what number turns u into a slag!!

[albar05]

Hey guys,

Just want to know, how many is tooooo many!!

I quess in reality the more the better, coz it all adds up to your life experience!! lol

I myself have been abit of a prude!! can prob count the number on two hands!!

But surely there has to be a point when you look around and think, OMG , i have def spead myself out there alittle too much...lol.....

or maybe not..... lol

 

[albar05]

yeah sorry ... slag/slut.... lol differenct country same word...lol

yeah i would have to agree with ya! lolx

 

[josher]

You mean being with guys?

Anything over 20 is too much for me, I guess.....

Gee, Elvin, it's a good thing you weren't out in the 70's. Quite a few of us has 20 tricks in a month every now and then. LOL (Of course there was no Aids then.)

 

[Croynan]

Seems like we are back to the numbers issue again. Thread No.988766544

Is there not someone else involved here - commonly referred to as a person, with a personality and positive qualities that you both share.

Without that - then on to number 456, 457, 458, 469 and on and on and on.

I mean we have here someone who claims to be in the 800's - sounds so carrying, and romatic and worthwhile and possibly even of value.

but then again i am just a local village idiot, and my perspective on such issues are probably dated or useless would be more like it - i think the word dignity should go with it. but then again what do i know?



eM.

 

[tbonez]

Sex is not intrinsicly worthwhile.

I disagree, I think there is something very intrinsically worthwhile about sex.

As for the numbers game, that's an entirely personally matter. To each their own. For me, I'd be bothered if I could no longer remember every person I slept with...even if I never knew their name(s).

You are a slag when you decide you are.

 

[genuone]

My rule of thumb is anyone who has had more sex than me would be considered a slag/slut.

 

[tbonez]

I agree that the standard is personal, Tbonez, but the mean of that standard is what society weighs in on and judges, for good or ill.

My point, however vague, was about sex being intrinsically good. I think sex is native, innate & natural, ...thus "intrinsically good".

As for a mean number, I'd like to hear anyone suggest one that society would judge approiate. I doubt there is any such figure out there. If you asked 10 people you would get 12 answers I'd venture.

IMHO, the pendulum is swinging towards lower numbers because of the fact we see that there is no correlation between #'s of sexual partners and happiness. I seriously doubt the guy in the club who has bonked 1000 asses is happier than the old married fart who is sitting in the kitchen with the only man he has slept with for 40 years.

This is not a slag on any individual and only my personal observation: Of the people I know, the ones with the greatest number of sexual partners are the least happy, least grounded and least secure. Again, not an indictment, just a personal observation. Perhaps there is nothing to it...I suspect there is.

 

[drhladnjak]

This is not a slag on any individual and only my personal observation: Of the people I know, the ones with the greatest number of sexual partners are the least happy, least grounded and least secure. Again, not an indictment, just a personal observation. Perhaps there is nothing to it...I suspect there is.

I suppose I've observed this as well, although the causation is fairly unclear. I'm not sure that having many partners directly leads to unhappiness. Being in a significant relationship with somebody is more likely to lead to more stability, more security and a better sense of being grounded, which in many cases is likely to correlate with happiness. For the rest of us who haven't yet found Mr. Right, it's easy to have a little fun in the process of searching for him.

I'm not convinced the numbers are really going down, at least not for gay men. The numbers almost certainly peaked in the 70s and started come down dramatically in the 80s with the onset of the HIV/AIDS crisis. On average, guys seem to be having more sexual partners these days as the disease goes from a certain death sentence to a very serious but managable chronic illness.

I agree with you tbonez that at least for me and others I know (obviously I can't speak for everybody) there is some value in sex on its own. It's just something that each of us needs periodically (some more often than others). For me, even if it's just for one night, at least I get some pleasure, give some pleasure and hopefully have somebody to cuddle with in bed. Often times, it's a lot better than being by myself.

I'd like to find something more meaningful, but my success on that front has been decidedly poor and frustrating. That just seems to be life in the city though. In the mean time, I don't mind having a good time. Then again, I seem to not have as much difficulty seperating emotion and sex as some of my other gay friends. It's all about what works for each person really.

 

[drhladnjak]

Might it not be likely that promiscuity indicates an over-emphasis on the importance of sex itself rather than relationship, further reducing the likelihood that LTR's will be as important? Additionally, isn't it reasonable to infer from the many, many posts on JUB that promiscuous sexuality inevitably leads to comparisons between partners' performances, often poisoning the pot in any kind of relationship?

In some cases, but I don't really see sex and relationships as mutually exclusive. A preponderance of one doesn't necessarily limit the other, except in certain more extreme cases. It seems very possible to find both important. In fact, for most people they're both so important that they hope to find both together in one package. I'd say dating some guys, having sex with the ones that start out promising and moving on when it doesn't work out is decidedly different from going online or going out to the bars every night in search of a different guy to have sex with.

That said, different guys want different things at different stages in their lives. There are points in most people's lives when it's just not particularly appropriate to be in a LTR-- about to move far away, right after the bad breakup of another LTR, when in an exploring stage such as many guys have right after coming out, etc.

I'm not convinced that having a sexual history automatically equals the "poisoning" of all relationships. Is ignorance really bliss? Personally, I'd rather have a good idea of what I'm looking for sexually in a partner so that I can identify it when I find it or at least teach the guy who's already strong in other areas important to the relationship. Additionally, there's always the danger that an inexperienced partner will feel the need (often later in the relationship) to explore options they didn't explore before the relationship. I've seen that happen too many times and it rarely is pretty.

 

[metta]

it would depend on there age as well. i don't think the number really matters.....it is the person and how they look at people and treat people.

but someone with a ridiculously high number would probably not be able to get that closeness/intimacy (not necessarily in a sexual way) that I like to see in people.

 

[Croynan]

Will you let it drop you bitter twisted old man? The figure of 800 is a guess based on my experiences thus far this year, and in my early teen years.

Now, it may sound a lot to some one of your apparent "holier than thou" stature who hasnt had sex since moses came down from the mountain, but to the younger generation, it is not that many. Not in the greater scheme of things.

Now, just drop it.

You posted it - you boasted about it - it represents you not others.

And at what point did you become spokesperson of the younger generation - or were you self Anointed. Maybe there some other more mature young adults on this website who do not agree with the position (pun intended) you have taken on the issue - I assume you took a poll and or a vote that you are always screaming about, "people doing something." Well the ballots please, sir?

Why should 800 not be important in the greater sheme of things (life) - after all they are just mere human beings - what does that matter?

Next time you come crying "wolf" to the forum about something - your job, your car, and what ever else, just remember it is just in the greater scheme of things and that way none of us need not be concerned about what ever happens and or does not happen.

 

[chrmd1]

Why the need to label? If you want it and the other guy wants it, your not harming anyone. It is one's choice to have sex with whomever we want. I was raised a mormon and taught it was morally wrong to have sex before marraige, therefore I did not have sex until after 21 years of age. And for the longest time I felt guilty after having gay sex, those were awful feelings. So now that I am comfortable with my body and sex, someone is going to cum and tell me I am slut? F*** that!!!

 

[cbtfan]

Damm.
I thought this thread was about how many posts you had to do before becomming a slut.

 

[tbonez]

Using those three synonyms, my respected friend, then vomiting is intrinsically good, as well as high fevers,

Some, like the pope, might argue that sex only has intrinsic value when it has the possibility of leading to reproduction. As I gay man I would disagree. My point was that sex has intrinsic value as it is by definition, "intrinsic".

Sex is good because it leads to bonding, intimacy, relief, a feeling of joy and elation. Not all sex, but certainly most healthy sexual expression is intrinsically valuable...It doesn't matter a whiff if the couple (or group) are wearing matching rings or have taken a vow of commitment. Sex can be fraught with guilt, danger or feelings of self loathing , but that is not intrinsic to sex.

As you yourself intimated, often the promiscuous appear unhappy andunfulfilled. We seem programmed for long term bonding, although I'm not putting my money on that being any genetic determination, just the product of ancient imprinting.

So are the monogamous. (often unhappy) My point wasn't that serial shaggars were unhappy because they were promiscuous, rather that people who can't find happiness sometimes look for it (happiness) by looking for fulfilment between every set of sheets they can get their ass into. I'd guess, and it's only a guess, that promiscuity is a symptom, not a cause.

My counterargument, or opinion anyway, is that the collection of individual observations eventually sets the mean, be it clear or blurry, but the disapprobation remains. Of course, it does indict individuals insomuch as they represent those outside the social mores collectively set.

My counter-counter argument would be that any "value" would vary so widely within any group, over a short period of time and by location, age, religious affiliation and wind direction that it would be impossible to pin down. What is the absolute value? For a priest? What about a flight attendant? OK, now a frat boy...if a girl is fat and homely is it lower than if she is hot, thin and blonde?

I suppose I've observed this as well, although the causation is fairly unclear. I'm not sure that having many partners directly leads to unhappiness.

I totally concur. I do think being unhappy sometimes leads having many, many sexual partners who's names are an unimportant detail. Just my observation BTW.

It's all about what works for each person really.

True, true. I figure, if you can have 200 partners a year and be a happy, well adjusted guy who looks in the mirror and likes what he sees... then who am I to judge? I'm just saying it isn't for me.