Hubbry Logo
PromiscuityPromiscuityMain
Open search
Promiscuity
Community hub
Promiscuity
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Promiscuity
Promiscuity
Promiscuity
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Promiscuity is the practice of engaging in sexual activity frequently with different partners or being indiscriminate in the choice of sexual partners.[1] The term can carry a moral judgment. A common example of behavior viewed as promiscuous by many cultures is the one-night stand, and its frequency is used by researchers as a marker for promiscuity.[2]

What sexual behavior is considered promiscuous varies between cultures, as does the prevalence of promiscuity. Different standards are often applied to different genders and civil statutes. Feminists have traditionally argued a significant double standard exists between how men and women are judged for promiscuity. Historically, stereotypes of the promiscuous woman have tended to be pejorative, such as "the slut" or "the harlot", while male stereotypes have been more varied, some expressing approval, such as "the stud" or "the player", while others imply societal deviance, such as "the womanizer" or "the philanderer". A scientific study published in 2005 found that promiscuous men and women are both prone to derogatory judgment.[3]

Promiscuity is common in many animal species.[4] Some species have promiscuous mating systems, ranging from polyandry and polygyny to mating systems with no stable relationships where mating between two individuals is a one-time event. Many species form stable pair bonds, but still mate with other individuals outside the pair. In biology, incidents of promiscuity in species that form pair bonds are usually called extra-pair copulations.

Motivations

[edit]

Accurately assessing people's sexual behavior is difficult, since strong social and personal motivations occur, depending on social sanctions and taboos, for either minimizing or exaggerating reported sexual activity.

American experiments in 1978 and 1982 found the great majority of men were willing to have sex with women they did not know, of average attractiveness, who propositioned them. No woman, by contrast, agreed to such propositions from men of average attractiveness. While men were in general comfortable with the requests, regardless of their willingness, women responded with shock and disgust.[5]

The number of sexual partners people have had in their lifetimes varies widely within a population. We see a higher number of people who are more comfortable with their sexuality in the modern world. A 2007 nationwide survey in the United States found the median number of female sexual partners reported by men was seven and the median number of male partners reported by women was four. The men possibly exaggerated their reported number of partners, women reported a number lower than the actual number, or a minority of women had a sufficiently larger number than most other women to create a mean significantly higher than the median, or all of the above. About 29% of men and 9% of women reported to have had more than 15 sexual partners in their lifetimes.[6] Studies of the spread of sexually transmitted infections consistently demonstrate a small percentage of the studied population has more partners than the average man or woman, and a smaller number of people have fewer than the statistical average. An important question in the epidemiology of sexually transmitted infections is whether or not these groups copulate mostly at random with sexual partners from throughout a population or within their social groups.

A 2006 systematic review analyzing data from 59 countries worldwide found no association between regional sexual behavior tendencies, such as number of sexual partners, and sexual-health status. Much more predictive of sexual-health status are socioeconomic factors like poverty and mobility.[7] Other studies have suggested that people with multiple casual sex partners are more likely to be diagnosed with sexually transmitted infections.[8]

Severe and impulsive promiscuity, along with a compulsive urge to engage in illicit sex with attached individuals is a common symptom of borderline personality disorder, histrionic personality disorder, narcissistic personality disorder, and antisocial personality disorder but most promiscuous individuals do not have these disorders.[9]

Cross-cultural studies

[edit]

In 2008, a U.S. university study of international promiscuity found that Finns have had the largest number of sex partners in the industrialized world, and British people have the largest number among big western industrial nations.[10] The study measured one-night stands, attitudes to casual sex, and number of sexual partners.[citation needed] A 2014 nationwide survey in the United Kingdom named Liverpool the country's most promiscuous city.[11]

Britain's position on the international index "may be linked to increasing social acceptance of promiscuity among women as well as men". Britain's ranking was "ascribed to factors such as the decline of religious scruples about extramarital sex, the growth of equal pay and equal rights for women, and a highly sexualized popular culture".[12][13][14]

The top-10-ranking OECD nations with a population over 10 million on the study's promiscuity index, in descending order, were the United Kingdom, Germany, the Netherlands, Czechia, Australia, the United States, France, Turkey, Mexico, and Canada.[12][13][14]

A 2017 survey by Superdrug found that the United Kingdom was the country with the most sex partners with an average of 7, while Austria had around 6.5.[15][16] The 2012 Trojan Sex Life Survey found that African American men reported an average of 38 sex partners in their lifetime.[17] A study funded by condom-maker Durex, conducted in 2006 and published in 2009, measured promiscuity by a total number of sexual partners. The survey found Austrian men had the highest number of sex partners globally, with 29.3 sexual partners on average. New Zealand women had the highest number of sex partners for females in the world with an average of 20.4 sexual partners. In all of the countries surveyed, except New Zealand, men reported more sexual partners than women.[18][19]

One review found the people from developed Western countries had more sex partners than people from developing countries in general, while the rate of STIs was higher in developing countries.[7]

According to the 2005 Global Sex Survey by Durex, people have had on average nine sexual partners, the most in Turkey (14.5) and Australia (13.3), and the fewest in India (3) and China (3.1).[20]

According to the 2012 General Social Survey in the United States by the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago, Protestants on average had more sex partners than Catholics.[21] Similarly, a 2019 study by the Institute for Family Studies in the US found that of never married young people, Protestants have more sexual partners than Catholics.[22]

Female promiscuity

[edit]
Main article: Female promiscuity
Empress Catherine the Great, a crucial figure at the time of the Enlightenment, is popularly remembered for her sexual promiscuity.

In 1994, a study in the United States found almost all married heterosexual women reported having sexual contact only with their husbands, and unmarried women almost always reported having no more than one sexual partner in the past three months. Lesbians who had long-term partners reported having fewer outside partners than heterosexual women.[23] More recent research, however, contradicts the assertion that heterosexual women are largely monogamous. A 2002 study estimated that 45% to 55% of married heterosexual women engage in sexual relationships outside of their marriage,[24][better source needed] while the estimate for heterosexual men engaging in the same conduct was 50–60% in the same study.[24]

One possible explanation for hypersexuality is child sexual abuse (CSA) trauma. Many studies have examined the correlation between CSA and risky sexual behavior. Rodriguez-Srednicki and Ofelia examined the correlation of CSA experienced by women and their self-destructive behavior as adults using a questionnaire. The diversity and ages of the women varied. Slightly fewer than half the women reported CSA while the remainder reported no childhood trauma. The results of the study determined that self-destructive behaviors, including hypersexuality, correlates with CSA in women.[25] CSA can create sexual schemas that result in risky sexual behavior.[26] This can play out in their sexual interactions as girls get older. The sexual behaviors of women that experienced CSA differed from those of women without exposure to CSA. Studies show CSA survivors tend to have more sexual partners and engage in higher risk sexual behaviors.[27]

Since at least 1450, the word 'slut' has been used, often pejoratively, to describe a sexually promiscuous woman.[28] In and before the Elizabethan and Jacobean eras, terms like "strumpet" and "whore" were used to describe women deemed promiscuous, as seen, for example, in John Webster's 1612 play The White Devil.[citation needed]

Thornhill and Gangestad found that women are much more likely to sexually fantasize about and be attracted to extra-pair men during the fertile phase of the menstrual cycle than the luteal phase, whereas attraction to the primary partner does not change depending on the menstrual cycle.[29] A 2004 study by Pillsworth, Hasselton and Buss contradicted this, finding greater in-pair sexual attraction during this phase and no increase in attraction to extra-pair men.[29]

In Norwegian students, Kennair et al. (2023) found no signs of a sexual double standard in short-term or long-term mating contexts, nor in choosing a friend, except that women's self-stimulation was more acceptable than men's.[30]

Male promiscuity

[edit]
John Wilmot, a notorious libertine[31]
Giacomo Casanova was famously promiscuous.

Heterosexual/straight men

[edit]

A 1994 study in the United States, which looked at the number of sexual partners in a lifetime, found 20% of heterosexual men had one partner, 55% had two to 20 partners, and 25% had more than 20 sexual partners.[32] More recent studies have reported similar numbers.[33]

In the United Kingdom, a nationally representative study in 2013 found that 33.9% of heterosexual men had 10 or more lifetime sexual partners. Among men between 45 and 54 years old, 43.1% reported 10 or more sexual partners.[34]

A 2003 representative study in Australia found that heterosexual men had a median of 8 female sexual partners in their lifetime. For lifetime sexual partners: 5.8% had 0 partners, 10.3% had 1 partner, 6.1% had 2 partners, 33% had between 3 and 9 partners, 38.3% had between 10 and 49 partners and 6.6% had more than 50 female sexual partners.[35]

A 2014 representative study in Australia found that heterosexual men had a median of 7.8 female sexual partners in their lifetime. For lifetime sexual partners: 3.7% had 0 partners, 12.6% had 1 partner, 6.8% had 2 partners, 32.3% had between 3 and 9 partners, 36.9% had between 10 and 49 partners and 7.8% had more than 50 female sexual partners.[36]

Gay men and MSM

[edit]
Main article: Men who have sex with men

Research by J. Michael Bailey has found that homosexual and heterosexual men share a similar level of interest in casual sex. However, compared to gay men, straight men are limited in their ability to have sex with multiple females. According to Bailey, "These facts suggest that women are responsible for the pace of sex. Gay and straight men both want casual sex, but only straight men have the brake of women's sexually cautious nature to slow them."[37]

The 2013 British NATSAL study found that gay men had a median of 19 lifetime sexual partners.[38] In the previous year, 45.8% of gay men reported having 1 sexual partner, 21.3% reported having between 2 and 4, 7.3% reported having between 5 and 9, and 19.6% reported having 10 or more sexual partners. 6% of gay men had 0 sexual partners.[38] 71.1% of gay men had more than 10 sexual lifetime sexual partners.[38]

A 2014 study in Australia found gay men had a median of 22 lifetime sexual partners (sexual partner was defined as kissing, touching or intercourse).[39] 37.8% of gay men had more than 50 sexual partners.[39] In the past year, 50.1% of gay men reported having either 0 or 1 partner, while 25.6% reported 10 or more partners.[39]

Convenience sample research on gay sexual behavior may overrepresent promiscuous respondents.[40][41][42] This is because gay men are a small portion of the male population, and thus many surveys rely on convenience sampling. Examples of this type of sampling includes surveying men on dating apps such as Grindr, or finding volunteers at gay bars, clubs and saunas. Convenience samples often exclude gay men who are in relationships, men who do not use dating apps or men who do not attend gay venues.[40][43] For example, the British and European convenience surveys included approximately five times as many gay men who reported "5 or more sexual partners" than the nationally representative NATSAL study did.[44][42] Probability sample surveys are more useful in this regard, because they seek to accurately reflect the characteristics of the gay male population. Examples include the NATSAL in the United Kingdom and the General Social Survey in the United States.

According to John Corvino, opponents of gay rights often cite convenience sample research on promiscuity.[45] Psychologist J. Michael Bailey has stated that social conservatives use promiscuity among gay men as evidence of a "decadent" nature of gay men, but says "I think they're wrong. Promiscuous gay men are expressing an essentially masculine trait. They are doing what most heterosexual men would do if they could. They are in this way just like heterosexual men, except that they don't have women to constrain them."[37]

Regarding sexually transmitted infections (STIs), some researchers have said that the number of sexual partners had by gay men cannot fully explain rates of HIV infection in this population. According to an article published in the BMJ, unprotected receptive anal sex, which carries a higher risk of HIV transmission, is a more important factor.[46]

A 1989 study found having over 100 partners to be present though rare among homosexual males.[23] A 1994 study found that difference in the mean number of sexual partners between gay and straight men "did not appear very large".[41][47]

A 2007 study reported that two large population surveys found "the majority of gay men had similar numbers of unprotected sexual partners annually as straight men and women."[48][49]

Evolution

[edit]

Evolutionary psychologists propose that a conditional human tendency for promiscuity is inherited from hunter-gatherer ancestors. Promiscuity increases the likelihood of having children, thus "evolutionary" fitness. According to them, female promiscuity is advantageous in that it allows females to choose fathers for their children who have better genes than their mates, to ensure better care for their offspring, have more children, and as a form of fertility insurance.[50] Male promiscuity was likely advantageous because it allowed males to father more children.

Primitive promiscuity

[edit]

Primitive promiscuity or original promiscuity was the 19th-century hypothesis that humans originally lived in a state of promiscuity or "hetaerism" before the advent of society as we understand it.[51][52][53][54][55] Hetaerism is a theoretical early state of human society, as postulated by 19th-century anthropologists, which was characterized by the absence of the institution of marriage in any form and in which women were the common property of their tribe and in which children never knew who their fathers were.[56]

The reconstruction of the original state of primitive society or humanity was based on the idea of progress, according to which all cultures have degrees of improvement and becoming more complicated. It seemed logical to assume that never before the types of families developed did they simply exist, and in primitive society, sexual relations were without any boundaries and taboos. This view is represented, inter alia, by anthropologist Lewis H. Morgan in Ancient Society and Friedrich Engels' work The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State.[57]

In the first half of the 20th century, this notion was rejected by a number of authors, e.g. Edvard Westermarck, a Finnish philosopher, social anthropologist and sociologist with in-depth knowledge of the history of marriage, who provided strong evidence that, at least in the first stages of cultural development, monogamy has been a perfectly normal and natural form of man-woman coexistence.[58][59]

Modern cultural anthropology has not confirmed the existence of a complete promiscuity in any known society or culture. The evidence of history is reduced to some texts of Herodotus, Strabo, and Solinus, which have been hard to interpret.[60]

Religious, social, and cultural views

[edit]
See also: Fornication

Christianity, Judaism, and Islam condemn promiscuity and instead advocate lifelong monogamous marriage (although Islam allows polygamy for men).[61] The perspectives on promiscuity vary significantly depending on the region. Every country has different values and morals pertaining to sexual life.

