Talk:Promiscuity

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)

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)

"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)

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)