Why are gay guys so promiscuous?

[Rolyo85]

As if we men are some kind of animal that operates solely on instinct? I feel a bit of repulsion towards someone who's had a very large number of sex partners, as it shows a lack of self-control. Hell, I'm single but I don't go fucking around with every available Tom, Dick, and Harry just because I happen to be horny.

Once you've given that most intimate part of yourself to countless random men, what do you have left to give to a significant other?

I'm sorry, I have no choice but to call utter bullshit to this. Sex is two things - a physical and an emotional experience. YOU have chosen to see the physical as an equivalency of the emotional, but they are separate. They can work together, but one does not imply the other. What "most intimate part" of myself do I give a guy I have sex with for fun? My dick? My ass? My mouth? Those see so many non-intimate uses on a 24/7 basis, that I can't imagine that's what you meant. WHOEVER has the right to say that sex is only "right" if there is strong emotion involved? It is a physical activity involving another person, so the emotional element is always there, but it can be pure chemistry with no romance whatsoever. You don't need to Like someone to like them enough to have sex with them, unless you have decided to build your values like that.

You keep talking as if OBJECTIVELY it's "right" to stay celibate and/or have very few partners (in your derisive description of those who don't do it, and your assumption that someone will respect you more for being single yet denying yourself sex), and it is "wrong" to have sex with many people. Others' value systems and more importantly - their perception of what something means - are completely different, and this isn't an excuse for you to say "well then we wouldn't match", it's a reason to say "well, just because my value system wouldn't allow that, doesn't mean they follow it and therefore are consciously doing a bad thing". They see different things in what they are doing, it means different things for them.

When I have sex with someone, it can be special, or it can just be pleasurable. There is always mutual respect and appreciation, there's never a demeaning factor involved. Who the hell are you to be judging this as unacceptable?

 

[xbuzzerx]

I didn't say gay guys don't deserve to get married. I do however struggle to see the point of fighting to get gay marriage legitimised (and insisting on calling it marriage and not a civil partnership or something else) if the guys are going just going to use it as a tax-dodge and a way to cut their living costs.

The fact that you do not seem as bent about the concept of straight couples "using marriage to tax dodge" (which I do not believe is anyone's legitimate reason for having gotten married, in many cases there isn't even a noticeable savings of any sort depending on the incomes of the couple in question) but this is how you view a gay couple's likely reason for wanting to have access to full equal legal marriage rights shows a strong bias on your part, one that dismisses that gay couples are as real or as worthy, or which assumes that they're after some "other purpose" other than wanting a full legal marriage.

Frankly, no one has to come in front of you as lord-advocate and get your blessing for their marriage or their reasons for getting married, nor should they have to-- neither heterosexual nor homosexual.

P.S. If these "fringe benefits" of getting married were so worth it all by themselves there's absolutely no reason all of us wouldn't have just married single friends of the opposite sex in the meanwhile until we find our "real partners." The concept that people do it just for tax shelter or whatever is pretty stupid.

 

[Nishin]

http://in.reuters.com/article/2013/...E92802M20130309?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews

 

[MissAnne]

Once you've given that most intimate part of yourself to countless random men, what do you have left to give to a significant other?

I feel this way most times.

It has to mean something for me.

 

[Rolyo85]

I feel this way most times.

It has to mean something for me.

And that's PERFECTLY ok, but it should also come with the understanding that other people see it differently, and not judge them, as if they TOO need it to mean something, but for some reason ignore that need and demean themselves or something.

For myself, I have two sets of sexual experiences. One that is related to casual sex, and one for when serious emotion is involved. One does not flow into the other. When I am single, sex is one thing. When I'm not, it's another. If anything, it adds a variety of experiences.

 

[tigerfan482]

And that's PERFECTLY ok, but it should also come with the understanding that other people see it differently, and not judge them, as if they TOO need it to mean something, but for some reason ignore that need and demean themselves or something.

For myself, I have two sets of sexual experiences. One that is related to casual sex, and one for when serious emotion is involved. One does not flow into the other. When I am single, sex is one thing. When I'm not, it's another. If anything, it adds a variety of experiences.

