Promiscuity harms monogamy/marriage?

[Live-n-learn]

Hi everyone. I'm writing a philosophy essay on Frederick Elliston's essay "In defense of promiscuity". I'm pretty much done, it's just that I want to make the arguments as strong as possible, as this essay is worth quite a chunk of my final mark. Thus, I'm reaching out to you guys for help, as it sorta relates to what we discuss in the boards (ie sex!). There are some intelligent posters here so I hope you guys can help me out here.

The purpose of my essay is to propose the strongest forms of the arguments, for both elliston's objections and the arguments of the view he opposes.

THe view he opposes is what I will refer to as "traditional view".
It defines promiscuity as "sex with a series of other adults, not directly related through marriage, with no commitments." (although this definition may not be entirely correct, we won't argue against this definition as it's not the essay's purpose).
This traditional view implies that (1) promiscuity has negative effects on marriage, and (2) monogamy is socially superior to the alternatives.

Here are Elliston's objections to the traditional view, with some of my arguments stated in brief (identified in italics font)

Objection #1: "promiscuity eliminates the need to marry merely for sex"

For Elliston: In past generations, sex before marriage was frowned upon. Ppl were less open sexually, and if they wanted sex, they'd wait till marriage. By having sex with ppl beforehand, the focus of marriage shifts from to "finally have sex" to focusing on finding a person to spend your life with.

Against Elliston: If a person becomes too emotionally-detached through living promiscuously, they may find themselves to be alone, due to forming meaningless relationships with others. Thus, it is not good for the person's health since human-beings have a need or desire to connect.

Objection #2: "promiscuity increases chance of sexual compatibility"

For Elliston: After experimenting w/ different ppl, one can leanr new things from each that they liked or disliked, and thus know what they enjoy sexually.

Against Elliston: It's possble to achieve good sexual relationship with your spouse through effective communication, visual aids (porn), props, and from past self-pleasuring experiences. None of these calls for promiscuity.

Objection #3: "Despite promiscuity, marriage remains popular, even among the divorced who opt to remarry"


For Elliston: Ppl are more sexually open today, yet they still opt to get married in the future. (yeah, not a strong argument for Ellliston, but this objection is pretty weak to begin with)

Against Elliston: w/ divorce laws and other legal input, ppl don't treat marriage as serious as it should be. Also, divorce is also very popular today. A contributing factor could be that some of those marriages ended b/c of promiscuity itself in the form of cheating. Dullness of sex life btwn partners may cause one to seek to reclaim their once promiscuous lifestyle.


So that's it in a nutshell. If you have ideas that can strengthen the arguments for both sides, please share those thoughts, I'd appreciate your insights. This may prove to be an interesting thread.

Thanks again.

 

[Alicorn]

It's too early for a formal argument so here are the bullet points against promiscutity:

-Attachment to the world is the root cause of all human suffering. The enlightened will not suffer if they lose a material thing (that included people) because the enlightened understand that all phycial things are inperminant and attachment to such things is pointless and counterproductive due to the negative emotions generated when you lose said physical thing

-Suffering creates a feedback a loop of fear/ anger/ hate/ more suffering.

-Promiscutity encourages the false view of the world that attachment to phsyical things will bring happiness becasue of the physical & psychological pleasures.

-Therefore indulgence in such sexual behavior is counterproductive to one's own psychological well-being.

Q.E.D.

 

[Live-n-learn]

Promiscuity doesn't necessarily mean you're attached to material things; Elliston would respond by saying that you can be promiscuous (desiring sex with different partners) but still not be materialistic, like wanting things to complete your life. This person can just be promiscuous and live happily in an average home and average work salary, being satisfied enough from all facets of his lifestyle. He can maintain a balanced lifestyle, without indulging in any particular thing, and still be promiscous.

THanks for the response, though I'm not sure that it achieves the purpose of my essay, as it doesn't really respond to Elliston's objections.

Who else has ideas to contribute?

