Human promiscuity is objectively incorrect

1 Like

One reason that there has been an increase in STDs is because condom use is down. As the article points out:

Possible factors driving this rise in STD cases, which vary depending on where you live, include…a decline in people using condoms…

“Some of that increase in incidence may be due to change in sexual behaviors,” [Elizabeth Torrone, a CDC epidemiologist] said, such as decreases in people using condoms.

For instance, results from the 2017 Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance, published last year by the CDC, found that among sexually active high school students, the prevalence of using a condom during a recent sexual experience increased from 46.2% to 62.8% between 1991 and 2005 but then decreased from 62.8% to 53.8% between 2005 and 2017.

Condom use among men who have sex with men has also decreased, past research found.


:confused: Oh, so nothing then to do with promiscuity. Mea culpa.


Promiscuity by itself doesn’t cause STDs, although it undoubtedly increases the risk. But it would be possible for someone to reduce the risk considerably if they were very careful and always practiced “safe-sex.”

1 Like

No, but it spreads them, and to a much wider population.


The only safe sex is abstaining.


But it wouldn’t spread them if the people involved used safe-sex.

1 Like

That’s not a 100% because sometimes condoms fail.
Just ask my friend.
She’s a mommy now.


One word. Tinder.

If I always wear a seat belt when I’m in my car, it doesn’t reduce my risk of dying in an car crash to zero. Seat belts don’t make driving or riding in a car 100% safe. But they reduce the chances of being killed considerably. And most people continue to ride in cars even though it’s not 100% safe. So, you’re right that condoms are not 100% effective, but if used properly, they reduce the chances of getting an STD or getting pregnant considerably.

1 Like

But some things are safer than others. If I jump out of an airplane with a parachute, that’s safer than jumping out of one without a parachute. And someone could still be killed even if they are wearing a parachute.

1 Like

…when being promiscuous. :confused:


Condoms reduce the chances of getting an STD or getting pregnant for people who aren’t promiscuous, too.

1 Like

How would one go about getting an STD if promiscuity isn’t somehow in play?

The definition of “promiscuous” is as follows:



pro·​mis·​cu·​ous | \ prə-ˈmi-skyə-wəs \

Definition of promiscuous

having or involving many sexual partners : not restricted to one sexual partner or few sexual partners

Someone could have sex with only one other person in their life and get an STD if that other person already had that STD. A person could get an STD from their spouse if their spouse has been unfaithful with only one other person who has an STD. Or someone could have sex with only a few people in their life (which wouldn’t really count as being promiscuous) and get an STD

And what causes condom use to go down? Reduced brain function caused by promiscuity. It’s not lack of condom availability. It’s that when people are promiscuous, their brains aren’t functioning properly, thus they can’t properly weigh that pros of no condom (increased pleasure) far outweighed by cons of no condom (STD, pregnancy, etc)

I was only replying your claim that STDs wouldn’t spread.

I do understand that some viruses that cause these diseases are not as choosy as others, such that actual sexual consort is not strictly required in order to transmit an STD. Still, there is a very good reason why epidemiologists characterize these diseases as sexually-transmitted. They aren’t being moralistic about it. They are naming the most statistically-significant source of transmission.

So, while there are ways to reduce the risk of risky behaviors, let’s be honest in recognizing that without promiscuity* and sharing of hypodermic needles the transmission of what we call sexually-transmitted diseases would be vanishingly low. Those behaviors are the primary sources of this risk.

*(and let’s not get into splitting hairs about how many partners are required to qualify a person as “promiscuous.” The more partners, the higher the risk.)

Well, actually, I think reduced fear of contracting diseases, which does not require promiscuity. People are generally prone to an “out of sight, out of mind” approach to risks in general. Most of us are pretty bad at adjusting our behaviors based on careful and rational risk assessment, because we avoid thinking about bad things happening to us, if we can help it.


Following Catholic moral standards or even traditional moral standards, would dramatically decrease the incidence of sexually transmitted diseases. Might be something to try.


Ya think? :wink:

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit