Talk:Promiscuity/Archive 1

Archive 1

Opinionated Advocacy Piece; Original Research

This article is, in a word, pathetic. The over-bearing feminist bias which permeates large sections of the entry makes it impossible to differentiate legitimate, objective research from pure opinion. Last time I checked the topic was "PROMISCUITY": this is not a trigger for some narrow minded feminist to rant about how sexual attitudes may have been discriminatory toward woman. If there was ever an example as to why Wikipedia cannot be relied upon as a substitute for referenced, scholarly research then this is it.

The paragraph as follows is advocacy and not objective fact. In fact, the entire article appears to be original research as there is no citations to support any of the material. Also, WP is not a soapbox but when you WP as a soapbox to post a POV opinion piece, you're inviting a POV response. I changed the following paragraph to reflect balance, but let's discuss the issue to avoid an edit war.

"A common criticism of sexual promiscuity is the potential to run a higher risk of contracting sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) including HIV which may eventually lead to AIDS. Promiscuous behavior requires strict application of safer sex measures, in order to reduce this risk. However, consecutive monogamous sexual relationships (serial monogamy) without safer sex measures can pose a similar risk."

First, it's not a common criticism - it's either a fact or it's not but that's a quibble for now. The solution to promiscuous behavior is not just safer sex measures, but in fact can include monogamy and abstinence to dramatically decrease or eliminate the risk. Also, where is the studies & objective data to support your biased solution? Using a condom may in fact reduce risk (if used properly) but to what extent? Your next statement is an unsubstantiated comparison to draw one into making a false conclusion. Where is your data to suggest that a monogamous couple faces the same risk of disease transmission and what exactly is that risk? One could say it's possible that a monogamous partner could transmit HIV that was received via non-sexual means, but do try to be objective in comparing the risks. State percentages.

You stated below, "Promiscuity itself does not have serious health consequences; STD's do. Promiscuity is merely a disease vector for STD's, which is not the same thing as being a direct cause." Pardon me? That's like saying that smoking does not have serious health consequences as smoking is only a disease vector for Cancer. Let's stick to logic and science not sophistry. If you actually believed that promiscuity doesn't have serious health consequences, than why did you address a solution of stricter safer sex methods (which you didn't define)? If you're going to address the solution for an activity that you claim doesn't have serious health consequences, you certainly shouldn't dictate that others cannot insert an alternate solution that disagrees with your personal world view of multiculturalism. NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints yet you apparently wish to eliminate other viewpoints. WP is not an advocacy tool and your article at this point is a shining example of it and you're trying to protect it as such.24.27.202.53 14:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

First off, I'd like to note that I did not write, and take no responsibility for, the original version which I reverted back to. I don't personally care for that version, myself; I just considered it better than yours. So please don't assume I'm being protective toward someone else's prose.

Your smoking analogy is very poor. In the absence of STD's, promiscuity is entirely harmless. Sex is not harmful. Some might consider an unwanted pregnancy an adverse outcome, but that is also not harm. Pregnancy is something the human body is designed for. Inhaling smoke, on the other hand, is definitely harmful. It damages the cilia of the throat and the bronchial tubes of the lungs, permanently. See the difference? Promiscuity itself is physically, entirely harmless. It's the transmission of STD's, which an unintended consequence, that is harmful. Smoking is always harmful, even when the consequence of lung cancer fails to emerge.

Put more clearly: An STD is harmful, but you can get that from monogamous sex as well; it is an unintended consequence or possible side effect of sex, the risk of which is increased by promiscuity. However, your edit specifically said "promiscuity has serious health consequences", which to me looked as if you were saying the act of being promiscuous itself was a direct source of harm. This could be solved with a very minor rewording, perhaps "Promiscuity carries with it a higher risk of contracting STD's, which is a serious health consequence."

Again, I did not write the text referring to use of safer sex, but it only stands to reason. We don't live in a perfect world, and STD's exist. Therefore, if one chooses to be promiscuous, it would be foolish not to practise safer sex.

NPOV does indeed say that we should represent all significant viewpoints, and I have no intention of thwarting that. As for multiculturalism, I'd say WP is multiculturalist by design (representing all significant viewpoints would tend to force a multiculturalist perspective, now wouldn't it?).

Speaking of WP:NPOV, I have a mild objection to the sentence, At the same time, conservative traditionalists see promuscuity as a weak substitute for human intimacy as noted in Pope John Paul II's book, Feast of Love. I have no problem with citing the late Pope's work, I am an admirer of his life's work. However, the sentence contains a fundamental assumption which seems ungrounded. It seems to be implying that "human intimacy" is by definition not included in promiscuity, as it describes promiscuity as a "substitute" for "human intimacy". It would be better for NPOV to find a way to make it clear that this view (of incompatibility of promiscuity and "human intimacy") is attributed properly to those claiming it, so it is clear Wikipedia is not endorsing this point of view.

I also fail to see how my edits constitute "advocacy" of anything. Could you be more specific about which text, precisely, that I restored which you feel is advocacy? Thanks, Kasreyn 16:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Appreciate the response. I'll first explain that the statement is advocacy because it attempts to address a criticism of the act (promiscuity) - it's that simple. The fact that a fallacious argument (making unsourced statements and false comparisons) is made to address the criticism only highlights the desire of you and the original author to advocate a favorable position toward the act.

Your statement, "in the absence of Sexually Transmitted Diseases, promiscuity is entirely harmless" is another example of sophistry. They (STDs) are clearly not absent and in fact can make the act of sex lethal, and more so if having sex with multiple partners that increases the risk of being afflicted with an STD.

From the statement above, you appear to contradict yourself by stating that we need to practice safer sex methods because STDs exists, and it would be foolish not to practice safer sex if one is promiscuous. That is the option you wish to promote but it's not the only option - the other option is not to practice promiscuity.

As a compromise, we can resolve the NPOV issue by deleting the paragraph so as not to advocate one way or another. Even with that, the entire article is original research and needs sourcing. If you wish the paragraph to remain as to advocate safer sex as a solution for promiscuity, than let's follow the WP rules and represent the other significant option viewpoint. That solution being not to practice promiscuity. Even than, the risk factor between one (using condom) and the other (monogamy & abstinence) should be explained with supporting data.

As for your statement, "representing all significant viewpoints would tend to force a multiculturalist perspective, now wouldn't it?", I'm afraid I disagree. WP is suppose to an encyclopedia of factual information not a position paper to reflect the whims of those who advocate a particular world view or social ideology. Facts are often inconvenient to ideologists and the idea that anybody can edit material only means that individuals cannot foist their viewpoints without challenge, criticism and critique.

Finally, it's facinating that you deleted my reference to a book that advocated against promiscuity while leaving in, "There is a growing modern movement to promote the acceptance of promiscuity in the context of honesty and safer sex." and touting a book that promotes it. Yet you continue to ask me why I believe that you're advocating a position.24.27.202.53 20:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I must say I still don't understand. You say something about the article is advocacy because it "attempts to address a criticism of the act". I don't know what text in specific you are referring to.

You also state I contradict myself; not so. I'm well aware, as I point out above, that this is not a perfect world, and STD's do exist. I merely postulated a hypothetical world with no STD's to illustrate the fact that it is not promiscuity itself which is directly harmful, but its effect as a vector for STD's, ie., it is indirectly (yet no less) harmful. I even suggested an NPOV way to reword the section that would stress the health consequences without making such errors of fact: "Promiscuity carries with it a higher risk of contracting STD's, which is a serious health consequence."

I also don't see how it was "promoting" anything. I'm guessing that the specific text you are referring to is this:

Promiscuous behaviour requires strict application of safer sex measures, in order to reduce this risk.

