Why are gay guys so promiscuous?

[eastofeden]

These two viewpoints don't add up.

I'm certainly not going to get into a joint property-owing venture and shared medical insurance with someone I'm neither in love with nor committed to; I doubt anyone else is, either. Likewise, I wouldn't marry someone unless I was in love with or committed to them, or my name was Gerard Depardieu and I was in a film with Andie MacDowell at the time.

If I were investing in shared property, shared expenses or tax-dodging with someone else's medical aid as a capital venture, it would be done as a legal process the business way. Not the marriage way.

-d-

That is fine...for you....and you should be true to yourself...but so should everyone else as marraige is a legal institution and there are many reasons why people get married. Love isn't always part of the equation. Likewise...there are many couples who are in love and have no wish to be married.

 

[xbuzzerx]

That is fine...for you....and you should be true to yourself...but so should everyone else as marraige is a legal institution and there are many reasons why people get married. Love isn't always part of the equation. Likewise...there are many couples who are in love and have no wish to be married.

Nor can you enforce love as part of the equation.

Look how many people feign marriages, not just in the U.S. but throughout the first world, to help people gain citizenship.

 

[Rolyo85]

I've always believed that if you're looking for a relationship you'll never find one. It's when you're not looking for love and instead look to meet new friends that one of those friendship will ignite into a relationship.

Truer words etc.

 

[Rolyo85]

These two viewpoints don't add up.

I'm certainly not going to get into a joint property-owing venture and shared medical insurance with someone I'm neither in love with nor committed to; I doubt anyone else is, either. Likewise, I wouldn't marry someone unless I was in love with or committed to them, or my name was Gerard Depardieu and I was in a film with Andie MacDowell at the time.

If I were investing in shared property, shared expenses or tax-dodging with someone else's medical aid as a capital venture, it would be done as a legal process the business way. Not the marriage way.

-d-

Love is a complex word that means different things for different people. Some just throw it around for any form of infatuation, but if you get married to someone cause you enjoy spending time together and have great sex, that's not love. And if I guy told me he loved me after a month of dating, I'd likely laugh out loud.


P.s. are we seriously using the "MSM" travesty on a gay forum?

 

[xbuzzerx]

Love is a complex word that means different things for different people. Some just throw it around for any form of infatuation, but if you get married to someone cause you enjoy spending time together and have great sex, that's not love. And if I guy told me he loved me after a month of dating, I'd likely laugh out loud.


P.s. are we seriously using the "MSM" travesty on a gay forum?

I just completely do not understand this mindset we're seeing of "maybe I deserve gay marriage, because I hold myself to x level of standard of commitment in relationships, but most gay men don't and I'm not sure if I support them deserving it.."

Really? Newt Gingrich, Britney Spears, Elizabeth Taylor anyone? The legal right exists for all heterosexual people no matter how they, in your moral eyes, (mis)use it.

I bet if I was privy to every detail about half of your heterosexual relatives' marriages, I wouldn't personally approve of a great many of them. How that would somehow entitle me to imply they don't deserve legal marriage rights is beyond me, though.

 

[eastofeden]

Nor can you enforce love as part of the equation.

Look how many people feign marriages, not just in the U.S. but throughout the first world, to help people gain citizenship.

So true. I really dislike people putting value judgements on other consenting adult's relationships. A a gay man...I have been on the receiving end of that kind of thinking so I don't participate in it. It saddens me that so many gay men want to embrace the same behavior of the people who have oppressed them.

 

[tigerfan482]

So I do want to clarify that I don't believe that ONLY gay guys are this way. However, being a gay person, it's what I have experience in. I would liken it to a female asking why straight guys seem to be so promiscuous. It's not aimed at demonizing gay people while providing a pass for straight people.

I've always believed that if you're looking for a relationship you'll never find one. It's when you're not looking for love and instead look to meet new friends that one of those friendship will ignite into a relationship.

I tend to necessarily believe this. However, even finding gay friends is tough in my experience. Whether you meet them from online, some app, in a club, or wherever, it seems that friendship comes secondary to sex. It's almost as if you have to pass the "do I want to have sex with you?" test before a gay guy would even consider talking to you. Reflecting what I said above, I'm sure straight guys do it as well with females, but my experiences are in the gay realm. It's very possible I'm just approaching things the wrong way and I would welcome any suggestions on the best way to make gay friends while eliminating the sexual aspect of it (at least at first.)

I guess the bottom line is are there ways to establish friendships with gay guys that don't involve some sort of sexual attraction? I have no problems with establishing friendships with straight guys or girls, but it just seems as if I try to talk to a gay guy, the whole interaction becomes based on the fact of whether they find me attractive enough to sleep with and then whether I actually do it.

 

[bankside]

You two are being rather thick. (Bankside, shame on you for twice in two topics.)

You don't know any married couples who have fallen out of love? You don't know any married couples who have had infidelity issues? Even if you don't, they exist. But regardless of those two states of affairs, the contract remains unless legally ended. If you posit that somehow gay men don't "deserve" the status of legally married until they've proven some intangible litmus of love and commitment, where is the proposition to somehow legally enforce that statute on heterosexual married couples? And how many would pass it?

Wha?! Twice in two topics?! I think it's people's reading comprehension twice in two topics...

I am 100% in favour of equal marriage as a publicly recognised institution for gay, bi, and straight people.

I am against marriage being portrayed as a contractual arrangement; it debases something that is a little more magical than that. I also don't think that marriage should be recognised without an actual loving commitment. And the State usually thinks the same. That's why they evaluate the legitimacy of marriages when one person is a citizen and the other is a foreigner seeking citizenship. It's not the formalities of marriage that matter, but rather whether the couple are actually in a loving committed relationship.

 

[xbuzzerx]

So I do want to clarify that I don't believe that ONLY gay guys are this way. However, being a gay person, it's what I have experience in.

Tigersfan I would also revisit what you said in the OP and say that attempting to expand your love life through things like grindr is probably part of the problem, and giving you an extremely slanted sample from which to make any broad conclusion.

 

[xbuzzerx]

Wha?! Twice in two topics?! I think it's people's reading comprehension twice in two topics...

I am 100% in favour of equal marriage as a publicly recognised institution for gay, bi, and straight people.

I am against marriage being portrayed as a contractual arrangement; it debases something that is a little more magical than that. I also don't think that marriage should be recognised without an actual loving commitment. And the State usually thinks the same. That's why they evaluate the legitimacy of marriages when one person is a citizen and the other is a foreigner seeking citizenship. It's not the formalities of marriage that matter, but rather whether the couple are actually in a loving committed relationship.

It is a contractual arrangement, legally. There's absolutely no disputing that. You cannot enforce your idea of a properly loving, or a properly committed ideal of a marriage which you subjectively hold out onto everyone else, nor would there be any objective way to enforce such a standard. The implication that current marriage laws somehow embody this notion which will subjectively vary of a loving and committed arrangement of x type or "magical", to use your word, is ridiculous. It doesn't happen and can't happen. There's no way to do it.

The bond between two people to commit their lives together is what you're talking about, it is something we cannot measure or make tangible or validate objectively in front of a court or under the auspices of a law or regulation, and it does not require a marriage license.

 

[tigerfan482]

Tigersfan I would also revisit what you said in the OP and say that attempting to expand your love life through things like grindr is probably part of the problem, and giving you an extremely slanted sample from which to make any broad conclusion.

To be fair, it's just one of many avenues I have pursued. I do realize what Grindr is, but sometimes you have to look through the shit covered haystack to find that needle. Although it does help to save it until last.

 

[bankside]

It is a contractual arrangement, legally. There's absolutely no disputing that. You cannot enforce your idea of a properly loving, or a properly committed ideal of a marriage which you subjectively hold out onto everyone else, nor would there be any objective way to enforce such a standard. The implication that current marriage laws somehow embody this notion which will subjectively vary of a loving and committed arrangement of x type or "magical", to use your word, is ridiculous. It doesn't happen and can't happen. There's no way to do it.

The bond between two people to commit their lives together is what you're talking about, it is something we cannot measure or make tangible or validate objectively in front of a court or under the auspices of a law or regulation, and it does not require a marriage license.

The point of a marriage is to make tangible and manifest publicly a commitment that people have already determined to make in their own minds. People invite friends to share in the magic, rather than, say, notary publics to attest to the validity of a contract.

The private moment is the engagement. The public consequence is the marriage. It is evaluated by the family and friends, and often by the officiant. It is a public commitment where people agree to be held accountable for showing kindness to the one they care about. And I've given an example of how the legitimacy of that commitment is already evaluated under the law. A marriage without all those intimate ingredients is not valid under law simply because the paperwork has been correctly signed.

 

[xbuzzerx]

To be fair, it's just one of many avenues I have pursued. I do realize what Grindr is, but sometimes you have to look through the shit covered haystack to find that needle. Although it does help to save it until last.

It's just been my experience that it is primarily used for hookups, much like craigslist or the way that young straight people use okcupid, and probably shouldn't be viewed as a pulse on how gay people operate in relationships, or how likely gay people are to engage in relationships.

 

[xbuzzerx]

The point of a marriage is to make tangible and manifest publicly a commitment that people have already determined to make in their own minds. People invite friends to share in the magic, rather than, say, notary publics to attest to the validity of a contract.

The private moment is the engagement. The public consequence is the marriage. It is evaluated by the family and friends, and often by the officiant. It is a public commitment where people agree to be held accountable for showing kindness to the one they care about. And I've given an example of how the legitimacy of that commitment is already evaluated under the law. A marriage without all those intimate ingredients is not valid under law simply because the paperwork has been correctly signed.