Promiscuity has been practiced in hippie communities and other alternative subcultures since the 1960s cultural revolution.[62]

Sex and Culture is a book by J. D. Unwin concerning the correlation between a society's level of 'cultural achievement' and its level of sexual restraint. Published in 1934, the book concluded with the theory that as societies develop, they become more sexually liberal, accelerating the social entropy of the society, and thereby diminishing its "creative" and "expansive" energy.[63][64]

Other animals

[edit]
Further information: Animal sexual behaviour and Extra-pair copulation

Some researchers have suggested that the practice of referring to animals as promiscuous in reference to their mating system is often inaccurate and potentially biased. More precise terms such as polyandry, polygyny, and polygynandry are increasingly preferred.[65][66]

Many animal species, such as spotted hyenas,[67] pigs,[68] bonobos[69] and chimpanzees, are promiscuous as a rule, and do not form pair bonds. Although social monogamy occurs in about 90% of avian species and about 3% of mammalian species, an estimated 90% of socially monogamous species exhibit individual promiscuity in the form of copulation outside the pair bond.[4][70][71]

In the animal world, some species, including birds such as swans and fish such as Neolamprologus pulcher, once believed monogamous, are now known to engage in extra-pair copulations. One example of extra-pair fertilization (EPF) in birds is the black-throated blue warblers. Though it is a socially monogamous species, both males and females engage in EPF.[72]

The Darwin-Bateman paradigm, which states that males are typically eager to copulate while females are more choosy about whom to mate with, has been confirmed by a meta-analysis.[73] There is, however, continued debate about the utility and pitfalls of the Bateman perspective.[74][75][76]

Risks

[edit]

Promiscuity may increase the risk of acquiring sexually transmitted infections.[77][better source needed][relevant?]

See also

[edit]
Wikiquote has quotations related to Promiscuity.
Look up promiscuity in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
Wikiversity has learning resources about Motivation and emotion/Textbook/Motivation/Sexual motivation#Promiscuity

References

[edit]

Bibliography

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Promiscuity

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Promiscuity refers to the practice of engaging in sexual relations with multiple partners, often on a casual or uncommitted basis, without selectivity or long-term attachment. In biological terms, it manifests across as a involving frequent partner changes, but in humans, it intersects with social norms, psychological drives, and outcomes, frequently carrying a due to perceived risks and judgments. From an evolutionary perspective, human sexual promiscuity likely originated in ancestral environments characterized by multi-male, multi-female systems, with a later transition toward pair-bonding to facilitate biparental care and resource provisioning for . Empirical reveal consistent disparities, with men reporting an average of 14 lifetime sexual partners compared to 7 for women in large-scale surveys, aligning with reproductive asymmetries where males benefit from quantity in opportunities while females prioritize quality. These patterns persist cross-culturally, though self-reported figures may understate true behaviors due to social desirability biases, particularly among women. Promiscuity correlates with elevated health risks, including higher incidence of sexually transmitted infections, as meta-analyses link multiple partners directly to increased exposure and transmission probability. Psychologically, frequent casual encounters are associated with negative sequelae such as emotional regret, depressive symptoms, and diminished marital satisfaction in later life, effects amplified by the absence of relational . Societally, it provokes controversies over double standards, where historically incurs harsher stigma than male, though contemporary studies indicate evolving judgments that may penalize male excess in casual contexts. Despite potential short-term hedonic benefits, long-term data underscore causal links to relational instability and well-being deficits, challenging narratives that frame it solely as liberating.

Definition and Conceptual Foundations

Definition and Scope

Promiscuity refers to sexual behavior characterized by frequent engagement with multiple partners, often in casual or indiscriminate encounters lacking long-term commitment or emotional exclusivity. This definition encompasses a spectrum of activities, including one-night stands, short-term hookups, and serial partnering with minimal selectivity in partner choice, typically measured by a relatively high lifetime or annual number of sexual partners compared to population norms. Scholarly analyses highlight that precise thresholds vary, but common indicators include exceeding 10 lifetime partners or engaging in unprotected casual sex, distinguishing it from committed non-monogamy. The scope of promiscuity is primarily confined to sexual conduct, though analogous behaviors appear in mating systems where individuals, especially females, mate multiply to enhance or resource access. In behavioral , it excludes structured alternatives like or , which involve negotiated exclusivity or selectivity, and focuses instead on opportunistic or low-investment strategies that prioritize quantity over quality of partnerships. Emotional promiscuity, involving non-exclusive romantic attachments, sometimes overlaps but is conceptually distinct unless tied to sexual acts. This framing aligns with evolutionary perspectives where promiscuity serves as a high-risk reproductive tactic, potentially increasing offspring numbers at the cost of certainty. Quantitatively, studies operationalize promiscuity through self-reported partner counts, with women averaging fewer partners than men in most datasets (e.g., median lifetime partners of 4-7 for women versus 6-10 for men in U.S. surveys), though cultural and reporting biases may understate female rates due to . The term's application extends beyond mere frequency to imply reduced discernment, such as overlooking risks or compatibility, broadening its relevance to discussions on sexually transmitted infections, where promiscuous networks accelerate transmission rates by factors of 2-5 in modeled populations. Definitions remain contested, with some research critiquing vague or moralistic framings that conflate it with or without empirical grounding.

Etymology and Historical Usage

The term promiscuity derives from Latin prōmiscuus, meaning "mixed together" or "indiscriminate," formed from the prefix prō- ("forward, in favor of") and the miscēre ("to mix"). This emphasized a lack of separation or distinction in composition, originally applied to general mixtures rather than specifically sexual . The related promiscuous entered English around 1600, denoting disorderly or undistinguished groupings, such as "a promiscuous array of books" or heterogeneous crowds. The noun promiscuity first appeared in English in 1663, initially describing a state of undifferentiated mixture or , without sexual implications; for instance, it could refer to crowded or intermingled living conditions. By the early , influenced partly by French promiscuité, the term began shifting toward moral and social contexts, with "promiscuous" acquiring a sexual of indiscriminate relations by 1857 and promiscuity following in its modern around 1865. This reflected broader Victorian-era concerns with social disorder, where the word's "mixing" metaphor extended to critique unregulated sexual mingling, often laden with disapproval of deviation from monogamous norms. Prior to this semantic narrowing, English lacked a direct equivalent for the in its current form; Elizabethan and Jacobean texts described analogous behaviors using terms like "strumpet," "harlot," or "lewdness," focusing on condemnation rather than indiscriminateness. In 19th-century and discourse, promiscuity increasingly denoted sexual irregularity, as observed in works critiquing urban vice or evolutionary theories of , marking its transition from neutral descriptiveness to a label for non-exclusive partnering. This usage persisted into the , often contrasting with ideals of restraint, though empirical studies later examined it through behavioral lenses detached from inherent judgment.

Biological and Evolutionary Foundations

Evolutionary Theories of Promiscuity

Evolutionary theories of promiscuity frame it as an adaptive mating strategy shaped by and , where males produce numerous low-cost gametes and females fewer high-cost ones, leading to divergent reproductive incentives. ' parental investment theory, proposed in 1972, posits that the greater obligatory investment by females in and offspring care—typically nine months of and years of —results in higher selectivity in to ensure paternal support, while males, facing lower per-offspring costs, gain fitness advantages from multiple matings to maximize dissemination. This asymmetry predicts promiscuity as a male-biased strategy, with empirical support from greater variance in male across species, including humans, where historical and modern genetic paternity studies reveal 1-30% extra-pair paternity rates in pair-bonded societies. Bateman's principle, derived from 1948 fruit fly experiments, reinforces this by demonstrating that male increases linearly with mating partners due to low marginal costs, whereas female success plateaus after few matings owing to resource constraints on production. In humans, applications of Bateman's gradients from genomic and demographic data show steeper slopes for males, with lifetime partners correlating more strongly to number in men (e.g., in Finnish cohorts, additional partners boost male by 0.2-0.5 equivalents per mate versus negligible gains for women). These patterns hold despite cultural overlays, as evidenced by cross-species comparisons where moderate human testis size and dimorphism suggest a history of low-to-moderate promiscuity, balancing pair-bonding with opportunistic extra-pair copulations. Sperm competition theory extends these ideas, arguing that female promiscuity imposes post-copulatory selection on , favoring ejaculate adaptations like increased sperm numbers or seminal proteins under perceived rival risk. In , physiological responses—such as higher sperm counts in men reporting partner infidelity cues—align with this, indicating evolved countermeasures to multi-male mating by females. For females, promiscuity yields benefits like genetic bet-hedging against poor paternal genes or , with studies in mammals showing from multiple sires exhibiting 10-20% higher via diversity or compatibility effects, though data remain indirect via paternity discordance. Critiques note that while male promiscuity aligns predictably with Bateman-Trivers logic, female strategies reflect strategic pluralism—combining long-term bonds for biparental care with short-term liaisons for superior genes—challenging strict coyness models but affirming anisogamy's causal primacy over egalitarian assumptions. Overall, these theories underscore promiscuity's role in resolving ancestral trade-offs between quantity and quality of , with flexibility evident in transitions from ancestral promiscuity to facultative pair-bonding around 2 million years ago amid encephalization demands.

Sex Differences in Promiscuous Behavior

In large-scale surveys, men consistently report a higher number of lifetime sexual partners than women. Data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG), covering 2015–2019, show that among sexually experienced individuals aged 25–49, the median number of opposite-sex partners was 6.3 for men and 4.3 for women. This gap persists across age groups and survey waves, with men also displaying greater variance in partner counts, resulting in a disproportionate number of men at the extreme high end (e.g., 15 or more partners). These behavioral disparities align with evolutionary predictions rooted in theory, which holds that the facing higher reproductive costs—females, through internal , , and initial care—evolves greater selectivity in to ensure partner quality, whereas the lower-investing —s—benefits from seeking multiple partners to increase reproductive output. Empirical tests support this: meta-analyses of sexual attitudes and behaviors reveal moderate to large differences favoring promiscuity, including stronger endorsement of (effect size d ≈ 0.30) and higher incidence of behaviors like (d ≈ 0.96), which correlate with openness to multiple partners. Updates to these analyses through 2007 confirm the patterns endure, though some attitudes (e.g., frequency) show slight convergence over time. Men also express a greater hypothetical desire for multiple partners. In , men report idealizing 2–3 times more lifetime or short-term sexual partners than women; for instance, one investigation found men averaging 18 desired partners over a lifetime versus 4–5 for women, reflecting strategic differences in maximizing fitness under asymmetric constraints. Women, conversely, exhibit stronger sexual toward promiscuity in others, particularly male , which reinforces selectivity. Discrepancies in self-reported data may partly stem from , with women potentially underreporting due to stigma, yet statistical adjustments—such as capping outliers or cross-validating with behavioral proxies—reduce but do not eliminate the gap, indicating underlying biological and motivational drivers over pure artifact. These findings from peer-reviewed surveys and experiments hold despite potential underrepresentation of extreme cases in voluntary samples, underscoring robust differences in promiscuous tendencies.

Promiscuity in Non-Human Animals

Promiscuity in non-human animals refers to systems where individuals of both sexes mate with multiple partners without forming exclusive pair bonds, a observed across diverse taxa including mammals, birds, and . This contrasts with or , as it involves random or opportunistic pairings that maximize reproductive opportunities amid varying ecological pressures. Empirical studies document promiscuity in over 133 mammalian spanning 33 families and nine orders, where both males and females engage in multiple matings (MMM). In mammals, is prevalent and drives evolutionary adaptations, such as in and small where females mate multiply to enhance viability through or post-copulatory selection. For instance, in species like the , highly promiscuous females compel males to develop specialized anatomical traits for . Male mammals often exhibit heightened promiscuity due to lower reproductive costs per mating, but female multiple mating provides benefits like diluted paternity confusion, reducing risks and improving . , arising from , selects for faster-swimming sperm, as evidenced in fishes where species with higher female mating rates evolve superior sperm velocity. Birds display promiscuity even in ostensibly monogamous colonial species, with extra-pair copulations common; for example, in 18 studied , females pursue multiple mates to optimize genetic quality despite social pairing. Insects and other frequently exhibit extreme promiscuity, with polygynandrous systems where both sexes mate repeatedly, fostering rapid evolutionary responses like enhanced male genitalia or ejaculate traits to outcompete rivals' . Across taxa, promiscuity correlates with ecological factors such as resource distribution and predation risks, often slowing by homogenizing gene pools through . Sex differences persist, with males generally more promiscuous owing to —where sperm production vastly outpaces investment—yet is adaptive for paternity assurance via superior sires or diversified immunity in . In cooperatively breeding birds and mammals, female competition for mates can elevate variance in , underscoring promiscuity's role in intra-sexual selection. These patterns, verified through genetic paternity analyses and behavioral observations, highlight promiscuity as a basal strategy shaped by direct fitness gains rather than social constructs.

