Does a guy's sexual history matter when dating? Should it?

[Rolyo85]

"Slut" is relative.

And if you're doing it right - a badge of honor.

 

[cgymike]

I want to know if the guy has fucked a jelly donut....


riiiiiight!

 

[SLOPPYSECONDS]

happy porn day

_tittars-

thankyou

 

[Kahaih]

Ultimately, if one uses protection and tests regularly, the chance of catching anything that isn't easily treatable is close to 0.

Casual sex has a vastly different nuance than sex with a partner. I have experienced a lot of both, and it brings different emotions and different satisfaction. "Oh, I'm too good for casual sex, I choose eternal love and commitment instead" sounds plain ignorant to me. Casual sex isn't soulless and impersonal, unless YOU make it so. You can like the people you do it with, you can be friends with them and have it repeatedly with the same guy without being exclusive. Emotionally, of course I'd rather be in a relationship. But that doesn't mean I will stay a monk in the mean time.

What about the guys you've 'been with'? What would they have preferred? Do you know? Were you careful to make it clear that it was 'just sex' every time?

It seems the more 'encounters' we have, the more likely it is we'll leave a trail of broken hearts.

I did. I don't think I ever intended to, and it's not something I'm proud of, but I did. I left a trail of broken hearts, and it's come back to haunt me.

 

[blackbeltninja]

To pick nits. I think a permethrin-based lotion would be easier, wouldn't it?

Any number of people have caught a disease in a supposedly monogamous relationship, from someone behaving exactly in the way I'm critical of.

And equal opportunity? Equal? Like mathematically, statistically equal? That I'm not over in the health forum asking about a strange blister on my arse or a funny smell coming from the end of my cock has some connection to me not blowing strangers in the bushes and getting fucked by strangers in the back room of the club.

Equal as in whether it's your first time in ages or your 3rd time this week, you have a fairly good chance of catching whatever it is your partner is carrying.

The incoming STD doesn't care whether you're monogamous or not.

-d-

 

[Rolyo85]

What about the guys you've 'been with'? What would they have preferred? Do you know? Were you careful to make it clear that it was 'just sex' every time?

It seems the more 'encounters' we have, the more likely it is we'll leave a trail of broken hearts.

I did. I don't think I ever intended to, and it's not something I'm proud of, but I did. I left a trail of broken hearts, and it's come back to haunt me.

Of course I made it clear. I always make it clear. I am good about talking about sex and putting things in the right context. If anybody's heart ever got broken, it was because of feelings that developed AFTER the fact, but I have never felt the need to pretend I want more than sex if I didn't, in order to get laid.

This myth that somehow you're either a slut, or a monogamous pure heart that gets played, is kinda silly.

 

[bankside]

Equal as in whether it's your first time in ages or your 3rd time this week, you have a fairly good chance of catching whatever it is your partner is carrying.

The incoming STD doesn't care whether you're monogamous or not.

-d-

Oh you know that's not my point. The point is that monogamously-minded people exist and can find each other, and they have a totally different risk profile than someone who sleeps with random people.

 

[SLOPPYSECONDS]

^no sure a "people" ans include a up a latest ans exclusives> any mind
_sex law econmic golf balls -

anyway

save da wahales cause

thankyou

_UN now got mono chairs so folk no got smell odas-

 

[Rolyo85]

Oh you know that's not my point. The point is that monogamously-minded people exist and can find each other, and they have a totally different risk profile than someone who sleeps with random people.

If one is completely opposed to any casual sexual interaction in any context, I'm just seeing personal issues.

 

[dereperez]

And if you're doing it right - a badge of honor.

Which doubles as a badge of shame.

 

[ravenstar]

I don't think sexual history is that important. Health, yes. Playing safe yes, but as to how many or who, I don't care.

 

[bankside]

If one is completely opposed to any casual sexual interaction in any context, I'm just seeing personal issues.

One is not so much opposed as unaroused, in any context to date where it has been on offer. Of course it also cuts back on the infectious diseases.

But it's not just about opposition or arousal. Earlier in the thread, empathy was brought up. It's empathy for the one who has taken his place at my side that made it easy to not fuck strangers who might bring a disease that lingers.

 

[eastofeden]

Of course I made it clear. I always make it clear. I am good about talking about sex and putting things in the right context. If anybody's heart ever got broken, it was because of feelings that developed AFTER the fact, but I have never felt the need to pretend I want more than sex if I didn't, in order to get laid.

This myth that somehow you're either a slut, or a monogamous pure heart that gets played, is kinda silly.

So true....

Over 750 men under my belt (and happy about it)...and next September will be 30 years in a very happy monogamous relationship with another man. The people who don't "get" that have issues because they are the same ones who constantly try to define what everything means for everyone else....completely forgetting that was at the core of the discrimination we have all faced and struggled to overcome.

 

[Rolyo85]

So true.... Over 750 men under my belt (and happy about it)...and next September will be 30 years in a very happy monogamous relationship with another man. The people who don't "get" that have issues because they are the same ones who constantly try to define what everything means for everyone else....completely forgetting that was at the core of the discrimination we have all faced and struggled to overcome.

Well I can't boast your numbers but I've also never had trouble switching from casual interactions to monogamy when feelings existed.

 

[Kahaih]

So true....

Over 750 men under my belt (and happy about it)...and next September will be 30 years in a very happy monogamous relationship with another man. The people who don't "get" that have issues because they are the same ones who constantly try to define what everything means for everyone else....completely forgetting that was at the core of the discrimination we have all faced and struggled to overcome.

So, over 750 men 'under your belt' in, what, 10 – 15 years, before you 'settled down' with one?

At what point did what you posted in #46 come to you? Were you talking about yourself, or perhaps some of the 750 men you put under your belt?

From post #46:

Sexual promiscuity often has roots where people have little of no self esteem due to circumstances beyond their control...and many were molested or raped or abused and believe it is their fault..that they did something wrong to deserve it

. . . . .

 

[Kyanimal]

I'm not all that sure that "History", as much as acquired "Expectations", in light of perceived "Social Pressures", has all that much to do with how we progress in our sexual relationships.

"History", by itself, is actually moot relative to what we've learned, and been influenced by, our having lived through it.

Since I've been lucky enough to go right for the Home Run on a first date, should I judge following experiences along the same lines?'

There is no doubt that what has cum before will have some influence over what we might be looking forward to in subsequent encounters.

Should we not know better, given that each relationship is as unique as the individuals that we're encountering?

Just more reasons to ... No Matter What ...

Keep Smiln'!!
Chaz

 

[SLOPPYSECONDS]

^maybe change a olimpysics ta wewe ans great lands figa out wot a wewe

thankyou

_stamp next-

 

[altlover85]

Oh you know that's not my point. The point is that monogamously-minded people exist and can find each other, and they have a totally different risk profile than someone who sleeps with random people.

Right, but your point wasn't his point and your point is a tangent to what he wrote and seems designed to further your own viewpoint and agenda, instead of addressing what he actually wrote, much like your definition of monogamy being more specific than the one most people think of.

But it's not just about opposition or arousal. Earlier in the thread, empathy was brought up. It's empathy for the one who has taken his place at my side that made it easy to not fuck strangers who might bring a disease that lingers.

Anyone who sleeps with a virgin deserves some empathy for the lack of sexual technique that's generally on display. I know I was not good at it in the beginning.

So true....

Over 750 men under my belt (and happy about it)...and next September will be 30 years in a very happy monogamous relationship with another man. The people who don't "get" that have issues because they are the same ones who constantly try to define what everything means for everyone else....completely forgetting that was at the core of the discrimination we have all faced and struggled to overcome.

Agreed!