didn’t. They also call into question on what basis ‘promiscuity’ is being alleged.”
… They literally said, flat out, “there is nothing bad or unhealthy about a huge number of sexual partners”, along with their hedging about the definition of promiscuous (which I acknowledge is a subjective and poorly defined term). I do believe humans are more monogamous naturally than not, and I believe statistics back me up on this. Doesn’t mean I think it’s the end of the world if you have several different relationships over your life, but I really don’t think it’s within the realm of “healthy” to have multiple flings/one night stands a year.
“that’s basically what they did. It might please you if they chose words closer to what you suggest but there are some who would be shrill unless it said “you must only have one sexual partner in life and you must be married to them first”.”
Sure, some people aren’t satisfied unless it’s proselytizing in disguise, but I don’t really care. I do care about accurate information, and things like “there’s nothing unhealthy about a huge number of sexual partners” is not accurate according to basically any measure of sexual health. And again, I don’t think anyone is “bad” for being promiscuous, but I do think that the consequences should be clearly explained for young people.
“which is why they said “Some things that can be unhealthy include having sex before you’re ready, having sex to try to seem impressive or cool, having sex when you don’t want to, having sex with people you don’t like/trust/care about…””
Yes, and they failed to acknowledge that even if you’re into it, a huge number of sexual partners tends to be unhealthy. They just didn’t. They said the opposite, in fact. I don’t understand why you are denying it, you don’t have to agree that promiscuity is unhealthy but I don’t understand why you’re refusing to admit that they literally said “there’s nothing unhealthy about having a huge number of sexual partners”.
“Remember Jack, this is one little article amongst reams of information. It says that people who try to tar others with the allegation of ‘promiscuity’ need to be called into question. It acknowledges that most people will have more than one partner and it suggests serious considerations to be contemplated. It is being parsed and exaggerated by those who think that any sex outside of a marriage with one partner for life is tantamount to complete and utter self-destruction.”
Yes, those who bash on people because of their sexual choices and mistakes are wrong and should be called out. We all make mistakes and shame isn’t a good motivator to do better. Some people may be taking the article out of context, but I don’t think I am. When it literally says that having a huge number of sexual partners is not unhealthy, and doesn’t acknowledge the evidence that it isn’t, I don’t think I’m parsing it incorrectly. And you know I don’t believe that having one partner for life is necessary. I just think this “anything goes” attitude and not acknowledging that sleeping around can cause a lot of problems is just as damaging as shaming people for being sexual. Like I said, the health clinics that serve young people that have this supportive attitude didn’t help me much as a teen, it was cool they were concerned about my physical health and provided protection, but I think it would have been good if they would have been concerned that I had a ridiculous amount of sex partners at 15, my mental and emotional health definitely suffered for that lack of concern. Any teenager that is engaging in that much promiscuity, at the very least, deserves a conversation about how they might be causing themselves some damage. “Non-judgemental” isn’t the same as “not acknowledging an issue”, and I think when it comes to teen sexuality some more progressive people are mixing up the two.
They literally said, flat out, “there is nothing bad or unhealthy about a huge number of sexual partners” – that is not what they said. They said “Since the number of sexual partners you’ve had doesn’t say anything about your character, your morals, or your personality – or about anything at all really– there’s nothing bad or unhealthy about having a big number of sexual partners.” If you read it in context they are saying that there’s nothing bad or unhealthy in regard to character, morals or personality. And what’s ‘big’ anyway.
along with their hedging – ‘hedging’? I thought you acknowledged that what constitutes ‘promiscuous’ is subjective.
I do believe humans are more monogamous naturally than not, and I believe statistics back me up on this – after what you’ve said about correlation? Maybe it’s societal pressure that has kept people monogomous rather than it being something ‘natural’. Remind me of the rates of adultery?
I don’t understand why you’re refusing to admit that they literally said “there’s nothing unhealthy about having a huge number of sexual partners”. – because they didn’t. They said “Since the number of sexual partners you’ve had doesn’t say anything about your character, your morals, or your personality – or about anything at all really– there’s nothing bad or unhealthy about having a big number of sexual partners.” If you read it in context they are saying that there’s nothing bad or unhealthy in regard to character, morals or personality.
“that is not what they said. They said “Since the number of sexual partners you’ve had doesn’t say anything about your character, your morals, or your personality – or about anything at all really– there’s nothing bad or unhealthy about having a big number of sexual partners.” If you read it in context they are saying that there’s nothing bad or unhealthy in regard to character, morals or personality. And what’s ‘big’ anyway.”
