I don't think that's quite what is behind it. I think the "giving away" is what is behind virginity obsession. The fact is that humans thrive on challenge and reward. Things we get too easily don't seem as rewarding, and therefore seem less valuable. This goes for both males and females (likely homosexual couples too) - though probably the key dynamic is hetero male-chasing-hetero female. If she sleeps with him easily, it's less of a "score" for him. He doesn't feel that he has attained so much. That's what is meant by "easy", not that she is going to run out of sex. The reality is that there are drawbacks to indiscriminate sex. Disease, unwanted pregnancy, the fact that many hyper-promiscuous people have low self-esteem and are using sex to assuage that. So someone not seeming at all picky, at all discriminating - male or female - loses attractiveness as a result. Not only are they not hard to get, they are actually desperate. So in summary being more discriminate with whom you have sex with is (a) wise and (b) a more desirable trait, for BOTH genders.
Say what now? It would be more accurate to say that "it appears that more promiscuous females have lower self esteeem." It's certainly far from a fact, and it's not a fact that they are using sex to assuage that.the fact that many hyper-promiscuous people have low self-esteem and are using sex to assuage that.
From that study you quoted: > Results showed that low global self-esteem increased the likelihood of suicidal thoughts, being bullied in school, alcohol consumption in boys, and risky sexual behavior in girls. I'll go with that. I have no issue with acknowledging that it's far more - or nearly exclusively - a correlation for females. Certainly I've observed it more, if not exclusively, in females. Perhaps they're not actively using it to assuage it, maybe it just makes them easier targets. Same result either way. I guess I put "people" because I've become hyper sensitive about making gender generalisations due to the current fervid outrage against them (and accusations of "slut shaming" about saying anything perceived as negative about women and sexual issues). I've always believed it should be possible to be completely confident in ones sexuality and as promiscuous as you please, in a totally healthy and positive way. The reality is that I have personally never met or heard of anyone hyper promiscuous (in terms of endless one night stands with strangers, relationships never lasting more than weeks, large amounts of casual partners) who didn't have some kind of issue. In retrospect I think it's because healthy minded people tend to eventually meet the same and fall into more permanent relationships with them. If you're having amazing sex, and getting on well, it tends to be that most people cement that. (Same goes for polyamory and even swinging - it's still all quite structured and controlled, not completely indiscriminate).
I confess I was interested to know what your defintion of "hyper-promiscuity" was and how it differed from "promiscuity." I have a very feminist and so-on friend who believes just the word "promiscuous" is loaded. This seems relevant to me because it seems almost like you are using "hyper-promiscuous" to mean what "promiscuous" really should mean, but the word has been warped by society and puritannical elements to mean - well, more sex than maybe we're comfortable with. To be fair, there may be people who don't want permanent relationships who have nothing wrong with them (though could an argument be made that simply not wanting permanent relationships is a problem in and of itself? -please don't tell me! (just kidding) ). I'm glad you mentioned polyamory and included it under that umbrella. It would have been a counter-point I'd have offered up if you had not.
Both "having sex" and "having a relationship" involve emotional groundwork. The latter tends to diminish the effort for the former. If you're jettisoning your "relationships" regularly you're putting in an awful lot of "needless" effort from an economic point of view. It's an irrational choice that only makes sense if there is a unique draw to the initial groundwork of having sex or a unique repulsion to the repeated groundwork of having a relationship. As flirtation doesn't necessarily have to result in copulation for the endorphins to flow, the latter is a more likely explanation.The reality is that I have personally never met or heard of anyone hyper promiscuous (in terms of endless one night stands with strangers, relationships never lasting more than weeks, large amounts of casual partners) who didn't have some kind of issue.
Interesting perspective. Taking these in order -- in the (intelligent part of the) first world, disease and unwanted pregnancy are essentially nonfactors. Yes, those are powerful historical reasons not to have indiscriminate sex, but we can throw 'em out with the bathwater in enlightened places. The last point, about promiscuity and self-esteem, is a little off in my opinion. Cause and effect are reversed. Promiscuity isn't causing the low self-esteem, it's being caused by it. So your point is less a comment on promiscuity and more a question of how can we help people who don't respect themselves. That said, I agree with you about the pseudo-evolutionary point about what humans tend to want in partners. Both men and women I think in general would rather be in a long relationship with someone who has in the past been less promiscuous, for the reasons you mention. That's just a guess. I would respond: wise in some parts of the world, but wisdom is a bit irrelevant in the cleanest and safest places. The desirability part makes sense to me, even I don't like that it is the way it is.The reality is that there are drawbacks to indiscriminate sex. Disease, unwanted pregnancy, the fact that many hyper-promiscuous people have low self-esteem and are using sex to assuage that.
So in summary being more discriminate with whom you have sex with is (a) wise and (b) a more desirable trait, for BOTH genders.
Yes - that's what I meant, albeit I put it clumsily. Though I think it's fair to say that in some cases you get into a vicious cycle where the promiscuity (due to the type of partners it attracts, and the societal response to promiscuity) tends to further perpetuate the low self-esteem. > wisdom is a bit irrelevant in the cleanest and safest places Fair enough: I don't know how old you are, but I grew up in the 1980s (in terms of when we learnt about sex) very much under the shadow of AIDS. For Gen Xers like me, the link between indiscriminate and unsafe sex, and illness and death, was forged during our formative years. It isn't something I consciously think of or worry about these days, certainly HIV/AIDS is no longer a death sentence. But it's still part of the sexuality background that we all grew up with, and I guess I can never regard it as a non-factor, even in "the intelligent part of the first world".Promiscuity isn't causing the low self-esteem, it's being caused by it.