This does not promote promiscuity, it merely notes something it would be wise to do if one chooses to be promiscuous. The sentence has nothing whatsoever to say about whether you should or should not act in a promiscuous way. I don't believe the solution is to delete the paragraph - I feel we can find an NPOV way to fix it to both our satisfaction.

I agree about the original research part of it. Sourcing is definitely needed! I also agree that WP is not a position paper, but WP:NPOV demands that all significant viewpoints be represented. Since an issue like promiscuity affects the entire human race, "all significant viewpoints" will demand that we note viewpoints of many different peoples and places. That is all I meant by "multiculturalism"; you seem to have assumed I intended to push a specific multiculturalist agenda, which I did not. I should probably have been more clear. I think this was a case of miscommunication: I was using the term to mean something different from what you were using it for.

I would not be against the inclusion of the mention of the late Pope's book. I just don't know what this business about promiscuity being seen as a "substitute" for "human intimacy" means. It appears that it may be the Pope's, or the Catholic Church's, viewpoint. As such, there's no problem with citing it - I'm not opposing that. It simply needs to be cited in such a way that the business about substitutes for human intimacy is clearly attributed to whoever is saying it, and not to Wikipedia. How about "In Pope John Paul II's book, Feast of Love, promiscuity is described as a weak substitute for human intimacy - a view which conservative traditionalists share." That would satisfy me from an NPOV angle. Or "In his book, Feast of Love, Pope John Paul II explained his view of promiscuity as a weak substitute for human intimacy, a view shared by conservative traditionalists." Or something similar.

I'm also not "touting" The Ethical Slut. I'd never even heard of it before I came to this article page, and I did not add it. All I did was fail to remove it when I removed the reference to Feast of Love. Cheers, Kasreyn 21:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I've changed the article as you suggested and changed the criticism paragraph to simply, "Promiscuity carries with it a higher risk of contracting STD's, which is a serious health consequence." along with a link to the WP STD article. I also removed the paragraph, "There is a growing modern movement to promote the acceptance of promiscuity in the context of honesty and safer sex. A crucial text in this regard is by Dossie Easton...The Ethical Slut." If you want that back in, put it back in along with the alternate significant viewpoint book, Feast of Love as I had put in before. I also removed the section on Brothels as it's already covered in the Brothels article which is linked. I removed the NPOV tag but the unsourced tag should remain until citations are provided.24.27.202.53 02:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The tenure of the article is nothing short of advocating promiscuity as some kind of biological fact and that we must employ technology to allow it and indirectly, we must expend the public treasury to fight STDs that are the result of promiscuity. Doesn't quite fit the logic circle and it has nothing to with a theological objection. As it's original research, the article should probably be deleted but if it remains, revisions will be needed. 24.27.202.53 03:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Individual Behavior vs Mating System

Promiscuity can be used in a couple of different ways. First, it can refer to the sexual behavior of individuals. Second, it can refer to the mating system of species. These are not the same things. Confusing these two uses of promiscuity results in confusing statements. For example, the article says:

"In the animal world, many species of animals, including birds such as swans, once believed monogamous, have now been shown to be promiscuous. This is true for females, including female birds, as for males."

This statement is true in the sense that individual animals in socially monogamous pairs engage in extra-pair copulations. But it is not true in the sense that these species have promiscuous mating systems. Biologists and zoologists nowdays distinguish between social monogamy, sexual monogamy, and genetic monogamy. Species can be socially monogamous and sexually non-monogamous at the same time. Monogamous mating systems come in different flavors. In contrast, two examples of promiscuous species are chimpanzees and bonobos. These species live in multi-male, multi-female groups. Males have sex with several females, and vice versa. There are few or no socially monogamous pair bonds in these species. I think an encyclopedic article on promiscuity needs to distinguish between individual behavior and species mating system.

Casual writing

"Studies of STD spread have consistently shown that a small minority of the population have substantially more partners than the average, and a large minority (including those who abstain from sex) have less than the average."

Um, duh? Not the most helpful I know, but just using the page and thought that could be tightened up. --Sambostock 00:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I added a little on "socially unacceptable".

I think we need something on what counts as "indiscriminate": as written, the page accepts the judgment of anyone who thinks someone else is being "promiscuous", regardless of how seriously they take their relationships, or how many partners they actually have. Re STD risks: many women in Africa have acquired AIDS through sex with their husbands, who are often older and have had many other partners. Should probably rephrase to make clear that this behavior risks transmitting as well as acquiring diseases. Vicki Rosenzweig, Tuesday, July 9, 2002

Although promiscuous behaviour is often considered to be "socially unacceptable" that attribute is not part of its definition. It is also important to remember that the term has a broader context. It could be applied to many people who invested in the shares of dot-com companies in recent years. Eclecticology, Tuesday, July 9, 2002

Do we really need a list of STDs here? Let's just say "STDs, including AIDS" -- that should give some idea of the problem.

Without saying anything about the substantives of the matter, I wonder whether the additions that deal with the epidemiology of STD's should be moved to the STD article Eclecticology, Tuesday, July 9, 2002

"Requires"? While I agree that risky sexual behavior is best undertaken with risk-minimizing practises like "safe sex", it is by no means required in order to be able to sleep around. "Requires" here is being used from the standpoint of some arbitrary opinion of what proper sexual behavior is, and is therefore not NPOV. By all means keep the info about safe sex practises, but lose the preach. -Kasreyn

Cleanup

I have taken the liberty of rewording some of the paragraphs in an attempt to reduce the bias and make the text easier to follow. I hope I haven't stepped on anyone's toes. I'm following the Wiki maxim, 'be bold'. Edits and changes are of course welcome.

I really don't like the section on dark rooms. It doesn't make much sense to me. Alcohol may be a factor in choosing 'low-quality' partners, excuse the expression, but I've never been in a bar or club dark enough that the level of light played a significant factor. Feedback? --Yamla 19:19, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)

In sex clubs there certainly are rooms which are more than dark enough for this to be true. 130.216.48.19

Recent edits by 24.27.202.53

I'd like to discuss these issues here, rather than continuing to just revert each other. You said the article "advocates promiscuity as opposed to defining it". I'm curious what you mean by this; would you explain further?

Please see the paragraph, Opinionated Advocacy Piece; Original Research above which was already in place as justification for making the edits yet you conveniently ignored that and reverted. Instead of editing again, I'm place a dispute tag on the article.24.27.202.53 13:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

As I said below, I did not see the section you added. Perhaps you were unaware that new sections are typically added at the bottom of the talk page. I did not see your new section because it was not at the bottom where it belonged. If I had seen it, I certainly would have replied rather than reverting you. Kasreyn 16:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I also feel that the material you have inserted violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. To wit:

promiscuity has serious health consequences which has forced governments and private concerns around the world to expend large amount of monies to find cures and on-going treatment for STDs. Another criticism is that sexual promiscuity leads to unintended pregnancy & child birth by those who are often too immature and financial unable to care for the children.

Promiscuity itself does not have serious health consequences; STD's do. Promiscuity is merely a disease vector for STD's, which is not the same thing as being a direct cause. The second sentence does not cite the source of the criticism and seems to be referring to teen pregnancy, but this article is referring to promiscuity in general, not just teenaged promiscuity.

While the health consequences of promiscuous behavior can be partially mitigated by the strict application of safer sex measures, the risk is still higher compared to those who engage in traditional monogamous relationships or abstain.

The terminology "traditional monogamous relationships" does not specify which tradition is being referred to. Note that Wikipedia is for the whole world, which includes polygamous peoples as well. Monogamy is certainly a dominant cultural model, but is not universal.

At the same time, conservative traditionalists see promuscuity as a weak substitute for human intimacy as noted in Pope John Paul II's book, Feast of Love.