Psychological Motivations and Individual Factors

Core Motivations for Promiscuous Behavior

Promiscuous behavior, characterized by frequent casual sexual encounters with multiple partners, is often driven by enhancement motives, where individuals seek sexual pleasure, gratification, and novelty as primary rewards. Empirical studies using scales like the Sexual Motivations Scale identify enhancement as a core driver, positively correlated with higher numbers of sexual partners and attitudes favoring uncommitted , particularly among those with unrestricted . , a trait involving pursuit of intense or novel experiences, further underpins this motivation, with meta-analyses showing its association with risky sexual behaviors and promiscuous attitudes, mediated by boredom susceptibility. Coping motives represent another fundamental drive, wherein promiscuity serves to regulate negative emotions such as , distress, or meaninglessness. Longitudinal research on adolescents reveals that psychological distress and predict entry into and persistence in arrangements like friends-with-benefits, especially among females, suggesting use of such behaviors as maladaptive emotion regulation. Insecure attachment styles, including anxious-preoccupied and fearful types, correlate with hypersexual or risky promiscuous patterns, as individuals may engage in multiple partnerships to alleviate fears of abandonment or fulfill unmet intimacy needs. Sex differences shape these motivations distinctly: males report stronger endorsement of pleasure-oriented drives, with higher ratings for sexual satisfaction and gratification in casual encounters, aligning with evolutionary pressures for mate variety due to lower reproductive costs. Females, conversely, more frequently cite relational or pressure-based motives, such as seeking intimacy or responding to , though these often yield negative emotional aftermaths like and self-reproach. Classic experiments confirm this asymmetry, with males far more receptive to casual propositions than females, indicating intrinsic motivational disparities rather than mere cultural artifacts. and social influences also contribute, particularly in , correlating with increased partner counts irrespective of .

Personality Traits and Genetic Influences

Extraversion, a core dimension of the Big Five personality model, exhibits the strongest and most consistent positive correlation with promiscuous behavior, including higher numbers of lifetime sexual partners and preferences for short-term mating, as evidenced in meta-analytic reviews spanning diverse populations. This association holds across genders and world regions, with extraverted individuals more likely to engage in due to traits like sociability and sensation-seeking. Low and low also predict increased promiscuity and , reflecting reduced impulse control and concern for relational commitments. shows weaker or inconsistent links, sometimes positively associated with but less reliably with partner count. Unrestricted sociosexual orientation—characterized by willingness for uncommitted sex—mediates many of these trait-promiscuity links, with extraversion facilitating opportunities for encounters and low conscientiousness diminishing restraint against them. Twin studies indicate moderate to high heritability for sociosexuality and related behaviors, with genetic factors accounting for 24-62% of variance in number of sexual partners and infidelity rates, particularly in women. Behavior genetic analyses further reveal shared genetic influences between promiscuity and low self-control, suggesting overlapping polygenic bases rather than purely environmental drivers. These findings persist after controlling for age and sex, underscoring heritable predispositions over learned habits alone. Candidate gene studies, such as those examining (DRD4) variants, have linked specific polymorphisms to higher and partner counts, implying dopaminergic pathways in reward-seeking contribute to promiscuous tendencies. However, such molecular associations require replication, as broader genome-wide analyses highlight polygenic scores predicting variance in reproductive behaviors with small but significant effects. Cross-sex genetic correlations suggest promiscuity-related traits evolve under similar selective pressures in males and females, though expression differs by due to strategies. Empirical data from large cohorts affirm these patterns, countering narratives emphasizing solely sociocultural causation.

Sociocultural and Historical Dimensions

Cross-Cultural Variations in Promiscuity

Self-reported lifetime sexual partners vary widely across nations, with aggregated global surveys indicating averages of 13-14.5 in countries like , , , and , compared to 3-4 in and . These figures reflect differing tolerances for , though underreporting is likely higher in conservative contexts due to . Anthropological analyses of over 180 societies document permissive attitudes toward male premarital sex in about 60% of cases, versus 45% for females, with a double standard permitting husbands' extramarital liaisons in roughly 65% of societies while punishing wives severely. Institutionalized female extramarital sex, such as ceremonial wife-sharing, occurs in approximately 40% of societies, often linked to kinship or ritual obligations rather than individual choice. Regional patterns show stricter female chastity norms in Circum-Mediterranean and pastoralist groups, where virginity tests and seclusion enforce restraint, contrasting with more lenient hunter-gatherer societies. Religious doctrines exert causal influence by promoting restricted to enhance paternal and kin ; higher correlates with reduced premarital penetration and short-term pairings across cultures. Muslim-majority and traditional Hindu societies report lower promiscuity rates, enforcing premarital through family oversight and legal penalties, while secular Western and Buddhist-influenced contexts show greater acceptance of casual encounters. For instance, Buddhists exhibit premarital sex rates comparable to but higher than or in global surveys. Cross-national psychological studies spanning 46-58 countries link extraversion to promiscuity universally, yet cultural amplifies short-term in and , where Big Five traits predict risky sexual behavior more strongly than in collectivist or Africa. Economic development and indices inversely correlate with valuation in mate selection, with non-Western nations like and prioritizing more than Western counterparts. These variations underscore how normative sanctions, rather than innate drives alone, govern promiscuity's expression.

Promiscuity in Historical and Primitive Societies

In small-scale societies, mating systems predominantly featured pair-bonding, often in the form of serial monogamy or at low frequencies (typically 10-20% of men with multiple wives), with extra-pair copulations occurring but not dominating . Genetic studies across populations indicate average extra-pair paternity (EPP) rates of around 9%, though variation exists; for example, among the Tsimane forager-horticulturalists in , EPP reached 48%, with 70% of couples experiencing at least one non-pair offspring, suggesting tolerance for female promiscuity in that context. However, in many forager groups like the Hadza, ethnographic observations show as common but rare due to male and sanctions, aligning with low EPP to facilitate paternal in offspring survival amid high . Certain tribal societies exhibited cultural accommodations for multiple mating, such as partible paternity among some Amazonian groups (e.g., Mehinaku), where women had sequential partners during pregnancy, and semen from multiple men was believed to contribute to fetal development, potentially reflecting adaptive responses to nutritional stress rather than unchecked promiscuity. These practices, however, contrast with broader anthropological data emphasizing stable co-residence and paternal care as normative, with promiscuity constrained by resource sharing and conflict avoidance in band-level societies. Claims of universal prehistoric promiscuity, as in some evolutionary narratives drawing from chimpanzee analogs, overlook human-specific traits like concealed ovulation and alliance-building, which favored pair stability over multi-male mating. Among historical civilizations, sexual norms permitted greater male promiscuity through institutionalized outlets like and , while enforcing female to secure lineage and property transmission. In , elite men frequented brothels (with over 35 registered lupanaria in Pompeii alone by the 1st century CE) and maintained slaves for sexual use, yet adultery laws under (18 BCE ) imposed exile or death on unfaithful wives, indicating regulated rather than rampant libertinism across classes. Greek city-states similarly stratified behavior: Athenian women of citizen status faced seclusion () to prevent cuckoldry, with serving as a controlled outlet for male youth (ages 12-18 mentored by older men), but extramarital affairs risked or violence, as evidenced in legal speeches like ' orations (4th century BCE). Spartan women, noted by for relative freedom and physical training, acquired a contemporary reputation for promiscuity, yet bore fewer children on average than other Greeks, suggesting selective rather than indiscriminate partnering. Cross-cultural historical patterns reveal promiscuity as often linked to power asymmetries, with rulers and warriors exempt from norms binding commoners; Mesopotamian texts (e.g., Hammurabi's Code, circa 1750 BCE) punished female with drowning while allowing male plurality. In non-Mediterranean contexts, such as Celtic tribes described by Poseidonius (1st century BCE), communal wife-sharing occurred during raids, but Roman accounts likely exaggerated to justify , as archaeological evidence shows stable homesteads implying pair-based households. Overall, empirical records from inscriptions, laws, and demographics underscore that while casual sex existed—facilitated by festivals or in temples (e.g., Sumerian high priestesses, 3rd millennium BCE)—societal structures prioritized paternity assurance through virginity pledges, dowry systems, and sanctions, countering modern romanticizations of ancient excess.

