posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 11:27 PM
Let's keep in mind that correlation does not imply causation. Even if a particular nationality, ethnicity, etc was found to have higher instances of
promiscuity in some statistically sound manner, it would not necessarily mean that it was endemic to the group they belonged to. It could be because
their demographic is more likely to be exposed to unrelated causative factors.
I would start my investigation with factors such as poverty (which can be an incentive both to dead-beat parenting and prostitution), and over
generations could be argued to degrade family traditions in the affected demographic as circumstances would have prevented many people within that
demographic from being exposed to certain behavioral models.
Another factor I'd want to look into is religious preference- the guidelines of normative behavior that a person of a given origin is likely to be
exposed to thanks to their circumstance could certainly have a bearing.
And of course the list goes on.
We do ourselves a disservice when we place the terms of an equasion in the wrong order. Start with a problem (negative effects of promiscuity),
identify causes, formulate a solution, and then target the solution to those most affected in the most direct way possible (at which point it may or
may not be necessary to use demographic groups as a "catch all" mechanism to circumvent the need for data that is impractical to obtain). That's
being socially conscious.
If you start with curiousity of a provocative nature (I wonder who is more promiscous?) the whole thing risks becoming an exercise in removing motes
and ignoring planks.