This is skipping a step or two: first it must be detailed why promiscuity does not include human intimacy, before its purported status as a "replacement" for that intimacy can be addressed. Kasreyn 06:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. I did not see your section above, as I was looking for a section near the end of the talk page (not seeing one, I made one). Give me a bit to read your objections & consider a reply. Kasreyn 06:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Please use edit summaries

To all users...please do not forget to use edit summaries when you make changes to this (and any other) article. This is particularly important when edits might be seen as controversial by other users. Thank you, Kukini 02:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Edits by E71

E71 replaced behaviour/behavior etc. Please note original article used British spelling, and see the MOS on this:

Disputes over style issues

In June 2005, the Arbitration Committee ruled that, when either of two styles is acceptable, it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change. For example, with respect to British spelling as opposed to American spelling, it would only be acceptable to change from American spelling to British spelling if the article concerned a British topic. Revert warring over optional styles is unacceptable; if the article uses colour rather than color, it would be wrong to switch simply to change styles, although editors should ensure that articles are internally consistent. If in doubt, defer to the style used by the first major contributor. Rentwa 17:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

photo used

Although I like the visual imagery of the photo, it makes me wonder. What does legal prostitution, or a sex worker, have to do with promiscuity? I can't say that I can visualize a better image (a teenage girl laughing with a bunch of boys?). But, promiscuity doesn't really have anything to do with legal sex, or with people who choose to have lots of sexual partners. It seems more about people who violate religious dogma regarding sexuality than it does about a legal sex worker in Denmark. Atom 20:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

possibly the reason is because a prositute is a very good example of a woman who in a single week has sex with more guys than an average woman does in an entire year. Mathmo 17:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

But, prolific is not promiscuise. I am sure that a prostitute is very discriminating. Promiscuity is about indescriminate sexual relations, not sexual relations as commerce. 19:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't much like that choice of picture either. Sorry, but "stereotype pinup sex worker" as a stereotype of promiscuity, doesnt work for me either. Not sure what does, but this doesn't. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I doubt hookers are discriminate when it comes to sex partners so long as they can pay. If that is discriminate than so are most promiscuous people since everyone probably has some "standards" however loose. However, a prostitute is so obvious; perhaps a picture of a teen girl dressed as hooker surrounded by guys or a picture of Maury guests getting a DNA test would be more thoughtful. Though the latter would probably be copyright infringement.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus after ten days. -- tariqabjotu 02:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

requested move

I've put in a requested move to put this article under "Sexual promiscuity". Reason being that this article focuses on one type of promiscuity, the disambig setup is not exactly clean. Proposed instead that "promiscuity" becomes a disambig page, pointing to uses such as "sexual promiscuity", which is a bit cleaner. Hopefully this is not too controversial. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Against Move

1. Why? Easier to delete the dab page, most of which belongs on wiktionary; and the rest of it is a song, which (when it has an article of its own) can go to Promiscuity (song). Septentrionalis 21:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
2. I agree with previous argument. The term "promiscuity" is the source for the other references. It should remain, others should change. Seriously, I don't think I have even heard of the song titled "promiscuity" before. Atom 21:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

For Move

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

photo used

The picture of the prostitute is completely unnecessary. It in no ways betters the reader.  Someone probably put the picture there just to see if it would get deleted.

Entire article?

Reading through this article, it becomes instantly apparent that nearly 75% of the information included is directly quoted from the references sited in the References section. Does this need some sort of clean up? Apart from making for a confusing read, could the references not just be summarised, rather than including a huge list of direct quotes? ABVS1936 02:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

simply unbelievable

This is Wikipedia at its worst. There is no way that the Bible-thumping bias can be removed from the article. Throw away the louche moralistic claptrap and start afresh with a sociological and anthropological framework.

Whoever wrote the above little fun obviously has a reason to hide from "bible-thumpers". Perhaps cheating, an affair, a backstab, or maybe a friend that does it? Either way, it's still them avoiding the sting of this "louche moralistic claptrap". Laugh out loud funny to have such an odd twist to morals and then say others shouldn't voice theirs. Oh, sorry. I was bored, found this and figured I'd comment.

Neutrality warning

The entire paragraph "In the United States" is copied from Adolescent sexuality, and besides from being incredibly biased, it doesn't have anything to do with the lemma Promiscuity. I suggest to have it removed, I hate it when 75% of an article have nothing to do with the lemma. --Callash 02:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

So... all in favour? Silence counts as a "yes". --Callash 18:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the section needs work. I'm not sure how it "doesn't have anything to do with promiscuity"...

I wouldn't revert the removal again but stand by my previous reversion in favor of at least an attempt to discuss it. --Onorem 18:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It does describe sexuality among the youth of the USA. It does not describe promiscuity. The conclusion of the paragraph could be "America's youth of today is promiscuous". Okay. Then put this in an article about america's youth, not in an article about promiscuity. --Callash 15:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, no one really wants to discuss this. So I'm gonna go ahead and remove the section and the neutrality warning. --Callash 13:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Female promiscuity

Hi. Some of the Male Promiscuity section comes from Womanizer prior to it being redirected here by AfD. Womanizer had a section on Female Promiscuity that I had expected the AfD's closing admin to merge here. It would balance out the Male section. Does anyone know how to access content from a deleted article? Canuckle 15:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Only admins can access it, but if you ask one they'll be happy to provide you with the original text. Richard001 09:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

"wench" redirects here but isn't mentioned.

Shouldn't there be some section on the profession of a 'wench'? Personally I think it could warrant it's own article, but since it redirects here there should be some mention of a woman whose sole purpose (for room & board) amongst isolated men is to fulfill their sexual appetites. I'm sure there is some encyclopedic history &/or historic legality/regulations regarding wenches, amongst seafarers or otherwise (if it existed). 67.5.147.87 (talk) 09:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it should not redirect here. However the word 'wench' is not used as a profession, but may be applied to males to describe someone who consorts with prostitutes (Oxford Shorter English Dictionary, 2007). Normally, 'wench' means (Collins and OED) girl or young woman, albeit jocular these days. In the West Midlands, the word is used still as a normal term to mean a 'young woman' usually feisty. So let's not add another word to the long catalogue of terms we are not allowed to use. FifthMonarchy (talk) Fifthmonarchist 8 Ap 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 14:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Do we really need all these examples?

Several of the unnecessary examples of pejorative terms used to describe promiscuous females were removed recently, as they are not needed; Wikikpedia is not a dictionary, (or thesaurus, etc.) usage guide, or jargon guide. Shouldn't we do the same for the "Male Promiscuity" section? I think a couple synonyms, such as "rake", "philanderer", and another other useful few should be included, but really, what's there now is just too much; there are a lot of terms that can be used to refer to a promiscuous man, why attempt to cover them all in this little section? --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 03:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Promiscuous definition

Promiscuous:

1. Having casual sexual relations frequently with different partners; indiscriminate in the choice of sexual partners. 2. Lacking standards of selection; indiscriminate. 3. Casual; random. 4. Consisting of diverse, unrelated parts or individuals; confused:

[1]

not restricted to one sexual partner [2]

sexually adventurous [3]

1. characterized by or involving indiscriminate mingling or association, esp. having sexual relations with a number of partners on a casual basis.

2. consisting of parts, elements, or individuals of different kinds brought together without order. 3. indiscriminate; without discrimination. 4. casual; irregular; haphazard. [4]

indiscriminate, lacking discernment; wanton, licentious; mixed, blended [5]

Atom (talk) 03:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Woah, sexism!

The Female Promiscuity section says that promiscuous women are described as sluts. The male section gives a slew of examples, some negative, some positive. This section needs a serious reworking! Slut is definitely not the only thing that a promiscuous women can be, and certainly a fair, balanced encyclopedia would fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.74.141.22 (talk) 04:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the two "Male" and "Female" sections should either be removed or moved into a "Synonyms" or "Language" section. Right now they are embedded in a section that describes promiscuity and this seems rather random -- mixing semantics and syntax if you will. And yes, they could use a bit of balancing Ndufva (talk) 12:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that there are men who are promiscuous with other men.. and the article clearly states promiscuous men have love affairs with women.