 

[Live-n-learn]

Bump

 

[Big Eee Zee]

Against Elliston: w/ divorce laws and other legal input, ppl don't treat marriage as serious as it should be. Also, divorce is also very popular today. A contributing factor could be that some of those marriages ended b/c of promiscuity itself in the form of cheating. Dullness of sex life btwn partners may cause one to seek to reclaim their once promiscuous lifestyle.


you never counter argued that, and it's a damn good point. Marriage has become cheapened, and i think its because people would rather go out and have sex with strangers rather than work to improve their partners.

That will be a big obstacle.

 

[A-Unit]

Re:

His stance is 1 that believes men/women are animals. That multiple sex partners are necessary for happiness. I have never read his work, but I believe this to be a fallacy in his position.

What we have here is a split in society. One cannot value marriage and then concurrently seek multiple sex partners until they are married. Can they?

The value men gain in marrying a woman is her purity to wait (seriously) or close to waiting, her ability to provide more to his life than he would have without it, and her joint belief in him, trust, and view of his dreams.

WHY marriage is failing so quickly is because guys are making girlfriend, permanent girlfriends by marrying them. DOES NOT WORK. If you've been with a girl 2 years, had your up's and down's, sex was ok, then marrying her really on fvcked you. NOW, you cannot part ways with her, and by that point, the mold has been cast and certain expectations made.

She's likely working, OR expects to stop working once you're married to begin a family. You've had a lifestyle, and by now, it would be difficult to pass it up, so you're going to work twice as hard when she has kids, or she'll have to work, too.

I don't believe in making a girlfriend a wife and then viewing it to be able to work. I don't believe in living with her PRIOR to marriage. One, that takes away from the marriage. Two, that negates the vows of 'til death do us part', 'through sickness and health', etc. If you make a vow, you stick to it, no strings attached. By 'try it before buy it' part is what hurts people.

Rather than ACCEPT a person for who they are, we notice their short-comings and refute them. We pick them apart. Can't work that way and be successful, IMO.

----------------------------

Most of the places where people get confirmation of their beliefs are either 1) their parents 2) their society 3) themselves. Well, I'd say most women use Oprah, books, cosmo, or their parents. Rarely are they going to themselves for what they believe. As a result, they're confused. Lost.

---------------------------

*Promiscuity withers away much of the moral fiber of a woman the more she engages in open sexual relationships, bringing less and less value to marriage.

*Promiscuity DECREASES sexual compatability, because, instead of learning about one person and gaining comfort with that one person over time, you instead evaluate their performance based on a random series of events and their ability to read your mind and GUESS what it is you desire. Sexual compatability becomes more about performance and the 'end goal' than the compatability of 2 persons.

*Promiscuity RUINS marriages and makes the next marriage, MORE likely to fail. Instead of working to fix problems, establish communication, and learning to accept one another people, people DUCK and RUN. They realize there's an open pool of available persons, willing to give sex nearly immediately, be they prostitutes, bar maidens, hoes, escorts, or cheap women, the availability of sex INCREASES the carelessness toward people we have and the lack of patience INSIDE a relationship since we knows there's more of it.

----------------------------

As David D noted, value is established by the LACK of availability. The less GOOD men there are, the more VALUABLE they become. The less HOT women there exist, the more men want those limited resources. Men do not care about sex with 1 woman because it's so free and available, hence men's disinterest in relationships. As a result women gain a cynical stance on relationships, since "no good men exist" and "men cheat."

Sex is everywhere, and so people don't view it with the same importance it once had. Some do, some don't.



A-Unit

 

[Live-n-learn]

Thanks

Thank you for those who repllied. It turns out I pretty much already reached my page limit for my essay, so I can't add much to it.

To Big Eee Zee: I agree with the way you used the word "cheapend" as that's the image that marriage seems to carry now.

To A-Unit: Couldn't agree more with the David D part. I enjoy reading your posts.

I will now get the administrator to delete the first post of this thread in case other people from my class finds this thread (and website) and try to steal my ideas