quote:Originally posted by Noah The African:
MBM, mathematically, men don't have to be promiscuous for a woman to be promiscuous.
Well, mathematically, it would seem like the numbers, intuitively, tell a different story. There are more females than males on this earth. In the black community, because of mortality, incarceration, and sexual preference - there are even fewer black males for each female. Therefore, the numbers suggest that each man has, on average, more than one female "to choose from". The converse of this is that each woman has, on average, less than one man to choose from. As with musical chairs, that leaves many women without men when the music stops. Hence, just from a numbers perspective, it would seem like promiscuity is probably more of a male issue than female.
Beyond that, which is the more common association: of a man being a "dog" or of a female being a "ho"? How many men do you know that ARE dogs versus how many females that are "ho's"? As you infer, society honors male promiscuity. Does that make their behavior any less promiscuous however?
quote:Promiscuity implies a one-to-many relationship. Thus, one women being with many men does not imply one man getting with many women. Hence, male promiscuity is not a prerequisite for female promiscuity and visa versa.
I guarantee you - get a sample of 100 black men and 100 black women. Ask them how many partners they have had in their lives. Which do you think, on average, will have had MORE partners?
BTW - I have no doubt that the men will have had more partners. Who then is more promiscuous, men or women? As I said in a previous post, if promiscuity is a problem - it is a HUMAN problem.
quote:Women generally don't have a problem with male promiscuity as long as it is past tense. Many appreciate the skill sets from such exploits and in a sense, reward the behavior.
I disagree. In this day and age who wants to be with anyone who has "been around the block"? Beyond that, that society rewards men for their promiscuity has nothing to do with the fact that they are, in fact, promiscuous. My point is that blaming women for behavior that, by definition, includes men is absolutely nonsensical.
Furthermore, if there are MORE women than men - then if you infer rampant female promiscuity - then you also, by definiton, infer male promiscuity. The women can't be having sex promiscuously if the men aren't as well.
quote:On other hand, a man does not want a promiscuous women past or present tense, for as wife material, but only as their "bottom itchB". Therefore, promiscuous behaviors by women have much different consequences and risk than doe's male promiscuity.
Basically you are explaining away male promiscuity because of male sexism. Sexism is wrong; it is morally repugnent and logically void.