"... in reference to a man who has love affairs with women and will not marry or commit to a relationship..." Opaz (talk) 20:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Prevalence

If someone wants to expand on this topic, here are some sources discussing the prevalence of promiscuity in British and American men and women (and whether they're lying about it): NY Times: The Myth, the Math, the Sex, Slate:The NY Times slips up on sexual math and Drug Use and Sexual Behaviors, Journal of Sex Research.

Also, shouldn't the higher risk of contracting HIV/AIDS because of having several sexual partners be mentioned?66.201.163.228 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

human promiscuity

The statements regarding male/female numbers does not make a lot of sense since it would only be a given if: there are = numbers of males and females, which is not the case. Also even if there were there are other options as well.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.35.79.113 (talk) 10:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Gay Promiscuity

I looked into Ejnogarb's edits, and sure enough there seems to be merit in his argument. The studies being cited deal with comparisons between strait and gay men and "unprotected sex" not the total number of partners.

In fact, two surveys found that most gay men have a similar rate of sex with unprotected partners compared to straight men or women.

[6][7]

However, according to two large population surveys, the majority of gay men had similar numbers of unprotected sexual partners annually as straight men and women.

[8]

As such, its not correct to use this information to compare overall promiscuity, just relative rates of unprotected sex, and without the original report to provide context this data shouldn’t be included at all. CENSEI (talk) 19:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The original report, if you have access to log in and read it, is here. Additionally, the content you removed deals with promiscuity directly, the subject of this very article. Ejnogarb's addition of a 30+ year old study, as well as addition of the fact that the ban on gays donating blood being continued, are not relevant to this article. Surely you could discuss this in your email exchanges. ;] - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 19:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I don’t have access to the original and unless you do and can cut n' paste the relevant sections here then we have to deal with information is available, and putting that into the article is comparing apples and oranges as far as promiscuity goes. Unless, that is, you think its appropriate to extrapolate promiscuity comparisons by evaluating only comparable rates of unprotected sex and not all sex. CENSEI (talk) 19:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Just because you can't access it, doesn't make it not so. I can't access it either. Which is why there is a notable 3rd party source being used for the reference. The content in question speaks directly to promiscuity and is relevant. It meets all of the criteria for inclusion. Removing it is ridiculous. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 20:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The third party source does not mention comparative rates of overall promiscuous behavior, only their use of condoms and as such does not belong in an article about promiscuity. I hope your Canvasing with regard to the conservative editors goes well though. CENSEI (talk) 20:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Not much difference in me making the gay project aware of a content dispute that is in their scope, and you 2 colluding/plotting off-Wiki. ;] - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 20:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with CENSEI, and i find this exchange rather unpleasant. Paragraph number 4 from the third party source, sentence number 1: "They analyzed data from two national surveys and estimated how many sex partners gay men and straight men and women have." That seems unambiguous: analysis and estimation of how many sex partners = promiscuity study. Have i missed something obvious? I believe your revert should be undone, CENSEI, please, otherwise it's time for some outside/detached/objective/uninvolved Admin Intervention. Thanks. ~_{Teledildonix314}~^Talk~_4-1-1~ 20:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

and the numbers of how many sex partners gay men and straight men and women have are ........ because that would be much more relevant to the article then a comparative rate of unprotected sex. CENSEI (talk) 20:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The "gay project" ehh .... CENSEI (talk) 20:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Yow, I take a little break from this article and... am sad to see edit warring. Folks, I don't see the problem with (also) including text that cites the 2001 SFChron article ("Experts believe syphilis is on the rise among gay and bisexual men because they are engaging in unprotected sex with multiple partners, many of whom they met in anonymous situations such as sex clubs, adult bookstores, meetings through the Internet and in bathhouses. The new data will show that in the 93 cases involving gay and bisexual men this year, the group reported having 1,225 sexual partners.") I realize the article is not specifically about promiscuity, nor uses the word, but it's referring to the concept - this strikes me as common sense rather than a leap of WP:SYNTH. —EqualRights (talk) 22:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Been watching this issue, thought I'd weigh in. While it's true that rates of unprotected sex do not address promiscuity overall, it's certainly an important facet of the issue due to the drastically increased risk it presents. Ideally we would have a recent study or two comparing both overall and unprotected promiscuity rates, but one recent study covering part of the issue is better than nothing. I don't have access to the article either (I have access to some of the journal, but only through 2004), but an ideal study would also distinguish between straight people who used condoms and those who thought that methods like the pill, which do not prevent the spread of disease, counted as "protection". It would also be great to have statistics on homosexual females, too, to compare. But again, having some current sourced information is better that excising it all just because it would be better to have more. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 22:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry I missed this all day. Well, not really, but it has clearly gotten completely out of hand. This is what happens when articles are poorly written and not comprehensive. They are open to slants from all directions.

It's no secret that in the 1970s the gay men went through a significant phase of promiscuity. People in the gay community at the time attributed it to the fact that in large cities, consensual sex between adults was made legal for the first time. Other legal advancements were new as well: gays didn't have to face being kicked out of their apartments, for instance. This promiscuity didn't happen in every location. Large cities like New York, Los Angeles and San Fransisco saw a lot of it. It became entwined with gay politics and culture. Having homosexual sex was, to many, an expression of political and personal freedom because in many states homosexual sex was illegal. Most of the men who went to San Francisco didn't do it so much to have promiscuous sex, but to escape the misery of self-hatred and discrimination they faced in their hometowns. The opportunity to pursue relationships without the fear of being arrested, when political battles were raging like the Briggs Initiative and Save Our Children was very much an act of political freedom. The gay rights movement was still very young, only having been truly set in motion in 1969. The rest of the country was also going through a sexual revolution, so it was not endemic only to gay men.

It is with this view of history and sociology that, if information about gay male promiscuity in the 1970s is included, should be put into the proper context. I would venture to say that it would only seem right to include information about female homosexuality and promiscuity, which was a very different story.

This edit war occurred or is occurring because a sliver of the entire picture is in question. Unfortunately, it does not seem that the editors who are hot to add this info about gay men and promiscuity care much about the rest of the article, thus the battle rages over a paragraph. --Moni3 (talk) 23:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Some properly sourced and contextualized information about the 70s could certainly be incorporated (though of course since this article is about promiscuity overall, not just among gays, a sentence or two would suffice instead of a lengthy description of the entire history and all of the influences). Part of the issue is that an editor was attempting to include a long description of a study from the 70s as if it was recent enough to be considered relevant to today. That was literally a generation ago, and that needs to be stated clearly. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 23:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

A question to all those who are maintaining Allstarecho's reverts: This section originally contained several sources about promiscuity and MSM, but were removed by Allstarecho. Of those statistics he only left those which positively portray MSM. What is your rationale for including only a portion of the statistics? Would you be opposed to allowing the other statistics be reinstated?  EJNOGARB  01:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The very fact that you describe promiscuity statistics as "favorable" or "disfavorable", regardless of whether they are stats about homos or whomever, is so troublesome, i can barely begin to describe my dismay at such a POINTy thrust. I'm taking this over to the Admin noticeboard of Incidents to get some detached intervention from admins who will better explain to you that which i can only say should be flamingly obvious. Thanks ~_{Teledildonix314}~^Talk~_4-1-1~ 02:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Ejnogarb, please provide a diff or diffs showing exactly what Allstarecho removed. Without seeing exactly what the information and sources were, and any explanation Allstarecho has as to why he removed them, no one can have an informed stance as to whether or not these removals were done for appropriate, constructive reasons or not. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 05:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