Your public moment in front of your friends and family can be done in your home, in your church of choice, or wherever else, and is 100% unnecessary to the contractual legal state of marriage. The legal state of marriage can be attained by going to a justice of the peace alone with no family present.

You're conflating two entirely different things. If this were all about the "right" to have a party and call it your wedding in front of friends and family we wouldn't even be sitting here having this discussion. We're talking about the legal contractual rights in which context gay people are without equal rights in society to heterosexual people.

When ministers finish a wedding ceremony, they say "BY THE POWER VESTED IN ME BY THE STATE OF..." they are invoking the legal, government-recognized contract that is being sealed.

 

[JustMe5]

Why is promiscuity a negative for gay guys but a positive for straight ones?

Why do straight promiscuous guys get labelled "stud" and "heartbreaker" and gay guys get labelled the same as promiscuous women; sluts and whores.

Realistically, a sizeable number of gays aren't simply promiscuous but have had an outrageous amount of sex partners throughout their adult life. I'm sure we all know at least one gay person who has had hundreds of different sex partners throughout their life. And some even brag about it like it's no big deal. I have yet to meet a straight guy who's had that many sex partners.

 

[eastofeden]

Realistically, a sizeable number of gays aren't simply promiscuous but have had an outrageous amount of sex partners throughout their adult life. I'm sure we all know at least one gay person who has had hundreds of different sex partners throughout their life. And some even brag about it like it's no big deal. I have yet to meet a straight guy who's had that many sex partners.

Tell me...what IS the big deal about someone else having hundreds of sex partners? Does it affect you?

 

[bankside]

Tell me...what IS the big deal about someone else having hundreds of sex partners? Does it affect you?

On a moral level, I don't care about promiscuity. If a person sleeps with literally hundreds of people, I can actually admire the adventurousness and the openness.

But, I also question their attention span. And, sometimes it makes sex seem less like an adventure and more like a nervous habit. Like the sad girl on the bus who can't stop pulling her hair, she pulls her hair so much that she has a bald spot she can't even hide under her hat. It makes me wonder if they should be seeking treatment.

And I do think the stats show that really promiscuous people spread disease. Anyone can get an STD from just one encounter. And anyone can reduce the risk with a condom. But realistically that is not how the math works out. When people sleep around so frequently that no test is fast enough to catch up to their latest infection, they could be spreading disease without even knowing they have one yet. And I just don't give a fuck if it is consensual, or if people have "accepted the risks" or "it's worth it for some fun."

If people are spreading disease when they could just slow down a little bit, long enough to get tested, get antibiotics, get antiretrovirals or whatever, then I'd be much happier. They could go back to fucking when they know they're not going to make someone sick, whether the other person cares or not. If people aren't willing to slow down juuuuust a little bit so they stop spreading disease, I actually would be happy to see them rot in jail. It's a shitty way to live.

 

[Rolyo85]

Realistically, a sizeable number of gays aren't simply promiscuous but have had an outrageous amount of sex partners throughout their adult life. I'm sure we all know at least one gay person who has had hundreds of different sex partners throughout their life. And some even brag about it like it's no big deal. I have yet to meet a straight guy who's had that many sex partners.

I really need to ask what the outrage is about? Why even use the word? What exactly IS outrageous about it? People are free to do what they want with their bodies, and not even the disease argument trumps that.

It's all dumb moral guilt-trip with Christian roots. Sex was a beautiful natural act until the church associated all that guilt with it, and two millennia later we still judge people on their chastity even when we care nothing about our immortal souls...

 

[bankside]

I really need to ask what the outrage is about? Why even use the word? What exactly IS outrageous about it? People are free to do what they want with their bodies, and not even the disease argument trumps that.

It's all dumb moral guilt-trip with Christian roots. Sex was a beautiful natural act until the church associated all that guilt with it, and two millennia later we still judge people on their chastity even when we care nothing about our immortal souls...

Nonsense.

And "Sex was a beautiful natural act until" people started dying, and/or their dick fell off. And they were smart enough to know how to stop it. And they chose not to so they could get off. It has fuck all to do with Christianity. And getting a disease from sex is not "just one of those things," it represents a failure of knowing how to have sex in the here and now, in the one life we can't afford to fuck up because we aren't all going to Narnia if we fuck each other to death.

 

[bankside]

LOL dayum...did they really do all of that?

LOL. just google "syphils dick" or "antibiotic resistant syphilis" or "STDs on the rise in gay men" or….

Seriously though, I can't say it often enough. I'm glad when people have a good time in bed. If they aren't lifelong monogamous lovers, I still want them to have fun. If they're together for a good time, not a long time, great. But if they're switching partners like they're teacups on the ride at the summer fair, it's a very high risk of spreading disease. If they're spreading disease, then they're doing sex wrong. Not "different from me." Not "beyond my comfort zone." Wrong.