A poll (but no buttons, sorry)

[kareina]

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...

Comments

[not-an-elf.livejournal.com]

B,B,No

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.

[vesta-aurelia.livejournal.com]

That would be
No

and

No.

Oh, and in terms of gender...
No.

[sismith42.livejournal.com]

no to either question, and gender doesn't matter.

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!)

[cathyn.livejournal.com]

B, B, No.

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..."

[lifeofglamour.livejournal.com]

3 people kissed and 2 lovers? My answer is the same as Cathyn's - there was a time in my life when that would have been a modestly successful weekend...but an unbearable 6 years.

So No, No and Hell No, to your questions.

[mamapduck.livejournal.com]

I think it is *possible* although highly unlikely for a person to be promiscuous and keep to those parameters but you'd have to really work at it or be really unattractive and get rebuffed a lot.

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.

[jupiterorbit.livejournal.com]

B, B, HELL no.

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.

[katerit.livejournal.com]

B,B, and no, of course not. It doesn't even come under classic definitions of promiscuity, which entail lack of emotional connections and far more frequent physical contact. What do they teach them in these schools?

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!

[jillwheezul.livejournal.com]

For the record - No, No and doesn't matter.

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".

[callistabee.livejournal.com]

Interesting question. I am by all definitions, conservative in my views about relationships. That being said, they are my views on my relationships. Promiscuity implies a lack of discrimination in intimate relationships. I have never thought of you as indiscriminate even though are views are very different. When it comes to lovers and friends the policy should be "first do no harm". And genders are irrelevant as long as the basis is respect and affection. So B and B.

[ppfuf.livejournal.com]

B, B, No.
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?

[mad-duchess.livejournal.com]

LOL. At first I misread your question and thought it was 6 months, not 6 years, and my answer was still no. So at the 6 year point, I'm gonna have to go with a resounding HELL NO!

[zenfury.livejournal.com]

1. No
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.

[greatsword.livejournal.com]

I started out in the "no, no, no" camp, but had to change my first two answers to "that depends."

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.

[dd1066.livejournal.com]

I'll add to the no, no, and hell no votes. Said person who called you this needs a reality check

[glass-violet.livejournal.com]

Are you referring to the very public comment on your facebook yesterday? Good grief, he couldn't even spell it! Also, he is transparently just jealous (promiscuity is probably something of a frustrated ambition for this...person...). Pay no heed, dear.
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

[aumtattoo.livejournal.com]

as they cool kids used to say.... Hell to the no!

Sounds like someone doesn't know what they are talking about. Don't let this guy take up anymore of your brain space.

[madryn-1960.livejournal.com]

I'm not going to answer this.

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.

[aumtattoo.livejournal.com]

this is me on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=887250076&ref=name Friend me if you like

[ariadne3.livejournal.com]

Uh. Ditto on what Vesta said.

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.

[fjorlief.livejournal.com]

B, B, and no change based on gender. I had always considered "promiscuous" in the relationship world, to mean engaging in activities without thoughtful and loving connection. It would never occur to me to describe you in that way. (some)Earth people are so stupid.

[trudchen.livejournal.com]

No,No, and NO.
Last capitalized because gender would be a stupid thing to define it.

[amycat1959.livejournal.com]

Whoever this is, he's woefully ignorant of vocabulary. I suspect he's using the uber-conservative bible-thumper's definition of "promiscuous": "Someone I suspect has a more *interesting* Sex Life than I do, and who doesn't carry a sh!tload of Guilt over it".

Sounds like an envious and petty-minded person to me... Ignore him.