A basic history of edits concerning promiscuity and MSM: I added statistics from "Homosexuality" to this section which explained promiscuity in the MSM community. Additional statistics were added that countered the viewpoint, which were uncontested. At this point, Allstarecho deleted all but the last, most LGBT-favorable statistics and complained that one of the statistics was more than 30 years old. Since he deleted two sources that were less than 10 years old as well, I restored those two and left the old statistic out. The section read:

Homosexual behavior has been linked with higher levels of promiscuity.[18] The San Francisco Chronicle reported in 2001, that "experts believe syphilis is on the rise among gay and bisexual men because they are engaging in unprotected sex with multiple partners, many of whom they met in anonymous situations such as sex clubs, adult bookstores, meetings through the Internet and in bathhouses. The new data will show that in the 93 cases involving gay and bisexual men this year, the group reported having 1,225 sexual partners."[19] In 2007, the FDA renewed its blood-donor eligibility limitations which restricts men who have had sex with men in the last 5 years from donating blood because such a group has a higher risk factor for HIV and Hepatitis B due to promiscuity.[20] A 2007 study reported that two large population surveys found "the majority of gay men had similar numbers of unprotected sexual partners annually as straight men and women."[21][22]

Allstarecho again deleted all of the material accept for the last sentence again. I saw this as POV on his part, only allowing sources that favorably viewed MSM while vehemently deleting all others (and I stupidly got into an edit war trying to remove the last sentence). This is where we're at now. The only portion still listed in the article is this one sentence.  EJNOGARB  15:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

From what you posted here, it looks like the actual data from those sources refer only to STD rates, with promiscuity being suggested by the researchers but not supported (or addressed) by the actual research. Allstarecho apparently removed it because he thought it was too far off-topic, not that it wasn't "favorable". While it may be acceptable to add a brief mention along the lines of "promiscuity has been suggested as one possible cause for observed increased STD rates", going into more detail than that 1) gives too much space to gay male promiscuity overall (this article is about promiscuity in general, so no one group – especially a minority – should get covered in excessive minutae) and 2) goes too far off the topic of promiscuity itself. I'd like to hear other editors' thoughts as to whether or not the suggested tangential link between these topics is enough to merit inclusion, so we can establish a clear consensus. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 15:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

This assessment seems pretty on target. The sections should start with explaining if men or women are more promiscuous. My understanding is that it's pretty even. After that explaining any real differences - and maybe sexologists could help the most here? - between socioeconomic strata, ethnicity, age, etc. As this article isn't compare and contrast on sexuality per se. And then, if well sourced, delve into any differences between sexualities. Are bisexual people more promiscuous, does anyone actually know. Maybe that's what we state - no one knows for sure. I believe Allstarecho stated something along the lines of them taking positive or negative information, it didn't matter, but reliable sourcing and due weight of content did. This does seem only tangentially helpful to our readers. A fuller list of groups and their levels of friskiness may help or it may all need to be binned and more accurate generalized statements used. -- Banjeboi 16:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm no expert (and this may already be in the article) but survey data shows time and again that men (in general) are more promiscuous than women. Of course, the problem with surveys is that men may tend to exagerate and women under-report for cultural/social reasons. It's very, very difficult to get accurate baseline data on peoples' private sexual behavior as a consequence. At any rate, the text as Ejnogarb is trying to assert it is undue weight, synthezized and not supported by the sources provided.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Editors are operating under the false assumption that I'm trying to restore these statistics: I'm not. Rather, I recognized that many editors had a problem with their inclusion and singling out a specific group. My efforts heretofore have been in trying to delete all references to MSM in this article. The FDA is certainly a reliable source, but I propose that all references to MSM be removed.  EJNOGARB  16:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

That's my point exactly, that when researchers re-interview they find that the level of promiscuity tends to be pretty even for almost every group except, I believe, when it comes to age. The article could discuss that studies regularly report this or that group is more/less promiscuous but these are proven to be false as research subjects misrepresent information for a variety of reasons. -- Banjeboi 16:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

(od) I think it's important to mention what the data actually shows on the frequency of sex between gay partners, because it's a common misconception that gay men in long term relationships fuck continuously like rabbits. I would support a brief mention (like that) of what the best available data actually says, without any editorialising. It would be worth introducing it with a "it's commonly believed" type statement, if a source can be found that supports that. Perhaps a link to lesbian bed death would be a good balancing example, too? Orpheus (talk) 16:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the issue of lesbian bed death will be able to be discussed here within the confines of this article. It's quite a complicated issue, with many misunderstandings about the definition of sex (seriously), and questions about the validity of the original study to call it that, and then to top it all off, sexuality formed entirely by women appears to be very different from sexuality formed by men. See this section in the Lesbian article (that I wrote). --Moni3 (talk) 18:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) I agree with Banjeboi that ideally, we would have statistics from many different demographic groups, addressing age, sex, sexual orientation, socioeconomic group, race, etc. Of course the limitations of self-reporting would have to be clearly stated. Eliminating any reference to gay men as Ejnogarb suggests seems like an unnecessarily extreme reaction to the current dispute. We ought to take this as an opportunity to provide comprehensive, neutrally presented, well-sourced data, not throw in the towel.

Regarding lesbian bed death and sexual activity within gay male relationships, I don't really see how this is relevant. Frequency of sexual activity within a committed relationship is certainly an interesting topic, but it's not at all the same thing as promiscuity. Perhaps it could be used as a supporting point if a trend in overall sexual behavior inside or outside a committed relationship was invoked to explain a different promiscuity rate in a given population, but that would probably bleed over into WP:SYNTH. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 19:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Unprotected promiscuity

I've removed

A 2007 study reported that two large population surveys found "the majority of gay men had similar numbers of unprotected sexual partners annually as straight men and women."<ref>Sexual Behavior Does Not Explain Varying HIV Rates Among Gay And Straight Men</ref><ref>Goodreau SM, Golden MR (2007). "Biological and demographic causes of high HIV and sexually transmitted disease prevalence in men who have sex with men". Sex Transm Infect. 83 (6): 458–62. doi:10.1136/sti.2007.025627. PMID 17855487. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)</ref>

bcz the studies do not report on promiscuity. Any differences in accuracy of reporting aside, the study was not interested in even average number of partners per se, and did not report on it, but only on number of partners with whom sex was unprotected. If this offers insight on male promiscuity (or rather on social images of it, which is what the rest of the section is about), those claimed insights need to be stated, and nearly complete acceptance of those insights by qualified professionals (social psychologists? sexologists? at least say which) to be demonstrated. And BTW, if you're going to try to measure promiscuity, you have to define it more clearly: e.g., who is equally promiscuous with a bigamous ferry captain who has a wife in Calais and another in Dover for 10 years? How many partners a year does someone equally promiscuous have, if they have only one partner at a time, and are inactive for a period between partners? Does it make a difference how long you're inactive between partners? I don't say that studies are useless to the article, or even that this specific one necessarily is, but it doesn't belong in until it's clear what its relevance is.
--Jerzy•t 19:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Please shrink protection template

{{edit protected}} Hi, the protection template is pretty massive. The vast majority of our readers probably don't need to see it; is there a smaller version available? -- Banjeboi 13:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I would disagree with this. The reason for the protection needs to be clear; editors are directed to the talk page to discuss the problem, and "fresh eyes" may be helpful in resolving the dispute. I think the banner should stay "large". --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

This is the standard template to put on pages that are protected due to disputes. I think if we were to change it, the discussion should be on the template in general, and not on this particular use. --CapitalR (talk) 01:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Biology: dopamine transporter gene (DAT1) and number of sexual parnters

I wanted to store this link/citation here for when the article in unprotected:

• Dopamine transporter, gender, and number of sexual partners among young adults.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17245411 Hoping To Help (talk) 10:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Citations: Number of Sexual Parters by sexual orientation

Here's a link from the New England Journal of Medicine that has something to say on this topic:

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/331/14/923

"The overlap between gay and heterosexual men with respect to the number of partners is considerable, although a small subgroup of gay men have had sex with a great many more partners than almost any heterosexual men."

