For all of the Religious Right's obsession with "purity" — from chastity rings to purity balls to abstinence pledges to generic slut-shaming — there is one word that they studiously avoid defining that basically makes of breaks their argument.

That word is "promiscuity."

There's a reason they don't define it. It's because even though the vast majority of the populace would agree that promiscuity is "bad," at the same time everyone also has a different definition of what promiscuity actually is. So if they put a solid definition on it, they're likely to be undermined by those who don't agree with their definition [read: because people are people and more specifically, Americans are Americans and we disagree about everything with virtually everyone]. Instead, they notably choose not to mention what exactly it is they mean by promiscuity and hope that when they say they are "fighting against promiscuity" that the general public will substitute whatever THEY think the definition for promiscuity is and agree with them.

For the most part, this works.

This is actually a common and long-standing persuasive rhetorical technique, though how deliberate their use of it is varies depending on the group in question. But it brings up, for a young journalist like myself, the opportunity to put my journalistic skills to some use by asking relatively straightforward questions that they simply cannot, MUST NOT answer or the effectiveness of their argument is shattered (regardless of what the question is.) 

 So, hence:

What, exactly, do you have to do to be considered promiscuous? At what point on the spectrum of sexual behaviors — and this is virtually always about sexual behaviors — do you qualify as "promiscuous"? Is premarital sex promiscuous? What about oral sex? Kissing — both "pecking" and "French"? Masturbation? Petting?

What about having multiple boyfriends or girlfriends that you don't sleep with? Does your attire have any bearing on your rating, especially if you have engaged in none of these behaviors but your attire could be arguably classified as "suggestive"? How many times must you engage in these activities before you are considered "promiscuous"? Is this a permanent label, or is it something you can eventually overcome? If the former, why is it permanent; if the latter, what must you do to overcome it and how long is the chronology of the behaviors being considered? 

 Everyone answeres these questions differently. Mostly because they arepurely philosophical in nature. It's like stating someone is a "good person." There are all KINDS of qualifications that you have to pull out.

 I am particularly interested because I frequently fall within such groups' technical definition of "promiscuous," and yet if I tell individual group members my particular situation they usually come to the conclusion that it's "not that bad," or else they have a hard time justifying to me why it's bad. I, after all, have had premarital sex — as 95 percent of the population does so I'm not exactly in the minority here — but in a way that, aside from the wee-little marriage part, is pretty consistent with such ideology. I've only ever had one partner, he was my first, we've been together for more than five years (we didn't actually "do it" until we'd been together for more than two years, which is much longer than most couples wait, in my anecdotal experience)  and we even made sure not to disrespect my parents' wishes on the topic by waiting until I was out of the house before completely ignoring everything they stood for.

 Aren't I promiscuous?

Most right-wingers actually find that setup generally acceptable, before trying to pressure me since we "might as well just get married." As if, somehow, this makes all the premarital sex we had before valid. That's always something else that bugged me. Why is it that all you have to do to make all of this "promiscuous" behavior acceptable is get married? Why does it have to be within a formal, taxable relationship recognized by the state to be "moral"?

My particular setup is not by any means universal (in fact, a lot of it wasn't intentional, that's just the way it ended up being since we just did what we were comfortable with.)  But once you can point out one basic exception to the rule, you can point out others. You get to the point where you realize that the only person for which it's worth the time to analyze and define promiscuity is yourself.

Why does this matter? Because even though there are no "official" laws about the behaviors that make up modern "promiscuity" anymore (I'm talking adultery, immorality, wearing colorful blouses, etc., not actual whoring), it is still used as a value judgement and can affect others' perceptions and access to opportunities. When right-wingers are harping about their "purity"  and explaining why it's so awesome, they are implicitly (and sometimes explicitly) calling those who don't behave the same sluts. I resent the label both for the stigma attached to it and the value judgement it represents. Both of which are deeply intertwined since the stigma is designed to induce shame and reinforce the value judgement.

Moral of the story being: If you don't want to have sex before marriage, don't. But don't go around crowing about what an awesome person that makes you. And especially don't get surprised when 95 out of 100 of the people you talk to get resentful about your self-superiority, either.

[Side note: I got on this through one of those sessions where you start in your Google Reader and end up, an hour later via a route you could not reconstruct if your life depended on it, at a New York Times article written almost a year ago that probably no one cares about anymore.]