So I definitely respect both views on the situation and I try not to judge others on their lifestyle decisions. One thing that I do wonder about though is if the attitude towards sexual encounters is inversely proportional to the effort put into maintaining a committed relationship. So would someone who has has a sizable number of sexual encounters be as motivated to attempt to make a long term relationship work as someone who doesn't have as many?

I can use myself as an example. You could count the number of sexual partners that I have had in the low teens. I know that when I am in the situation of a relationship, I want to work hard to make it work because I don't have the knowledge or experience of being able to easily drop back to a single life of casual sexual encounters to fulfill sexual needs that I get from a relationship. Large number of sexual encounters also sets a high bar for expected sexual performance in a relationship. Given that sex is an important part of a relationship, will someone with lots of sexual encounters have a higher standard of what to expect than a person without as many and will that affect the relationship? While I don't believe that the two ideas (promiscuity versus desire for a relationship) are completely dependent on each other, I also don't believe they are mutually exclusive either. I personally feel that there is some effect on both the desire and the determination for a committed relationship that is realized from having an increasing number of casual sexual encounters and I was just wondering if that is actually the case or if I have just been unfortunate enough to meet the wrong people.

I'm just trying to gauge the feelings of others when it comes to the number of sex partners and promiscuity versus the desire for a committed relationship. Is there a difference?

 

[kayman23]

I feel this way most times.

It has to mean something for me.

Ok, me as well...

 

[Rolyo85]

So I definitely respect both views on the situation and I try not to judge others on their lifestyle decisions. One thing that I do wonder about though is if the attitude towards sexual encounters is inversely proportional to the effort put into maintaining a committed relationship. So would someone who has has a sizable number of sexual encounters be as motivated to attempt to make a long term relationship work as someone who doesn't have as many?

I can use myself as an example. You could count the number of sexual partners that I have had in the low teens. I know that when I am in the situation of a relationship, I want to work hard to make it work because I don't have the knowledge or experience of being able to easily drop back to a single life of casual sexual encounters to fulfill sexual needs that I get from a relationship. Large number of sexual encounters also sets a high bar for expected sexual performance in a relationship. Given that sex is an important part of a relationship, will someone with lots of sexual encounters have a higher standard of what to expect than a person without as many and will that affect the relationship? While I don't believe that the two ideas (promiscuity versus desire for a relationship) are completely dependent on each other, I also don't believe they are mutually exclusive either. I personally feel that there is some effect on both the desire and the determination for a committed relationship that is realized from having an increasing number of casual sexual encounters and I was just wondering if that is actually the case or if I have just been unfortunate enough to meet the wrong people.

I'm just trying to gauge the feelings of others when it comes to the number of sex partners and promiscuity versus the desire for a committed relationship. Is there a difference?

Well, to answer both things:

1. To me casual sex and dating aren't two worlds separated by a dimensional wall. They coexist and mingle. My most serious relationship started as a hook up, and I am hardly unique in that. Casual sex isn't something that you start doing when single, then stop, then enter a relationship and have a completely different life. Casual sex is a byproduct of a sexually free interaction with new people or people you've established a stable non-romantic relationship with. The ONLY difference, really, is the sex. If you meet a guy in a bar, and quickly decide he isn't a dating prospect, but you chat a bit, have a drink or two, maybe flirt a little casually, and then never meet again (or meet again in a friendly capacity), the ONLY difference between you and the "promiscuous" types is that you didn't have sex with him. There is not some giant psychological difference in outlook, people who have casual sex aren't a separate species of humanity or a separate culture. They just don't think sex is such a big deal in and of itself.

2. In my experience sex is good or bad. Good sex can be amazing, mind-blowing, great or just nice, but it's never bad. Only bad sex is bad. And despite popular (among people who don't hook up) opinion, one-time sex acts don't really build experience that much. Yeah, you've experienced a ton of different "flavors", but very superficially. Actual sexual experience is gained through multiple repeats with the same person. Which would be why I'm always in favor of friends with benefits vs. hook ups with new people.

