![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
A poll (but no buttons, sorry)
This afternoon someone I know referred to me as "promiscuous". This is not a word with which I have ever self-identified, and even if it had applied at some other time (which I don't think it did), it really doesn't sound, to me, like an appropriate description of the current phase of my life. Therefore, either he was mistaken, or, the word doesn't mean what I think it means.
I ask you all:
Would you count someone as promiscuous if, over the course of the past six years there have been only three indivuduals with whom they have become close enough friends to share "proper" kisses?
A) yes
B) no
C) that depends
Would you count someone as promiscuous if, over the course of the past six years there have only been two individuals with whom they shared a sufficent level of mutual love/trust to become lovers?
A) yes
B) no
C) that depends
Does your answer change for different gendered "someones" as used in the questions?
Feel free to elaborate on what factors would make a difference if you select "that depends".
Alas, on my level of free account, I can't create an automatic poll, but I'm good with a spreadsheet, so will tally the answers (if I get any) and post the numbers later...
I ask you all:
Would you count someone as promiscuous if, over the course of the past six years there have been only three indivuduals with whom they have become close enough friends to share "proper" kisses?
A) yes
B) no
C) that depends
Would you count someone as promiscuous if, over the course of the past six years there have only been two individuals with whom they shared a sufficent level of mutual love/trust to become lovers?
A) yes
B) no
C) that depends
Does your answer change for different gendered "someones" as used in the questions?
Feel free to elaborate on what factors would make a difference if you select "that depends".
Alas, on my level of free account, I can't create an automatic poll, but I'm good with a spreadsheet, so will tally the answers (if I get any) and post the numbers later...
no subject
Cause pretty much any other response would mark me as a complete man-whore....
oh.... hang on....
But seriously, you can't be giving that sort of person any credit, right? This is a lesson we've learned time and again.
I know you like to see the best in people, but, just this once, join me in a cry of 'People are Stupid!', please.
Someone we both know recently told me I shouldn't go 'round judging people (she's rather young). My response was (and is) 'everyone judges, but know that in judging, you yourself stand judged'.
Clearly this individual can now be judged as (at best) being incapable of thinking before they speak.
no subject
(no, I did *not* ask his numbers for more than kisses, that is none of my business!)
no subject
no subject
no subject
No
and
No.
Oh, and in terms of gender...
No.
no subject
That aside, how does your aquantance define promiscuous? I tend to think of it as being willing to play with anyone... though Meriam Webster, in the context here, has it at not restricted to one partner (which, taken to the silly extreme, would mean that ALL people who remarry, whether due to divorce or death, are promiscuous!)
no subject
There was a time when I *was* promiscuous, and what you describe would have been considered a modestly successful weekend, and a very chaste six years.
"You know, maybe that word doesn't mean what you think it means..."
no subject
So No, No and Hell No, to your questions.
no subject
a) I knew hookers who never kissed a client. Some people consider blowjobs to be "not sex." (Which, on a tangent, I don't get. When I was coming up that was a bigger deal than intercourse, and now it seems to be vice versa.) You could get a whole lot of promiscing done without proper sex or kisses, let alone trust and love.
b)If you attempt to screw everything that moves and they all run screaming you're still a hoochie, you're just *bad* at it.
I suspect that neither of these situations is applicable here. And yeah, like others, there was a phase when I could have *totally* knocked that out in a weekend. Amateur.
no subject
Though I do, sadly, still know people running around of my generation for whom the last answer does change. Of course, most of them are guys who are disguising a total lack of self-worth under a lot of machismo.
Original speaker can haz stupidity.
no subject
You are loving and thoughtful in your relationships - and you are careful in your choices. Even those who don't agree with poly lifestyles cannot attach that adjective to your choices and behavior. Pshaw!
no subject
Not so much a pejorative, but a correct usage none the less.
no subject
no subject
Assuming your are a SCAdian - think of it in terms of the misunderstandings that arrise between those using Chivalry to mean those dudes on horses with swords hacking on the peasants and those using the term to mean a set of behavior romanticised in the 19th Century.
Both are reasonable and valid definitions - however communication procedes in a more reasonable fashion when both folks having the conversation are using the same definition.
no subject
Frankly, that comment seems so far off the mark that it suspiciously smells like some form of jealousy or it hides a conflict about emotional intimacy. Although I might expect such a judgment call from an ultra-religious person who has angst and guilt about something they thought was "sin".
no subject
no subject
Two or three boy-or girlfriends in six years? Not nun-like, but way not promiscuous. I'm with Cathyn and Inigo Montoya, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
Unless, your correspondent was not referring to your dating life, but something else...maybe a tendency to flit from project to project or hobby to hobby? Would that apply to you?
no subject
no subject
2. No
3. Of course not
As others have stated, when I was single I would have been a sad little monkey with that level of interaction. In my monogamous relationship those stats would make me adulterous because it would involve deceiving my wife.
You have always been one of the most honest people I know. I think the whole thing, including the the "promiscuous" label, is silly.
no subject
If someone's "sufficient level of trust" was essentially zero, but they were so coyote ugly that they couldn't get a date to save their life? Maybe a yes. (And I'm not thinking of my own adolescence at all in that definition. Honest.) Gender doesn't have anything to do with it, just discrimination.
I can't see that ever having applied to you, though.
no subject
no subject
And for the record: B,B,never! (I may have self-interest at heart, though, as any other answer would make me a complete and utter slapper!)
XXX
no subject
Just found the comment!
How could you possibly ever give credit to that!
Makes my first comment sound way too nice.
no subject
no subject
no subject
Seriously, the thing that pisses me off about this is that you've felt you need to ask us these questions at all because that means he got to you with his stupid stunt and that is again so stupid and cruel I am speechless. And angry about it also (as you can tell from this rant).
Forget that stuff and go back to believing in yourself, like the Kareina we all know and love.
no subject
But I've been really enjoying all of the comments posted here, so I'm glad I put this poll up.
no subject
Sounds like someone doesn't know what they are talking about. Don't let this guy take up anymore of your brain space.
no subject
Honey, people say things about you which aren't true because you are female, beautiful, intelligent and free thinking.
In a magazine the other day, I saw a photo of Michelle Obama. She looked utterly stunning. She's female, beautiful, slim, sexy, powerful and black. The caption beneath the photo read that if the viewer looked carefully at Ms. Obama's hand, one could see she was making the sign of the devil.
Beautiful, black and a woman - hey - if that's not devilish I don't know what is.
That's why people say you are promiscuous. It's like saying you're in league with the christian devil. It's just stuff sick people say. They know it isn't true, but it makes them feel they have a reason to hate.
no subject
no subject
That's so odd. Perhaps the person is conflating being poly with being promiscuous? But there are people who identify as monogamous but 'just dating' who get way more action ('action' in this case meaning more than that many lovers,) than you 'r me.
Once again, perplexed by other viewpoints that I'd never have considered.
no subject
no subject
Last capitalized because gender would be a stupid thing to define it.
no subject
Sounds like an envious and petty-minded person to me... Ignore him.