Consequences and Empirical Risks

Physical Health Risks

Promiscuity, involving multiple sexual partners, substantially increases the physical health risks associated with sexually transmitted infections (STIs) by amplifying opportunities for , even when protective measures like condoms are used inconsistently or imperfectly. Longitudinal and cross-sectional studies confirm a direct between lifetime number of sexual partners and STI prevalence, with higher partner counts serving as a key behavioral for both bacterial and viral infections. For example, in a study of older adults, elevated lifetime partners were linked to greater lifetime STI exposure, including risks for and human papillomavirus (HPV)-related conditions. Similarly, multivariate analyses among women show that those with three or more lifetime partners face an adjusted of 2.62 (95% CI: 1.73–3.99) for reporting STI symptoms compared to those with one partner, independent of other demographic and behavioral confounders. This dose-response pattern underscores cumulative exposure as a causal driver, distinct from isolated incidents of unprotected . Bacterial STIs such as and pose acute risks, with untreated infections ascending to cause (PID) in up to 10–15% of cases among women, leading to tubal scarring, , and ectopic pregnancies. Gonorrhea complications extend to disseminated infection, , and in both sexes if dissemination occurs. , caused by , progresses through stages that damage cardiovascular and neurological systems when advanced, with multiple partners facilitating rapid community spread. These infections often remain initially, delaying and treatment, thereby heightening complication rates in promiscuous networks. Viral STIs confer chronic burdens: HPV, prevalent in over 80% of sexually active individuals over time, correlates with lifetime partners and drives cervical, anal, and oropharyngeal cancers, with persistent high-risk strains evading clearance in repeated exposures. Herpes simplex virus (HSV-2) establishes lifelong latency, with seroprevalence rising proportionally to partner count, causing recurrent outbreaks and neonatal transmission risks during birth. HIV acquisition risk escalates with concurrent or serial partnerships, as each encounter multiplies exposure probabilities, particularly in untreated co-infection scenarios like or , which inflame genital mucosa and facilitate entry. Overall, these risks compound over time, with empirical data from diverse populations affirming promiscuity's role in elevating not just incidence but also downstream morbidities like and oncogenesis.

Social and Relational Consequences

Individuals with higher numbers of premarital sexual partners exhibit elevated risks of marital dissolution. Longitudinal analyses of U.S. National Survey of Family Growth data indicate that, compared to individuals with no premarital partners other than their , those with nine or more premarital partners demonstrate the highest divorce hazard ratios, even after controlling for demographic and attitudinal factors. Similarly, drawing from the same dataset finds that persons with six or more premarital partners face substantially higher probabilities within five years of , with odds escalating nonlinearly beyond two partners. These patterns persist across studies, suggesting that prior sexual experience beyond a single partner correlates with diminished long-term relational commitment, independent of selection effects like preexisting attitudes toward . Promiscuity also links to lower marital satisfaction and heightened infidelity. Empirical reviews report that less sexually promiscuous individuals—defined by fewer lifetime partners—experience greater satisfaction in marriage, while those with extensive premarital histories report higher dissatisfaction and relational strain. Cross-cultural data from the International Sexuality Description Project associate self-reported promiscuity with personality traits like disagreeableness, which in turn predict infidelity in romantic relationships across 58 cultures. Exchange theory-based examinations further reveal that premarital promiscuity erodes perceived relational equity, fostering comparisons and dissatisfaction in subsequent monogamous unions. On a social level, promiscuous behavior contributes to trust erosion and dynamics within peer and networks. Behavioral studies among adolescents and young adults identify promiscuity as a vector for relational conflicts, including heightened and social in conservative communities, though stigma diminishes in permissive environments. Broader relational fallout includes emotional promiscuity—frequent non-exclusive attachments—which correlates with attachment insecurity and serial , perpetuating cycles of instability that strain systems. These outcomes underscore causal pathways where prior multiple partnerships impair pair-bonding mechanisms, leading to fragmented social ties and elevated relational turnover.

Psychological and Long-Term Effects

Studies indicate that individuals engaging in casual sexual encounters, a form of promiscuous , frequently report negative emotional outcomes, including and psychological distress, with women experiencing higher rates of post-encounter depression and anxiety compared to men. This pattern holds across multiple investigations, where approximately 25-30% of participants describe emotional following hookups, often linked to unmet expectations for intimacy or relational commitment. Longitudinally, a greater number of lifetime sexual partners correlates with elevated risks of disorders, particularly among women, as evidenced by a tracking participants from to age 32, which found odds ratios increasing with partner count even after controlling for prior and socioeconomic factors. However, associations with anxiety and depression are less consistent; while some analyses show no direct link to later-onset disorders, others using identify causal pathways from early sexual initiation (ages 12-14 with multiple partners) to major depressive symptoms in adulthood. In terms of relational longevity, premarital promiscuity—defined as multiple sexual partners before —predicts reduced marital satisfaction and heightened risk, with data from national surveys revealing that individuals with 10 or more premarital partners face divorce probabilities 33% higher than those with zero or one, persisting after adjustments for selection effects like or family background. Women report particularly diminished happiness and commitment in such unions, potentially due to comparative evaluations of past experiences eroding current pair-bond strength. These outcomes underscore a broader pattern where higher partner counts precede lower overall and relational stability over decades.