Hoping To Help (talk) 10:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Added to the article. -- Beland (talk) 14:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Desire for more than one partner by gender

Citation for when article is unlocked.

• The desired number of sexual partners as a function of gender, sexual risks, and the meaning of "ideal". | Journal of Sex Research , Feb, 2007 by Allan Fenigstein, Matthew Preston | http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2372/is_1_44/ai_n19052956/pg_4/?tag=content;col1

"Desire for more than one partner. The desire for sexual variety was also examined by tabulating the number of participants who desired "more than one" sexual partner during the next year. For women, 47% expressed an interest in more than one partner, whereas 76% of men showed this interest; (6) the gender difference was significant (Z = 2.86, p < .01), again suggesting a stronger interest in multiple sex partners by men than by women."

Hoping To Help (talk) 11:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Lead

I scrapped most of it. Casual sex is even vaguer than this was; your relationship w/ your spouse is promiscuous if all that distinguishes it is the piece of paper. If it gets more, needs more serious discussion.
--Jerzy•t 20:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Context

"What sexual behavior is considered socially acceptable, and what behavior is "promiscuous", varies much among different cultures, and within a culture different standards are often applied to people of different gender and civil status. It should be noted that while male promiscuity previously had glamorous connotations that acted as an affirmation of masculinity, female promiscuity was seen as a sign of emotional instability, and loose morals in women."

The first sentence says it varies in different cultures, then the second sentence makes a very specific statement without mentioning what culture.

Kermit2 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC).

Promiscuity privilege of female nobility

In some tribes of Sierra Leone, "A woman who is a Paramount Chief may have sexual intercourse with as many men as she pleases. It is dangerous, cause you are not the only one hurt but as a result hurting others. In other words, these bitches are lucky to have a Gang bang whenever they want! They Fuck all night till there vagina is sore! YUMMY!"[19]

As much as I think the last two phrases are funny, it must obviously be vandalism. Can someone verify and remove these phrases?

I have reverted the vandalism. The first sentence seems to be merely dubious, coming from a 1922 source. William Avery (talk) 14:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Reasons for non-acceptance

This article doesn't tough on the reasons that a certain level of promiscuity is socially accepted or not accepted in a given society. Religious scruples is mentioned in passing, but there are certainly other reasons why (too much) promiscuity is considered "bad." 193.91.181.142 (talk) 23:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

What

"Studies of the spread of STIs consistently demonstrate that a small percentage of the studied population have more partners than the average man or woman, and a smaller number of people have fewer than the statistical average."

This sentence is silly. By definition, exactly half will have more partners than average, and exactly half will have fewer than average. I assume that "median" was meant instead. 77.0.97.152 (talk) 15:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

china

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-11/11/content_390637.htm

Durex 2004 Global Sex Survey showed the Chinese have the most per capita sexual partners as 19.3, while with the most gloomy sex ardour.

Each Chinese has on average 19.3 partners toping the sex league table where an worldwide average number is just 10.5, according to the world's biggest condom maker, Durex. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.73.241 (talk) 07:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

First Paragraph seems contradictory

"In human sexual behavior, promiscuity refers to the practice of having many sexual partners in the absence of any commitment and promiscuous is a term applied to a person who has had sex with relatively many partners. Polygamy is distinguished from promiscuity in that the later refers to numerous romantic relationships, whether sexual or not, while the former refers simply to sexual activity, without there necessarily being any further connection between the individuals involved. Promiscuity is usually viewed in the context of the mainstream social norms of monogamy and fidelity."

The first sentence there suggests that promiscuity has no "commitment" and is only sexual activity while the second sentence says that the "later" (promiscuity in that sentence) "refers to numerous romantic relationships, whether sexual or not". The combination both says that promiscuity is only/mainly sexual activity but is also not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.46.160.27 (talk) 23:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Other user: I had the impression that 'former' and 'later' are reversed (english is not my native language) especially after visiting the Polygamy Wikipage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.126.124.145 (talk) 19:42, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Is it now correct to refer to "the mainstream social ideal for sexual activity to take place within exclusive committed relationships". That was once the case, and remains true in most countries. But in post-moral (or post-Christian) countries particularly the USA and New Zealand, multiple (20+ partners) commitment-free sexual partners seems to be the norm for people who are not married.

Averages

"Studies of the spread of STIs consistently demonstrate that a small percentage of the studied population have more partners than the average man or woman, and a smaller number of people have fewer than the statistical average."

If few are above and few are below this means nearly all are exactly equal to the average. 1) This is very odd result, one would expect more variation. 2) What average? ie "average man or woman" = 5.5 (or thereabouts because median is not average), since median man is 7 and median woman is 4. But this would mean many men are above the average and many women are below the average, not "few". OR are men and women being compared with the average for all men and all women separately?

86.23.39.161 (talk) 07:30, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

and/or

"It is possible that men exaggerated their reported number of partners, women reported a number lower than the actual number, and/or a minority of women had a sufficiently larger number than most other women to create a mean significantly higher than the median." Instead of this "and/or" speculation. Could it be possible to identify the survey and see the numbers to see if there are a few women with a large number of partners in the data set. 86.23.39.161 (talk) 09:54, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

"Global studies" Paragraph seems contradictory

While two different studies may be likely to yield significantly different results, the 2 specific studies made by Durex are quite different. They are also out of chronological order, the 2007 study is mentioned, then later the 2005 study is mentioned. Since every study on this subject seems to reveal different numbers, perhaps a table would be more appropriate to be included in this section, rather than a short description of any ambiguous study. Yamazon3 (talk) 23:48, 14 September 2011 (UTC)Yamazon3

New Zealand appears to have exceeded the USA for promiscuity. In 2007 the median number of committed male partners reported by women was four, and nine percent of women reported to have had more than 15 sexual partners in their lifetimes. Yet in 2010 in New Zealand the average (mean?) number of male partners reported for all woman was over 20. In India,promiscuity is slowly progressing 07:12 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.203.61.65 (talk) 14:20, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

how can it differ significantly?

Some people claim that because in heterosexual sex there is one man and one woman then the average number of partners a man has must be equal to the average number of partners a woman has.

They may add that a small difference can be explained by an unequal number of men and women. They are not both exactly 50% of the population.

Variation in population should also be considered. Since men have sex with much younger woman and the population has been increasing dramatically, elder men have a much larger pool of potential mates. While women their age have passed their peak sexual activity having had their partners, including many older men, when younger. 86.23.39.161 (talk) 03:38, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Sweden's female university students are enjoying twice as many partners but using fewer condoms than their counterparts of 10 years ago, worrying research has found. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/11/17/swedish_study/

The age difference of maximum sexual activity also explains the unequal numbers. 86.23.39.161 (talk) 15:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Hendrix.JPG Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Hendrix.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:08, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Terms first used in the bible?

Such as whore? Not sure how to cite that. It's of minor importance but historically that word meant more in periods of history far earlier than the 1400s.Ongepotchket (talk) 23:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, the Bible wasn't written in English, you know. Chances are, the occurrence of “whore” you saw is from the KJV, early XVII century. EIN (talk) 21:11, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Polyamory

See also includes polyamory. Why? What is the relation/association between promiscuity and polyamory? Both concepts include multiple sex partners? What is the difference? --Ettrig (talk) 16:17, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Womanizer

The usage of Womanizer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion. See talk:Womanizer (song) where it is requested that the song replace the disambiguation page. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:07, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Double standard [...] within group settings.[5]

After reading the referenced study (http://digitalcommons.iwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1155&context=psych_honproj) (Reference 5), it does not appear to support the claim it is being cited as a reference for.