It’s still saying that it’s not unhealthy to have many sex partners. I do think (and this is just personal opinion) that having a large amount of sexual partners damages your character, sometimes you think you’re worth nothing more than sex to people, or sometimes people start seeing others as objects to use. Having sex with many different people can damage your perceptions of relationships and such, which I think can fall under “character” or “morals” I suppose. And I don’t know about “big”, what do you think when you hear the word “big” in regards to amount of partners? When I hear a “big” number of sexual partners I think around a dozen or more for normal people. I think the national average is around 7 in a lifetime. In the drug culture “big” tends to mean over fifty or even over a hundred (drug addicts tend to rack up partners pretty quickly and at a young age, I wasn’t unusual in having as many partners as I do). I think that word is mostly dependent on your perception. Regardless, it’s not wrong that anything other than a committed monogamous relationship is more and more risky the more partners you have, both emotionally and physically.
“‘hedging’? I thought you acknowledged that what constitutes ‘promiscuous’ is subjective.”
It is. But there’s a point where people in general tend to agree. If you polled 100 people, you’d most likely find that the majority think that having a different sex partner every day, or every week, is promiscuous. You’d probably also find that the majority of people find one night stands promiscuous even if that’s only an “every couple of months” thing (at least for women, that double standard tends to ensure that men get excused for having no strings sex). But I don’t think the exact definition of promiscuous is important (and it’s impossible to get everyone to agree on what’s promiscuous). The point is that multiple sexual partners is risky, and the more you have the riskier it is. That’s where this article fails, that should be explicitly stated when you are talking to the younger crowd.
“after what you’ve said about correlation? Maybe it’s societal pressure that has kept people monogomous rather than it being something ‘natural’. Remind me of the rates of adultery?”
I’m sorry, I didn’t explain what I meant by “natural”, I should have been clear. I mean that it’s pretty apparent based on evidence that it’s damaging to humans to have many different sex partners. Physically, the rates of STDs and other physical health issues speaks for itself. I do acknowledge that some of the emotional damage from promiscuity might be culturally ingrained, but I don’t think all of it is. It’s certainly true that people release bonding or “love” hormones when they have sex (men do to a lesser extent, but I’ve read that men can release almost as much with post-coital physical affection as women do during sex), this suggests to me that our species evolved to pair bond to some extent at least. There’s also the fact that almost every society and culture has had some form of monogamy or “pairing”. I read an interesting article once about polygamy, and some anthropologists think that even in polygamy the male involved will often have a “favorite” that he tends to spend the most time and affection on, even if he has sex with all his wives (there’s also the fact that polygamous relationships tend to involve more sexual and physical abuse than monogamous relationships in comparable cultures, which could be a variety of factors, but suggests to me that polygamy may be naturally less healthy than monogamy). Adultery may be somewhat common in some cultures (we ARE mammals, after all, with the sex drives that go along with it), but so is jealousy and possessiveness of your spouse. All these things suggest to me that humans are built more to pair bond than to sleep around.
And anyway, you don’t have to agree with my opinion on it, but I know you’d agree that anything taken to an extreme, even something as natural as sex, is going to cause some damage to the people involved. And you should agree that with the STD rate and the other issues that promiscuity can cause or contribute to means that young people, especially young women (because unfortunately female anatomy is affected worse by STDs, they have to carry the unplanned baby, and women are in general damaged more by casual sex), should be informed and supported and taught that sex isn’t something to be taken lightly and that being happy with your sexual choices isn’t the only thing they should be focused on.
“If you read it in context they are saying that there’s nothing bad or unhealthy in regard to character, morals or personality.”
Well I already touched on this. But also, how many teenagers are you around? They really do need very specific instructions and they take anything close to encouragement as an endorsement. You know that I volunteer at a teen shelter down here, which means I end up working with a lot of promiscuous teens (I can only speak for the boys though, I don’t do much work with the girls, adult men aren’t allowed to spend too much time with the girls for liability and safety reasons and such). I realize I have a skewed view because of my adolescence and because I spend time with very damaged teens, but this attitude that “as long as you’re happy, consenting, and protected, promiscuity is not damaging” is causing these kids some major problems.
