Why are gay guys so promiscuous?

[MorrisseyX]

Straight guys are on dating websites looking for the exact same thing, but they can't just flat out say it, because a lot of women wouldn't answer their ads.
Gay guys just cut the crap.

I think this is true, straight men have to deal with women and some women are extremely cautious for good reason due to the power imbalance between the sexes. I think some straight men probably wish they could bang as many women as they would like but it just isn't possible for a lot of them.

The alternative for a straight guy is to hire a prostitute or go to those rub and tug places to get off if they want discreet anonymous sex.

A straight guy has to first get a woman's attention, and if the woman consents then he can have sex with her. But it seems to be a lot of work.

I just think it is easier for gay men to access sex and get sex because of the spaces available to us.
I'll be honest, I would of course like to meet someone but I haven't been on a date in the past two years. I'm not looking for anyone right now and I haven't had sex since January. But, I still have a sex drive, and I like it that in the gay community if I am tired of the crap of talking to someone online, I can simply go to a bathhouse stick my dick through a glory hole and get a nice blow job. And I think that's great that gay men have that.

Gay guys are different there are places where gay men can go and just cut right through the crap. The gay bars are there for people to socialize and try to meet someone. But the public parks and the bathhouses just cut the crap out, people can go to a bathhouse and have anonymous sex and no strings attached.

 

[Rolyo85]

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.

I'm sorry, is Christianity-induced sex guilt one of those absolutely obvious things you're now gonna deny exist?

 

[bankside]

I'm sorry, is Christianity-induced sex guilt one of those absolutely obvious things you're now gonna deny exist?

If you think that atheism will make you magically immune to pathogens, I welcome you to give it a shot.

 

[MorrisseyX]

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. We aren't women. Is everyone assuming we only sleep with straight guys? wtf? It makes no sense.

I don't think it's fair to label women that way either but I'm just saying that's obviously where it's derived.

I think gay men and straight women get slut shamed because straight men for the most part still control society. Although society is more progressive about male homosexuality, since AIDS emerged in the 1980s gay male sexuality was pathologized. But think things are shifting for gay men again. I think more gay men are standing up and challenging slut shaming. Society is changing in the sense that gay men in the western world have more sexual freedom. For women, they also have more control over their sexuality with the birth control pill and other contraceptives. But I think women still have it even worse than gay men, there is still an attitude in society that a woman is supposed to save herself for her one true love or for the right guy. A woman who wants to sleep around and she practices safer sex is still criticized. It isn't fair but if does still happen.

 

[Rolyo85]

If you think that atheism will make you magically immune to pathogens, I welcome you to give it a shot.

After 2000 years of Christian dogma, atheism can't make me immune to anything. If you think even a quarter of the negative association of promiscuity - which [negative association] has existed for centuries before they even knew what an std was - has to do with diseases, you're just...

...not right.

 

[bankside]

After 2000 years of Christian dogma, atheism can't make me immune to anything. If you think even a quarter of the negative association of promiscuity - which [negative association] has existed for centuries before they even knew what an std was - has to do with diseases, you're just...

...not right.

Funny, atheism made me immune to christianity-induced sex guilt. But realism about disease made me immune to promiscuity. That, and the idea that banging a stranger is just not as sexy as banging someone i know well enough to actually like. Or at least well enough call out his name. No need of wine and a biscuit. Keep the incense.

 

[xbuzzerx]

If you think that atheism will make you magically immune to pathogens, I welcome you to give it a shot.

Seriously you think Victorian sex ethics and Puritanism came because those people were having mass sex and getting STD's?

I know you don't think it, because you're not that uninformed. I'm just puzzled at these odd stances you're taking lately.

 

[blackbeltninja]

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.

The bold part I get, and agree with.

The red part I get, if it's a shotgun wedding or, presumably to a lesser extent, a way of dodging immigration. Aside from those two, I don't see the point of going into marriage with someone you neither love nor are committed to. I could easily enough go into a business venture - co-buying a house or going concern etc etc - with someone I neither love or am committed to beyond making a payment each month, but I wouldn't give up the option to marry someone else by doing business under the guise of being married already.

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?

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. There are other ways to do that without having to go the whole marriage route.

And of course marriages end, as do plain ol' relationships and people going steady. This is no surprise. And sure, people stay in marriages and relationships which have turned loveless over time - nobody disputes that. But I doubt those people got married, or even started those serious relationships, when they were out of love.

Perhaps I'm in the minority here, but I don't think I'd make a massive investment in marrying someone - knowing what I stood to lose and how much stuff I'd be legally obliged to do - if I knew I wasn't in love with them or committed to them.

The question then, Buzzer, is: would you? And if you say yes, I'd suggest that you're the one being rather thick.

-d-

 

[Nishin]

If you think that atheism will make you magically immune to pathogens, I welcome you to give it a shot.

Well science does tell one to use condoms, when the pope encourages not using them...

 

[Telstra]

And how exactly does that legitimizes being a big ol' ho-bag?

Just because food is extremely accessible in most westernized nations doesn't mean we ought to eat all the time. Overeating/binge eating brings a heap loads of health problems, and the same analogy along with similar results can be applied to sex.

If you can't find one partner,
why not have many hookups ??

 

[Rolyo85]

Seriously you think Victorian sex ethics and Puritanism came because those people were having mass sex and getting STD's?

I know you don't think it, because you're not that uninformed. I'm just puzzled at these odd stances you're taking lately.

Yeah, I'm really confused myself...

 

[Laufey]

Gay men are as promiscuous as straight men would be IF THEY COULD.

Seriously straight men are always complaining about how much more difficult it is for them to get laid.

 

[kayman23]

I use condoms. So far, so good.

I won't allow myself to be scared out of the act of sex and I won't pretend to fall in love with someone in order to have someone to have sex with. I'd rather live my life and practice safe sex.

Condoms doesn't protect us from all STI/STDs like HPV (genital warts), syphilis, herpes, etc., which can all be contracted even with condom usage.

You act as if pretending to be in love is the grounds of having sex? Having a regular fuckbuddy is better and safer than just having casual sex with a bunch of random strangers. It's not about fear of anything, it is about using common sense and being responsible.

 

[Laufey]

Some people don't mind taking risks in life for pleasure. If you don't want to that's fine, but stop with the preaching.

 

[EuroSoccer]

Some people don't mind taking risks in life for pleasure. If you don't want to that's fine, but stop with the preaching.

 

[JustMe5]

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

I was replying to the question that was asked about why gays are considered sluts/whores for being promiscuous while straight men aren't. And it doesn't affect me personally if a gay man has had hundreds or even thousands of sex partners, but I would not want to get romantically involved with someone like that. That's just my personal preference. There are those who don't have a problem with it.

 

[Rolyo85]

Why is it a problem for you? What's the maximum umber of past sexual partners allowed?

 

[Laufey]

It's simply prejudges that a person who has had multiple sex partners is less romantic and less likely to have a committing long term relationship.

I have regular one night stands simply because I have a high sex drive and I'm single. It does NOT mean it's a lifestyle I prefer over a monogamous loving relationship.

 

[JustMe5]

Why is it a problem for you? What's the maximum umber of past sexual partners allowed?

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?

 

[Rolyo85]

I have regular one night stands simply because I have a high sex drive and I'm single. It does NOT mean it's a lifestyle I prefer over a monogamous loving relationship.

Dat truth. I'm exactly the same.