 

[Telstra]

As if we men are some kind of animal that operates solely on instinct? I feel a bit of repulsion towards someone who's had a very large number of sex partners, as it shows a lack of self-control. Hell, I'm single but I don't go fucking around with every available Tom, Dick, and Harry just because I happen to be horny.

Once you've given that most intimate part of yourself to countless random men, what do you have left to give to a significant other?

Are you saying you are not animal ?
How wrong of you.

 

[backagain]

Well, to answer both things:

1. To me casual sex and dating aren't two worlds separated by a dimensional wall. They coexist and mingle. My most serious relationship started as a hook up, and I am hardly unique in that. Casual sex isn't something that you start doing when single, then stop, then enter a relationship and have a completely different life. Casual sex is a byproduct of a sexually free interaction with new people or people you've established a stable non-romantic relationship with. The ONLY difference, really, is the sex. If you meet a guy in a bar, and quickly decide he isn't a dating prospect, but you chat a bit, have a drink or two, maybe flirt a little casually, and then never meet again (or meet again in a friendly capacity), the ONLY difference between you and the "promiscuous" types is that you didn't have sex with him. There is not some giant psychological difference in outlook, people who have casual sex aren't a separate species of humanity or a separate culture. They just don't think sex is such a big deal in and of itself.

2. In my experience sex is good or bad. Good sex can be amazing, mind-blowing, great or just nice, but it's never bad. Only bad sex is bad. And despite popular (among people who don't hook up) opinion, one-time sex acts don't really build experience that much. Yeah, you've experienced a ton of different "flavors", but very superficially. Actual sexual experience is gained through multiple repeats with the same person. Which would be why I'm always in favor of friends with benefits vs. hook ups with new people.

Very well stated.
As a "former promiscuous" person I never really thought about who I was sleeping with.
I was horny, you are horny, then lets fuck was my motto.
I didn't make a judgement on myself or anyone who can't do that.

As my straight friends use to say to me....
"I want to come back and live your life."

 

[sulphur-springs]

The majority of my friends are straight guys, and judging by their conversations our sex drives are the same. Not to mention guys are almost always window shopping, and when you throw two guys together it's just a lot more likely that sex will happen sooner than later. As with anything, there are exceptions.

 

[blackbeltninja]

The fact that you do not seem as bent about the concept of straight couples "using marriage to tax dodge" (which I do not believe is anyone's legitimate reason for having gotten married, in many cases there isn't even a noticeable savings of any sort depending on the incomes of the couple in question) but this is how you view a gay couple's likely reason for wanting to have access to full equal legal marriage rights shows a strong bias on your part, one that dismisses that gay couples are as real or as worthy, or which assumes that they're after some "other purpose" other than wanting a full legal marriage.

Frankly, no one has to come in front of you as lord-advocate and get your blessing for their marriage or their reasons for getting married, nor should they have to-- neither heterosexual nor homosexual.

P.S. If these "fringe benefits" of getting married were so worth it all by themselves there's absolutely no reason all of us wouldn't have just married single friends of the opposite sex in the meanwhile until we find our "real partners." The concept that people do it just for tax shelter or whatever is pretty stupid.

Ah, now, you see the trouble with trying to read between the lines is that sometimes there is nothing between the lines and you end up leaping to the wrong conclusion.

I brought up the tax-dodge because I'm trying to work out why people would get married if not for love and commitment, which you keep reminding us are not essential for marriage. So my reply was framed in the context of that assumption and the tax dodge. I have absolutely no issue with people of any sexual bent who commit to each other having legal benefits and marriage rights.

The tax dodge is the only other reason I can conceive of to go through the whole rigmarole. And it IS a rigmarole; the legalities of the marriage contract are far-reaching, so I assume people get married because they WANT to get married. You said it yourself - you don't need marriage for love and commitment. And here in .za, you don't need to be married to share medical insurance costs (either way, gay marriage is legal here). And nowhere do you need to be married to sort out jointly-owned property.