There was this one boy I was talking to a while back, he is sixteen, who can’t fathom NOT having sex with a female friend. He told me that he has had sex with every friend he’s ever had. He just can’t imagine why it might be healthier, or even more FUN, to have a friend that you don’t have sex with of the gender that you’re orientated to be attracted to. I know EXACTLY how he’s thinking, because I thought and did the same thing at his age and for a long time after. Sex isn’t a big deal, as long as you’re nice to each other and use a condom who cares? Him and I had a great conversation about it and I think I got through to him a bit. I explained that attitude and the choices I made at his age, that he is now making, did me a lot of damage. I never learned how to interact with people, especially women, without sex being on the table at some point. I didn’t think anyone would even LIKE me if I didn’t have sex with them. It cheapened sex for me, I never really knew what people were talking about (and still haven’t ever experienced) when they talk about “bonding” with someone you are having sex with, because I never learned that it could be a special thing with someone you love. And I think having many sex partners actually damages that part of you that can bond with someone you’re in a sexual relationship with. It really messed up my marriage too. I would not like to see that happen to this boy and others like him. And I think this attitude that promiscuity is something that doesn’t really affect who you are and how you interact with and treat people, and how you feel about yourself, contributes to this (of course this kid, and me, and most of the kids at the shelter were sexually abused and used, which is a whole other contributing factor, but I think even people who weren’t sexually abused are damaged with promiscuity).
Do you get what I mean, where I’m coming from? I’ve seen these attitudes played out over and over and nothing good comes of it. And you know I don’t agree with the “the only good way to have sex is one partner married for life”, and I think the concept of “purity” can cause some major damage, but that doesn’t mean that the other extreme is okay.
Todays teens are in trouble. I can only speak from observation. Drug use and drinking is on the rise along with sleeping around.
When my internet is less slow I’ll try to watch the video and tell you what I think about it
Thanks so much, Jack. I value your opinion, especially about teens.
“reality” you seem to argue that taking a neutral stance for an organization that touts itself as a health and wellness hub for women is somehow proper. Methinks you are off your rocker by a landslide, haha.
PP gains no credibility whatsoever as a “women’s health” “organization” by advising teens not to put a value judgment on promiscuity. It is the peak of hypocricy and ill intentions for PP to disregard the risky aspects of promiscuity and it is done with an alterior motive of seeking out potential abortions. Anyone can see through this and I pray that teenage girls will not be fooled by this trap…
Your disingenuousness. shows all the time.
We accept the message that if we eat too much junk food our arteries will harden. We accept that if we eat uncooked egg yolks we might get food poisoning. Our culture needs to wake the heck up and realize that just because the subject is sex, we don’t throw all caution and logic out of the window. Attitudes like PP’s and Uncle Trollie’s are flat out unhealthy. You can’t sanitize all behavior of morals and judgment. We innately know that when we behave in a manner that brings unpleasant consequences, those consequences are our responsibility.
I have no great issue with what you have to say in regards to the risks inherent in certain behaviors Jack. Indeed, given an ‘ordinary’ life, I personally think that having more than 7 partners may be indicative of greed or some sort of failing. But that’s just my perspective.
What I do have issue with is the claim that PP are promoting or encouraging young people having multiple sex partners. They have simply said that you shouldn’t allow yourself to be jusged by others and then go on to explain what some of the unhealthy risks actually are.
As they express in the title of the piece, they are not being judgemental.
Unlike those who claim that anything and everything PP does is dangerous, dishonest and verging on demonic, which is quite clearly not the case.
“reality” you seem to argue that taking a neutral stance for an organization that touts itself as a health and wellness hub for women is somehow proper. – why would it not be. Is it supposed to proselytise or run judgemental propaganda campaigns against certain groups of people or something?
Methinks you are off your rocker by a landslide, haha. – and I wouldn’t hazard a guess as to where your thinking may have gone, haha haha.
PP gains no credibility whatsoever as a “women’s health” “organization” by advising teens not to put a value judgment on promiscuity. – what they actually said was don’t let others put their value judgements on you. Or did you not read that bit? Nor is ‘promiscuity’ a quantitative measure.
It is the peak of hypocricy and ill intentions for PP to disregard the risky aspects of promiscuity and it is done with an alterior motive of seeking out potential abortions.- no hypocrisy, they spoke of the unhealthy possibilities. Or did you not read that bit either?
‘alterior motives’ – what, you’re accusing them of witchcraft and sorcery now?
Anyone can see through this and I pray that teenage girls will not be fooled by this trap… – anyone can see through the anti-choice propaganda campaign against PP.
Your disingenuousness. shows all the time. – how sweet you are “thomas r.”
9ek, Yup — flat out unhealthy says it all.
