SomaliNet Forums

One question: why is promiscuity looked down upon? Outside of religious reasons?

From which genders p.o.v?

Men's

The risk of raising someone else's offspring, it's 100% guaranteed that it is her's but his, the more promiscuous she is the higher the chance that it isn't his. Then there is the social aspect where it is the ultimate tarnish on a man's honor to bed his wife, in most societies a man's honor is the keys to his livelihood, and his children's.

Within marriage it's a given but why are women who are sexually active prior to marriage ostracized and rendered not worthy of marriage? From a cultural perspective

Not interested in the thread discussion but that image is revolting yo.

Lillaahiya wrote:Within marriage it's a given but why are women who are sexually active prior to marriage ostracized and rendered not worthy of marriage? From a cultural perspective

I always wondered the same thing. I used to think that it's because men did not want to be compared to another man or the notion that maybe they saw women as property. But then I thought, why are women so harsh on women who are sexually active prior to marriage, and then it occurred to me that women who are sexually active before marriage are a threat to the institution of marriage - a cultural/religious system that benefits women greatly.

Men primarily, aside from having kids marry women so they could open the vault. It's clear that a woman needs a man present to raise kids that are socially productive and give her the financial and social security she needs. But imagine, if a man could open the vault and have kids without ever contributing to the foundation of raising the kids and providing for the mother. Men are avoiding marriage these days simply because they no longer need to go through the institution of marriage to get to the vault. Marriage is by essence what makes a man a husband and a father, without it, he is just a potential babydaddy. And he plays a role that is outside the restrictions and expectations of the institution of marriage.

You would often hear women who are active being referred to as cheap, but I believe that is only in relation to their ability to depreciate and weaken the value and power structure of marriage in society.

Lillaahiya wrote:Within marriage it's a given but why are women who are sexually active prior to marriage ostracized and rendered not worthy of marriage? From a cultural perspective

I think why sex is such a distinguishing quality for women as opposed to men in almost all societies is because it is so essential to their primary role. Their role as children-bearers, which is a function in the internal private world. For sex's essential reason is to bring offspring. This is as opposed to men, which their primary role is rooted in the external public world. Men is by social design public, while women are by social design private. Private is by nature mystique and exclusive, while public is the opposite. Just look at what characters in women are held in high esteem for our women and which are held in high esteem for our men. When a woman breaks the social norms such as sexual activity prior to marriage, she has opened herself to the external public world. Have you noticed that women get attacked and called names like prostitute when they venture into the external world, even for things that are not at all sexual? For example, I can guarantee you, without ever have done any research or read any such research, that every women's movement, every protest, every march they have done, that have to do with pushing women's rights in the public sphere, that they have been insulted with words related to prostitution, by men and women. Because it is almost a crime to these people that a women should do this. But why? I think it is because they believe it endangers the social fabric of that society, which for the most part has settled roles. But why is it a danger? Because, going back to our topic, a women who engages in sexual activity prior to marriage endangers the whole society. Bastards could be born. Since Bastards are already a discriminated group, they come with the baggage of discriminated groups (crime), she is held responsible. She lowers the rates of marriage, since men get access to the private, without fulfilling the demanding role of provider given to them by the public, therefore the incentive is gone or the age of marriage goes up. She has committed one breach, what is to stop her from committing another in marriage? She harms other women, by lowering their standards as a whole. She might influence other girls. Promiscuity is how sexual diseases are spread. Since women have the most to loose with sexual activity (children), they are held to more stringent requirements by men and women. It's interesting if you think about it, if you have a promiscuous friend, no matter how much you trust your husband/boyfriend, are you going to leave them alone with him? Not even promiscuous females trust other promiscuous females with their men.

I hope I backed up why sexual activity with women is judged the way it its, and how it is a threat to both sexes. As for not being marriage worthy, it really depends on how the culture deals with it. For example, I know we, if two young boy and girl do, they will have them married as soon as possible, the closer the families are (the more shame they can share) the easier to resolve. So in that case they are not considered not marriage worthy. For some other girl, they will be seen as a liability, because it comes with social baggage. A girl like that is considered not to understand her social role, responsibilities, and what could harm them. It's like going to a casino with a bad gambler and risking both your money.

Anyway, this is all conjecture on my part, I've never studied or read about this stuff, Caveat emptor. But going back to our original point of contention, I hope that I have at least convinced you that men and women both benefit from social customs, not 100% of the time and not in the same degrees. And that since they both have roles to play in them, we can at least say that it is not one side setting them over the other side i.e. men create and introduce a custom.

Damn, Elfruler beat me to it and very clearly put

PO, I liked the way your saw the issue from both a public and a private sphere

I understand and support the argument that promiscuity poses a threat to monogamous relationships but coming from a culture where polygyny is widely acceptable and practiced, I don't think both your answers are adequate. Using the same argument, wouldn't single females pose a threat to married women? Seeing as how men rarely consult their wives when marrying another woman/women? I'm still curious to know why promiscuity is disliked by men so vehemently that women support, adopted and are willing to undergo a procedure in order to 'prove' their purity.

Men are avoiding marriage these days simply because they no longer need to go through the institution of marriage to get to the vault

More so because of financial repercussions if/when shit hits the fan.

polygyny is an accepted social practice, in which both are public about their relations, and the women has rights in it. What woman can ask for support by a man outside of marriage? Yes married women are threatened by single women, but if it is a women that is demanding xy and z, it's not so easy for men to have multiple women.

I'm still curious to know why promiscuity is disliked by men so vehemently that women support, adopted and are willing to undergo a procedure in order to 'prove' their purity.

I think you are forgetting that I was arguing that men are not the only reason why such customs was so popular. The burden of proof is on you, tell us why you think that women do it solely because men dislike promiscuity so vehemently.

You're assuming Somali men split costs equally amongst their wives and we both know that's far from the truth.

@ burden of proof. I'll present my theory later. Off to bed now

Society assumes they will, whether they do it on an individual basis than the man is held responsible, but it is still marriage. Look at concubines in those nations that had them, the women still had rights and benefits, and their children were considered legitimate. Those societies and women accepted it because some kind of social contract exists.

I only meant that your whole statement was biased and harkening to your original statement that men create or introduce customs, and that is for you to prove.