In short, I stand by what I said originally.

-d-

 

[figjam]

Is this representative of the majority of the gay community? Are committed relationships (or at least people out looking for them) just not commonplace? Am I on a hopeless mission to find someone to want to be in a monogamous relationship with? What are people's thoughts on this?

No, No and maybe.

Guys (the male species) are naturally more promiscuous than females. This is just a fact of life.

Not all males are promiscuous.

Most gay clubs have created this "promiscuous" perception of gay men.

At the end of the day we are all individuals - simple...

 

[Rolyo85]

I dunno about the promiscuity factor of guys. I mean, I guess so, but ultimately, I am just horny all the time. However, if I could have sex with the same guy all the time, rather than with different ones here and there, I'd totally go for the one guy.

 

[tigerfan482]

However, if I could have sex with the same guy all the time, rather than with different ones here and there, I'd totally go for the one guy.

So what prevents this from happening?

 

[xbuzzerx]

Ah, now, you see the trouble with trying to read between the lines is that sometimes there is nothing between the lines and you end up leaping to the wrong conclusion.

I brought up the tax-dodge because I'm trying to work out why people would get married if not for love and commitment, which you keep reminding us are not essential for marriage. So my reply was framed in the context of that assumption and the tax dodge. I have absolutely no issue with people of any sexual bent who commit to each other having legal benefits and marriage rights.

The tax dodge is the only other reason I can conceive of to go through the whole rigmarole. And it IS a rigmarole; the legalities of the marriage contract are far-reaching, so I assume people get married because they WANT to get married. You said it yourself - you don't need marriage for love and commitment. And here in .za, you don't need to be married to share medical insurance costs (either way, gay marriage is legal here). And nowhere do you need to be married to sort out jointly-owned property.

In short, I stand by what I said originally.

-d-

Basically, I think some litmus of "HOW in love are you?" or "HOW committed are you?" is utterly irrelevant to any discussion of whether or not gay people should have equal legal access to the government contract of marriage. It's a civil rights issue plain and simple. The fact that some people assign to the word marriage itself some kind of special magical, mystical, religious, spiritual, moral or personal ruleset has absolutely no bearing on whether or not the government should observe equal access to those legal rights for everyone. Yes, I think that the great majority of people who ever get married do it with the intent, at least at that moment, of being in love and being committed to each other. But that's certainly not a requirement for the legal contract to exist. Couples cheat. Couples grow apart or fall out of love. Yet the legal rights remain regardless.

This issue of "gay people should need to commit en masse to the use of marriage for love and commitment", while we all might agree that is its ideal use, is neither enforcible nor something relevant to whether or not gay people should have equal legal rights in the contracts defining their relationships which extend to much more than whether or not they're currently in love or currently committed-- shared property rights, inheritance rights, medical decisionmaking rights which are not otherwise recognized without extraordinarily more complicated and expensive contracts being drawn up. I've used the example before, that it's ludicrous to say that gay people should have to go into the hospital with an affadavit full of legal contracts before they're admitted to see a loved one or join in the medical consultation when a wife could simply walk in and say "I am his wife."

The yardstick of "are you really in love and 100% committed" isn't enforcible on anyone, least of all straight people. It's not relevant to the legal contract of marriage and the rights it bestows.

 

[pat grimshaw]

So what prevents this from happening?

 

[Laufey]

Tiger: Obviously it's more difficult to find someone you click with than someone to hump for a single night.

What's so horrible about having fun while you are looking for something more?

You try to justify your view but all I see is a judgmental moral snob.

 

[Telstra]

So what prevents this from happening?

No suitable partner prevents this.
I can see you are single. Why ???????????????????

 

[Rolyo85]

So what prevents this from happening?

Lack of chemistry, circumstances or the simple fact that for most guys anything beyond "one time" means strings attached, which is usually not what I want. And it is usually not what I want not because I am some promiscuous whore, but because I don't connect easily on a level that would allow me to start a relationship. It's not even high standards, I just don't sync with that many people.