“reality” – promiscuity is by its definition a quantitative measure, everyone knows this but you so look it up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Promiscuity
also, by proclaiming not to allow anyone to put value judgments on you for promiscuous behavior, the easy logical conclusion is to disregard this behavior. I don’t agree!!!! PP has a responsibility not to sugar coat this issue. This is not a popularity contest but a serious health matter. As a “women’s health” organization, PP has to be held to standards that promote healthy sexual habits. The way PP dances around the seriousness of imparting this on their “clients” speaks to their dark motivations.
The level of your disingenuousness knows no bounds..
“reality” – promiscuity is by its definition a quantitative measure, everyone knows this but you so look it up. – yeah? What’s the number then? Two? Twenty? Two thousand? Maybe you can look it up somewhere.
also, by proclaiming not to allow anyone to put value judgments on you for promiscuous behavior, – tut tut “thomas r.”,it’s the declaring of someone’s behavior as being ‘promiscuous’ that is the value judgement. You’re attempting to prejudge.
the easy logical conclusion is to disregard this behavior. – yes, we should disregard the behavior of those who would apply their value judgements to us.
I don’t agree!!!! – with what?
PP has a responsibility not to sugar coat this issue. This is not a popularity contest but a serious health matter. As a “women’s health” organization, PP has to be held to standards that promote healthy sexual habits. – ah, so what you really mean is that you would like PP to proselytise and run judgemental propaganda campaigns consistent with your viewpoint.
The way PP dances around the seriousness of imparting this on their “clients” speaks to their dark motivations. – they don’t. Have you explored further the vast amount of information they provide. Easily accessed via the ‘article’ link above.
The level of your disingenuousness knows no bounds.. – now I’m a track athlete? I can barely walk man!
Some people have correctly pointed out that having more sexual partners raises your risk of an STD. But not only does your risk increase, it increases exponentially with each additional partner. So if you go from two to four sexual partners, for example, your risk did not merely double—it far more than doubled.
Hence the astronomical STD rates among African-Americans. Blacks actually use condoms at a much higher rate than other races. According to the principle of risk compensation, they believe condoms almost completely protect from STDs and pregnancy, and therefore feel safe to have sex with multiple partners they otherwise would not have. Obviously this has not worked out so well. These are real human beings, and real communities, who are suffering a catastrophic public health crisis because of the ideology of “there’s nothing to be ashamed of if you have multiple sex partners. Just wear a condom to be safe!” The people who propagate such nonsense should be shot for causing so much human misery, poverty, and death. Before that though, they themselves should have to pay the billions of dollars that STDs cost taxpayers every year.
The STD rate in the black community isn’t all due to more partners. It’s also due to having a much smaller dating pool, since interracial dating is much less common than intraracial dating. Same reason the gay community has much higher STD rates even if they don’t engage in high risk activities like anal sex or have an unusual amount of sex partners, there are simply a smaller amount of people who are sexually involved with each other, which passes STDs around easier. Also, black people are more likely to live in urban and poverty stricken areas, and urban people and the poor are more likely to have more sex partners.
Jack I appreciate your posts about the dangerous promotion by PP of teen sexual activity and not cautioning youth and young adults of the health risks of promiscuous sexual activity but as you can see reality will have none of it. Good attempt though Jack. You have a good heart and head on your shoulders and have learned from past difficult experiences which cannot be said for the resident PP promoter and Dead Babies R Us fan on this blog. Unlike PP and unreality so far the CDC on their website still cautions that abstinence is the only way to avoid STDs/STIs or being in a lifelong mutually monogamous relationship. They don’t mention all of the emotional, mental and social consequences but you and other prolifers here covered them pretty well in your posts. Thanks Jack for being so transparent about your past and especially your teen years. Some people can learn from other people mistakes, thank God. I hope and pray you and your kids are doing well.
Jack,
What you’re saying about bonding and having multiple partners is true. I think it was chastity speaker Jason Evert who uses this example:
“When you first use a piece of duct tape it sticks easily and holds on tight to whatever you stick it to. If you peel it off of the surface it’s stuck to it doesn’t come off easily and bits and pieces of the surface it was stuck to come with it. The more things you stick it to and the more covered it gets with debris the harder it is to stick it to something. Same thing happens with sex–the more people a person bonds to through sexual activity, the harder it is for them to bond with someone.”
This can come from having sexual intercourse/activity for the first time, or after many times. Too many memories and hormones involved make it harder for a person to form a bond–even if they marry someone they really love.