Perspectives and Debates

Religious and Traditional Views

In Abrahamic traditions, promiscuity—defined as sexual relations outside of —is broadly condemned as a violation of and moral order. , drawing from biblical texts such as 1 Corinthians 6:18, which instructs believers to "flee from sexual immorality," views as incompatible with holiness and the sanctity of as a lifelong covenant. Catholic , as articulated in papal encyclicals like (1968), further denounces acts promoting promiscuity, associating them with the erosion of family structures and societal chastity. Similarly, prohibits (unlawful sexual intercourse, encompassing fornication and ) through Quranic injunctions, such as 24:2, prescribing 100 lashes for unmarried offenders as a deterrent to maintain social purity and divine obedience. collections reinforce this by portraying widespread promiscuity as a harbinger of moral decay and eschatological signs. , rooted in the Torah's Seventh Commandment against , extends halakhic prohibitions to premarital promiscuity, viewing it as undermining familial lineage and communal integrity. Eastern religious frameworks similarly prioritize restraint and fidelity to foster spiritual discipline and ethical conduct. Hinduism's scriptures, including the and Dharma Shastras, advocate (celibacy prior to marriage) as essential for purity and dharma, deeming premarital sex a sin that disrupts cosmic order and incurs karmic penalties. While ancient texts acknowledge rare forms like gandharva vivaha (love-based unions), these were exceptional and not endorsements of casual promiscuity, which later traditions explicitly rejected to preserve caste and marital stability. Buddhism's third precept, kamesu micchacara veramani (abstaining from sexual misconduct), proscribes adultery, coercion, and relations with protected persons (e.g., minors or those under guardianship), emphasizing consent and non-harm without mandating celibacy for laypersons but warning against attachments that fuel suffering. Traditional views in pre-modern societies across cultures reinforced monogamous norms to safeguard paternity certainty, ties, and , often imposing stricter controls on women to mitigate disputes and social discord. In agrarian and tribal contexts, promiscuity was stigmatized as a threat to lineage and alliance-building through , with ethnographic records indicating near-universal taboos against extramarital affairs in non-state societies to avert retaliation or communal breakdown. Exceptions, such as ritualized in some groups, still bounded sexual access within marital frameworks rather than permitting unbound promiscuity. These perspectives, embedded in customary laws predating modern , prioritized collective welfare over personal gratification, correlating with lower documented rates of partner multiplicity compared to contemporary patterns.

Secular and Modern Cultural Narratives

In the mid-20th century, the advanced a narrative framing promiscuity as a pathway to individual liberation from repressive traditional norms, emphasizing that consensual sexual activity outside enhanced personal fulfillment and , particularly following the widespread availability of oral contraceptives like the FDA-approved birth control pill in 1960. This perspective, rooted in secular humanist ideals, argued that decoupling sex from procreation and commitment would dismantle patriarchal controls and foster egalitarian relationships, with surveys showing a marked shift toward permissive attitudes on premarital and from the through the . Contemporary perpetuates this narrative in educational and urban environments, portraying uncommitted sexual encounters as normative for young adults seeking social belonging, self-discovery, and rejection of monogamous constraints viewed as outdated or prudish. Proponents describe it as a cultural script embedded in peer dynamics and media, where is devalued and facilitates integration into group norms, though empirical patterns reveal it often prioritizes male-preferred encounters over mutual satisfaction. Among students, this framework is reinforced through apps and social rituals, with participants citing through agency, yet data indicate uneven participation and emotional costs not always acknowledged in the dominant storyline. Polyamory emerges in modern secular discourse as a structured ethical , positioning multiple consensual romantic and sexual partnerships as a superior alternative to monogamy's alleged of , aligned with evolutionary and psychological claims of innate non-exclusivity. Advocates in academic and construct it as an identity-driven practice legitimized by transparency and communication, contrasting it with monogamy's cultural imposition and appealing to those in high-education, low-religiosity demographics who report higher lifetime sexual partners. This narrative often draws on to essentialize as spontaneous and liberating, though it remains marginal, practiced by an estimated 4-5% of U.S. adults per recent surveys. Secular narratives collectively downplay empirical associations between higher partner counts and relational or dissatisfaction, instead privileging narratives that correlate with elevated promiscuity among the highly educated and irreligious, who 7-10 more lifetime partners than their religious counterparts but report lower . These views, disseminated via media and academia, reflect a post-religious ethic prioritizing experiential over long-term pair-bonding, with origins traceable to but amplified in digital eras through platforms normalizing fluid sexuality.

Key Controversies and Empirical Critiques

Empirical studies have consistently linked higher numbers of premarital sexual partners to elevated risks, with individuals reporting nine or more partners facing the highest odds compared to those with fewer or none outside their eventual . This pattern holds across genders, contradicting assumptions that greater sexual experience enhances marital compatibility; instead, data from longitudinal surveys indicate that sexual restraint prior to correlates with stronger relational stability and satisfaction. A central controversy surrounds the "cheap sex" hypothesis advanced by sociologist Mark Regnerus, positing that technological and cultural shifts—such as contraception, dating apps, and —have drastically lowered the relational "cost" of , reducing men's incentives to invest in commitment and exacerbating male disengagement from markets. Evidence supporting this includes surveys showing 30% of young men's sexual encounters lacking romance or , alongside delayed ages and rising male singlehood rates, though critics argue it overlooks women's agency in these dynamics. Critiques of hookup culture highlight its association with adverse mental health outcomes, including heightened depression, anxiety, and regret, particularly among women who report emotional distress more frequently than men post-casual encounters. Peer-reviewed analyses reveal that frequent hookups correlate with psychological injury and lower , challenging narratives framing such behaviors as empowering; for instance, emerging adults engaging in exhibit elevated risks for negative emotional sequelae, independent of prior mental health status. Sex differences fuel ongoing debates, with evolutionary and indicating men's greater tolerance for promiscuity versus women's higher selectivity, rooted in reproductive costs; promiscuous women face social penalties from both sexes, while empirical double standards appear minimal for overt behaviors but manifest in relational preferences. These asymmetries underpin critiques that modern promiscuity promotion ignores causal mismatches between ancestral adaptations and contemporary environments, yielding suboptimal outcomes like unintended pregnancies and relational instability despite widespread access to preventive measures.