It is cited as a reference to "later studies show evidence that a double standard does show up within group settings", but the research itself did not find significant evidence of the emergence of a double standard in either individual or group settings.

It's an interesting study, but it's possible that it has been mistakenly referenced in this case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.232.247.221 (talk) 06:56, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) (WP:MEDRS sources) should be used for health content

Jimjilin (talk · contribs), regarding this, I reverted you because that is a poor source for the health content you added; read the WP:MEDRS guideline for further information. If I bring WP:Med into this, they will agree with me. You stated the following when reverting me: "I've provided a reliable, published secondary source. If you disagree please tell me why. Thanks." But I'd already explained why in my edit summary. Looking at your talk page, I see that you are quick to revert and WP:Edit war. Once you are reverted, you should be more willing to take a matter to the talk page and discuss it instead of instantly reverting and re-reverting; see the WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (WP:BRD) essay. Flyer22 (talk) 23:30, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Please tell me why you feel an article by Chris Iliades, MD Medically reviewed by Pat F. Bass III, MD, MPH, which quotes the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention relies on poor sources. Wikipedia guidelines calls for a reliable, published secondary source, which I have provided. If you disagree I hope you'll provide more specific criticisms.Jimjilin (talk) 23:45, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Jimjilin (talk · contribs), you've added more poor sources with this and this edit. Such sources are poor for health content. You clearly have not even read WP:MEDRS, or at least have not tried to comprehend it; therefore, why should I state anything more to you about this? There is nothing that I can tell you that WP:MEDRS doesn't already make clear about what sources you should be using for health content.

Also, consider WP:Indenting your replies. I WP:Indented your above post. Flyer22 (talk) 00:52, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

At WP:MEDRS I read "All Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources." and "One possibility is to cite a higher-quality source along with a more-accessible popular source". I have added to and subtracted from my sources.Jimjilin (talk) 01:53, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Jimjilin (talk · contribs) (last time WP:Pinging you to this discussion because I assume that you will check back here if you want to read replies), yes, I saw your changes here, here and here. While I appreciate your attempt to find a better medical source, this JAMA "Cervical Cancer Linked To Early Intercourse, Promiscuity" source is not what I would call a high-quality source for the "Having a large number of sexual partners has been linked to life-threatening illness and decreased longevity." sentence you added. For one, it is about cervical cancer; so you should at least tweak the sentence to specifically mention cervical cancer. What you should first and foremost be concerned with as far as WP:MEDRS goes is where it states in its lead: "Ideal sources for such content includes literature reviews or systematic reviews published in reputable medical journals, academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant field and from a respected publisher, and medical guidelines or position statements from nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies. Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content. Many such sources represent unreliable information that has not been vetted in review articles, or present preliminary information that may not bear out when tested in clinical trials."

Peer review by itself is not the same thing as literature review or systematic review; WP:MEDRS prefers the latter two. And its "Popular press" section is clear that media sources are generally not a reliable source for health content. While it does not entirely dismiss media sources, it discourages their use. They certainly should not be used by themselves for a health matter. As for using them with appropriate medical sources, I have done that more than once, but that was only so that lay people could have an easily accessible source to the material in case the source is a WP:PAYWALL matter and/or because the lay source explains the content in plain English (meaning language that is not too technical). These days, I generally do not cite a media source along with the scholarly source, though I might cite WebMD or Mayo Clinic; see MEDRS's "Other sources" section for what I mean on that. Flyer22 (talk) 02:38, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Noting here that Rhododendrites removed the content. Flyer22 (talk) 07:29, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

And, of course, Jimjilin's WP:Edit warring self re-added the content. I'll eventually bring WP:Med into this. Jimjilin, that text won't be staying. Flyer22 (talk) 18:24, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Homosexual male promiscuity - the Kinsey Institute source

The male promiscuity section contains this statement:

"A 1978 study published by the Kinsey Institute found 28 percent of homosexual males had sexual encounters with over 1,000 partners."

It's followed by a secondary source from the Baltimore Sun which does say this, but there is no citation. The only relevant publication I could find on the Kinsey Institute's website is Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women, but this book's Wikipedia article doesn't mention 1,000 partners anywhere and Google's preview of the book didn't come up with obvious results either (but the preview is extremely limited).

Was just wondering if anyone could actually verify that this source is legit and the fact isn't skewed. The figure is quite significant, so I think verification is important. -- Pingumeister^(talk) 17:56, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Even if it is legit, it seems extremely dated. The set of people who identified themselves as gay in the 1970s are quite different than the people who identify themselves as gay in 2015. Plus AIDS was not an issue in the 70s and this had a huge effect on promiscuity in gay culture. I think we should concentrate on more recent statistics and remove the sentence in question. Kaldari

(talk) 18:20, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

2006 study

I am paraphrasing: They said factors such as poverty and mobility had more of a role in sexually transmitted infections than promiscuity had.

What are you paraphrasing, Rhododendrites?Jimjilin (talk) 00:27, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

What are you paraphrasing, Rhododendrites?Jimjilin (talk) 01:41, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

...

Your edits here seem to almost entirely relate to inflating associations between promiscuity and health, or minimizing statements to the contrary. This falls under the latter. Assuming good faith that the question of what source I'm paraphrasing is genuine: I'm paraphrasing the source we're using, cited at the end of that statement. From The Lancet, pmid=17098090.

In the most recent edits, which are more or less the same (if more careful) as the past many, you changed:

"A 2006 comprehensive global study (analyzing data from 59 countries worldwide) found no association between regional sexual behavior tendencies, such as number of sexual partners, and sexual-health status. Much more predictive of sexual-health status are socioeconomic factors like poverty and mobility."

to

"A 2006 comprehensive global study (analyzing data from 59 countries worldwide) found that factors such as poverty and mobility had more of a role in sexually transmitted infections than promiscuity."

In other words you removed "found no associations between regional sexual behavior tendencies, such as number of sexual partners, and sexual-health status".

You seem to be claiming that I'm misrepresenting the source, so for your reading pleasure here's the relevant text as it exists in the very first paragraph of the conclusions section:

"the apparent absence of an association between regional variations in sexual behaviour and in sexual-health status might also be counterintuitive. In particular, the comparatively high prevalence of multiple partnerships in developed countries, compared with parts of the world with far higher rates of sexually transmitted infections and HIV, such as African countries, might hold some surprises. Only rates of condom use are predictably lower in countries with lower sexual-health status, and this is likely to be attributable to factors relating to access and service provision. The data make a powerful case for an intervention focus on the broader determinants of sexual health, such as poverty and mobility, but especially gender inequality"

Can we stop with this now? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:28, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

This does not in any way show that promiscuity does not damage health. It only shows that poverty may be a more powerful factor.Jimjilin (talk) 05:40, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

There are lots of things it doesn't show, but the text above does not, of course, actually say that (i.e. "this study shows that promiscuity does not damage health"). It says what the study says. Because it's among the salient points from that study relevant to this article. Are you saying you do not see in the quoted text above support for "[the study] found no association between regional sexual behavior tendencies, such as number of sexual partners, and sexual-health status"? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:47, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Per what I stated in the #Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) (WP:MEDRS sources) should be used for health content section above, I agree with Rhododendrites. Jimjilin, stop WP:Edit warring. It seems I should bring WP:Med into this, since you won't stop your poor medical editing at this article. Flyer22 (talk) 01:32, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Extra-pair copulations

Until recently, Extra-pair copulations redirected to this article because there is a small section about animal promiscuity here. Humanobos has changed the redirect to Swinging (sexual practice), which contains no information about other animals. I have never seen animal behaviour described as "swinging", but scientists do describe animals who engage in extra-pair copulations as "promiscuous" (example). KateWishing (talk) 17:49, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