References

  1. https://www.athensjournals.gr/social/2017-4-4-3-Pinto.pdf
  2. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326252095_Sexual_Promiscuity
  3. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3828398/
  4. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3382477/
  5. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6326215/
  6. https://gss.norc.org/content/dam/gss/get-documentation/pdf/reports/methodological-reports/MR068.pdf
  7. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/244483610_Do_Men_and_Women_Have_the_Same_Average_Number_of_Lifetime_Partners
  8. https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-024-19548-w
  9. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3883137/
  10. https://www.apa.org/monitor/2013/02/ce-corner
  11. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1137&context=etd
  12. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10303487/
  13. https://www.psypost.org/new-research-finds-a-sexual-double-standard-against-male-but-not-female-promiscuity/
  14. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/talking-about-men/202006/the-darker-side-of-hooking-up
  15. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/376556216_%27Kind_of_a_Mix_Between_Kinky_and_Slutty%27_Describing_Promiscuity_Using_Qualitative_Analysis
  16. https://ir.library.louisville.edu/etd/278/
  17. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886914000865
  18. https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-promiscuity-5271300
  19. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4161927/
  20. https://www.etymonline.com/word/promiscuity
  21. https://www.oed.com/dictionary/promiscuity_n
  22. https://www.etymonline.com/word/promiscuous
  23. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/promiscuous
  24. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/promiscuity
  25. https://languagehat.com/promiscuity/
  26. https://www.frontiersinzoology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1742-9994-10-66
  27. https://joelvelasco.net/teaching/3330/trivers72-parentalinvestment.pdf
  28. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3096780/
  29. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2023.1061
  30. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/372309136_A_matter_of_time_Bateman%27s_principles_and_mating_success_as_count_and_duration_across_social_strata_in_contemporary_Finland
  31. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/ecology-and-evolution/articles/10.3389/fevo.2019.00230/full
  32. https://www.animalbehaviorandcognition.org/uploads/journals/3/13.Pham_Shackelford_FINAL.pdf
  33. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3259935/
  34. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/behavioral-and-brain-sciences/article/promiscuity-in-an-evolved-pairbonding-system-mating-within-and-outside-the-pleistocene-box/33730A0ACF2EE984E18268EBC2FDDBC8
  35. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nsfg/key_statistics/n-keystat.htm
  36. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022519309002707
  37. https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/151663/cdc_151663_DS1.pdf
  38. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8346327/
  39. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20063924/
  40. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11934000/
  41. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20620290
  42. https://labs.la.utexas.edu/buss/files/2020/06/emotionresearcher.com-Sexual-Disgust-An-Evolutionary-Perspective-1.pdf
  43. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5795598/
  44. https://open.lib.umn.edu/evosex/chapter/10-5-promiscuity-and-polygynandry/
  45. https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/mating-systems-in-sexual-animals-83033427/
  46. https://organismalbio.biosci.gatech.edu/growth-and-reproduction/animal-reproduction-i-mating-systems/
  47. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0169534703003999
  48. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9831318/
  49. https://openpress.wheatoncollege.edu/molecularecologyv1/chapter/mating-systems/
  50. https://phys.org/news/2025-01-darwin-bateman-thought-female-animals.html
  51. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0809990106
  52. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/283501
  53. https://frontiersinzoology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1742-9994-10-66
  54. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2922484/
  55. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3826204/
  56. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8853360/
  57. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.645493/full
  58. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3757272/
  59. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886920304852
  60. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5758342/
  61. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31724425/
  62. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0165032721006509
  63. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00224545.2024.2439950
  64. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0963721419862293
  65. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237522221_Big_Five_Traits_Related_to_Short-Term_Mating_From_Personality_to_Promiscuity_across_46_Nations
  66. https://www.academia.edu/27187851/The_Big_Five_related_to_risky_sexual_behaviour_across_10_world_regions_differential_personality_associations_of_sexual_promiscuity_and_relationship_infidelity
  67. https://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1041&context=orpc
  68. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2018-26221-001
  69. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Genetic-influences-on-female-infidelity-and-number-Cherkas-Oelsner/39d88c23b2535946c1a6be744805dc00e8bfee5e
  70. https://daneshyari.com/article/preview/10463994.pdf
  71. https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/average-number-of-sexual-partners-by-country
  72. https://medinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Lifetime-Sexual-Partners.pdf
  73. https://hraf.yale.edu/ehc/summaries/sexuality
  74. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2352250X20301421
  75. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9859336/
  76. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284517098_On_the_varieties_of_sexual_experience_Cross-cultural_links_between_religiosity_and_human_mating_strategies
  77. https://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/orpc/vol4/iss4/4/
  78. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1002/per.520
  79. https://socialsci.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Gender_Studies/Sexuality_the_Self_and_Society_%28Ruhman_Bowman_Jackson_Lushtak_Newman_and_Sunder%29/01%253A_What_is_Human_Sexuality/1.06%253A_Sexuality_Around_the_World
  80. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7030936/
  81. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0019066
  82. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rstb.2016.0316
  83. https://www.shortform.com/blog/partible-paternity/
  84. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10481109/
  85. https://www.historyhit.com/the-oldest-obsession-sex-lives-in-ancient-rome/
  86. https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20240610-what-women-in-ancient-times-really-thought-about-sex
  87. https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/40316/was-celtic-society-promiscuous
  88. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6579508/
  89. https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-016-3103-0
  90. https://www.guttmacher.org/journals/psrh/1999/09/sexual-partnership-patterns-behavioral-risk-factor-sexually-transmitted
  91. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9362696/
  92. https://www.cdc.gov/sti/about/index.html
  93. https://srh.bmj.com/content/46/2/100
  94. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0192513X231155673
  95. https://ifstudies.org/blog/testing-common-theories-on-the-relationship-between-premarital-sex-and-marital-stability
  96. https://www.deseret.com/2021/12/3/22810875/what-premarital-sex-has-to-do-with-divorce-takeaways-from-marriage-research-healthy-relationships/
  97. https://spark.bethel.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1005&context=psychology-students
  98. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267969986_Are_Sexual_Promiscuity_and_Relationship_Infidelity_Linked_to_Different_Personality_Traits_Across_Cultures_Findings_from_the_International_Sexuality_Description_Project
  99. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1137&context=etd
  100. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2213868/
  101. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3752789/
  102. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0165032723005402
  103. https://www.psypost.org/new-study-finds-a-causal-link-between-sexual-activity-early-in-life-and-major-depressive-disorder/
  104. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10989935/
  105. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0049089X22001119
  106. https://ifstudies.org/blog/number-6-in-2023-the-myth-of-sexual-experience
  107. https://blog.adw.org/2011/04/on-the-connection-between-greed-theft-and-sexual-immorality/
  108. https://www.hli.org/resources/7-basic-points-humanae-vitae-summary/
  109. https://farhadbhuiyan.com/airticle/punishment-for-extra-marital-relations-zina-as-per-the-holy-quran
  110. https://www.abuaminaelias.com/dailyhadithonline/2014/02/10/zina-promiscuity-sign-of-hour/
  111. https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/judaism-and-sex-questions-and-answers/
  112. https://www.hinduwebsite.com/hinduism/h_premarital.asp
  113. https://swarajyamag.com/commentary/hinduism-and-premarital-sex
  114. https://tricycle.org/beginners/buddhism/third-precept/
  115. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/pill-and-sexual-revolution/
  116. https://journalistsresource.org/health/changes-americans-attitudes-sex-reviewing-40-years-data/
  117. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1536504217696066
  118. https://ifstudies.org/blog/transforming-hookup-culture-a-review-of-american-hookup/
  119. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12119-022-10044-0
  120. https://ifstudies.org/blog/promiscuous-america-smart-secular-and-somewhat-less-happy
  121. https://www.lovingmorenonprofit.org/mediareact/monogamy-vs-polyamory-why-is-monogamy-considered-the-only-stable-or-secure-relationship-style/
  122. https://ifstudies.org/blog/nine-decades-of-promiscuity
  123. https://dailydeclaration.org.au/2023/01/13/sexual-license-and-culture/
  124. https://news.byu.edu/character/wheatley-institute-report-sexual-restraint-during-dating-years-linked-to-strong-marriages
  125. https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2018/08/39350/
  126. https://ifstudies.org/blog/cheap-sex-is-the-inconvenient-truth-in-the-retreat-from-marriage
  127. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1536504219830683
  128. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7871523/
  129. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3613286/
  130. https://ifstudies.org/blog/confronting-the-toll-of-hookup-culture
  131. https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2006.097444
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.