My edit was made regarding this sentence In biology, incidents of promiscuity in species that form pair bonds are usually called extra-pair copulations. This is a general statement referring all species, including animals and humans. Since there is no article on Wikipedia defining the term extra-pair copulations and this article does not clarify anything about it, it is prudent to take a look at alternative explanations even if they are taken from human activity(Swinging) regarding this matter, since humans are also animals. And it is true, Swinging is not a scientific term per se.Humanobos (talk) 18:44, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Also in this article on Wikipedia about Pair bond swinging is mentioned:

Dynamic pair-bond: e.g. gibbon mating systems being analogous to "swingers" Humanobos (talk) 19:00, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

@Humanobos: Swinging is definitely not the same thing. It's a social/cultural, strictly human phenomenon rather than a scientific description of animal behavior. Pair bond says "analogous to 'swinging'". That it's analogous to swinging means it isn't the same as swinging. What do you think about Mating system as a redirect target instead? It mentions extra-pair copulations and more clearly deals with animal mating systems. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:04, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: Well, I'm not interested in having debates in here. On a scientific basis it is the same. One activity with two names: 1) scientific and 2) laymen. As for your redirect, it's useless because it only "mentions" extra-pair copulations, but does not explain anything about it. Humanobos (talk) 19:16, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

That's an improvement, but I retargeted it to Animal_sexual_behaviour#Mating_systems which has a lot more detail about extra-pair copulations. KateWishing (talk) 19:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

@Humanobos: On a scientific basis is specifically where they are not the same. Again, "swinging" is a human "lifestyle", social phenomenon, and culture with varied rules and norms, historical contexts, etc. that are all built upon the idea of extra-pair copulation, but is most definitely not about a sexuality concept not specific to humans. What would someone looking for information about extra-pair copulation in birds gain from being redirected to swinging? A vague sense of meaning? Promiscuity, mating system, and KateWishing's indeed somewhat better target, animal sexual behaviour, are about animals in general. If they don't sufficiently talk about extra-pair copulation, add something about it. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: If you say they are not the same on a scientific basis, then define "swinging" scientifically. What men and women do with other men and women in "swinging", scientifically? Then define "extra-pair copulations"? But keep in mind this statement - In biology, incidents of promiscuity in species that form pair bonds are usually called extra-pair copulations. which I originally referred and that humans are also animals. As for KateWishing's indeed somewhat better target, now it's indeed better because the original redirect was just a meaningless loop.Humanobos (talk) 08:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

To define swinging I'd largely be using language of social sciences (at most general, along the lines of what I said above), not of natural sciences, which merely provides a core activity. It's like saying "define 'marriage' scientifically" in order to reduce it to mating. At this point, however, this seems to be moot and, if this thread were to continue, we should probably take it to the swinging talk page. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:51, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Evolutionary reasons for extra-pair copulation in humans

We are thinking about editing this page - specifically adding information about the evolutionary / adaptive reasons for human extra-pair copulation RosieKate13 (talk) 13:08, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Evolution

The page could be edited in the Evolution section as the citation explaining why females may be promiscuous is a newspaper article and not from a scientific journal. The Evolution section lacks any scientific evidence for any of its claims, and appears to base them solely on the newspaper article. The article could include scientific work exploring more aspects of evolutionary explanations of promiscuity. Psundx (talk) 13:42, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

If the newspaper quotes scientists, it still is learned opinion. Otherwise, if you want to find more reliable sources for such claims, feel free to add them to the article. I don't know if WP:MEDRS applies, but anyway see WP:SCIRS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:00, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Review

I think the addition of an evolutionary section was a great idea, although it is very informative I have a few suggestions for improvement. If possible adding a reference for the sentence on why promiscuity is beneficial for males would good. In addition it might be a good idea to fully explain what you mean by fitness in an evolutionary sense as the term clearly means something different to what people may assume. NicoleKPascoulis (talk) 16:23, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review

While the evolutionary section on promiscuity is fairly informative, there are some parts that could have been discussed in more depth. For example, it is mentioned that promiscuity can help a mother secure better genes and potentially better care and resources for her offspring. The idea of securing resources could have been discussed in more depth to explain how promiscuity can help to secure better resources and care for offspring. In this case, cuckoldry theory could have been used as an explanation - that is, by mating with so many males, the female introduces parental uncertainty to each of potential sire, which can result in males allocating resources to the offspring (as there is a chance that it could be their own).

The sentence "Promiscuity and infidelity are partly conditioned by genes in both human and non-human animals" is vague and may not necessarily be understood by the layperson. To improve on this, more detail could be described in the way that certain genes condition promiscuity and infidelity. E.g. Are there genes that present their expression, facilitate it, or both?

(LiamW1265 (talk) 16:27, 17 March 2016 (UTC))

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Promiscuity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mpg.de/1028786/W001_Biology-Medicine_062_067.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:34, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Promiscuity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120127051545/http://www.biozentrum.uni-wuerzburg.de/uploads/media/Bonobo_sex_01.pdf to http://www.biozentrum.uni-wuerzburg.de/uploads/media/Bonobo_sex_01.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:05, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Eponyms

The text seems to loose its way when discussing male eponyms of promiscuous males, and instead list mainly males considered promiscuous. Needs tidying.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:44, 11 August 2019 (UTC).

Inconsistency of data under male and female headings

The section for male promiscuity counts all sexual partners in one's lifetime, while the section for female promiscuity only counts sexual partners occuring in a recent time frame. This is biased and makes it appear than men are much more promiscuous than women. Similar facts should be used for both.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 19:28, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Sources? We go by what WP:Reliable sources state and with WP:Due weight. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:06, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Frozen: In male:

A 1994 study in the United States, which looked at the number of sexual partners in a lifetime, found 20% of heterosexual men had one partner, 55% had two to 20 partners, and 25% had more than 20 partners.[19] More recent studies have reported similar numbers.[20]

In female:

In 1994, a study in the United States found almost all married heterosexual women reported having sexual contact only with their husbands, and unmarried women almost always reported having no more than one sexual partner in the past three months. Lesbians who had a long-term partner reported having fewer outside partners than heterosexual women.[21] More recent research, however, contradicts the assertion that heterosexual women are largely monogamous. A 2002 study estimated that 45% to 55% of married heterosexual women engage in sexual relationships outside of their marriage.[28][better source needed] While the estimates for heterosexual males in the same study were greater (50–60%), the data indicate a significant portion of married heterosexual women have or have had sexual partners other than their spouse, as well.[28]

The female section is talking about extramarital affairs, while the male section is talking about lifetime number of sexual partners. Of course these numbers will be very different.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 16:39, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Unless the female section is saying that "almost all married heterosexual women" have had only one sexual partner in their lifetime, which is clearly false according to nearly all reliable sources.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 16:41, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I understand what you mean about differing numbers. Per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, academic sources should be used and primary sources (see WP:Primary sources) should typically be avoided (meaning, if used, they should only be used sparingly). This is why the whole article needs cleanup. Do you have reliable academic sources speaking on the lifetime number of sexual partners for women with regard to promiscuity? Or reliable academic sources on extramarital affairs with regard to men and their promiscuity?

On a side note: Your ping didn't work, but there is no need to ping me since this article is on my watchlist. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:09, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Citations

@Vkem: you will need to do citations with page numbers and preferably an accessible source. Maybe try OpenLibrary by web archive and accessing the book there? Then you can cite it. Either that or check if those pages are available on Google books. Sxologist (talk) 15:16, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

@Vkem: you haven’t provided any page numbers with your citations. Sxologist (talk) 03:08, 3 July 2020 (UTC)