Why does it seem like most gay guys are sluts?

[navigaytion]

You were not that good.

Bitch, please. You'll never have it like this

again!

 

[Musik2400]

Indeed I was; I just neglected to put a caret in first.

One of the things that is being discussed here is "moral compass." I've always had a problem with that phrase when it is used by people whose morals I don't understand. You used the word "acceptable," saying that other people doing something doesn't make it acceptable -- a statement with which I agree -- but it begs the question "what does make something acceptable?" And to whom is it made acceptable? You? Me? The individuals involved? Society at large?

There's a lot of blather I hear about "moral relativism," which is generally used by moral absolutists who cannot actually defend or explain their morality, they chalk it up to tradition and writ; but it does raise the question of what makes an action moral or immoral, what relative factors are involved.

For example, killing is immoral, that's an absolute; but what about in war? What about in self defense? What about in defense of the defenseless? Is it still wrong? If not, then the morality of killing is relative to the situation.

And so with sexuality: you cannot say that having sex is wrong, so you start creating rules about when it's wrong and when it isn't. But not everyone agrees on those rules. So what is an acceptable sexual behavior? How much sex is okay and how much is slutty? Is it by how many partners you have? What kinds of relationships you have with those partners? And how are you to judge? And then, finally, what right have you to judge?

The OP mentioned this moral compass and prefaced it by calling himself a Christian; that makes me wonder where his compass came from, on what it is based, and whether it is an actual compass or just a prejudice. And you mentioned things being "acceptable" and I have to wonder, from other things of yours I've read, what makes something acceptable to you.

For me it's that it does no harm. If I'm not hurting you, or someone you think you need to protect, then it's none of your business what I do; the same goes for you... so long as you don't harm me or mine, or anybody else whose plight appeals to my sense of fairness, whatever you do is none of my concern.

Other people's sexual behavior, so long as they're not hurting anyone other than those who choose to be in the relationship with them, I can't imagine caring how many people you sleep with. If you're raping people, or damaging them maliciously, I have a problem; but if you're cheating on your spouse or fucking five thousand men a year, none of my concern.

Your thoughts?

I know this was not directed at me, but seeing as this goes right up the alley of my Ethics course last term, I would like to toss in my opinion on the matter.

You say that Moral Relativism is something used by moral absolutists who cannot defend their ideas.. but I disagree with this. Personally I believe Moral Absolutism to be a fantasy. it is nothing more than an idea we would like to believe is true. This is because you can never truly define an absolute in terms of morals. Their are too many factors which can change morality, such as location, culture, situation. Even time can have an effect on morality, and slowly affects the absolutes of morals.

Even inside the scope of Moral Absolutism, these absolutes have to come from somewhere. According to most philosophers these absolutes must be developed through habit. In the scope of society as a whole, the habits are the habits of everyone collectively. "Following the crowd" so to speak. This means that over time, these absolutes can change, making them un-absolute.

Now on the other side, according to Divine Command, these absolutes are put forth by God. In this case absolutism would work.. however I personally do not believe in an all powerful God, and so this theory doesn't really register much in my thinking.

Just my two cents

continue lol.

 

[navigaytion]

Indeed I was; I just neglected to put a caret in first.

One of the things that is being discussed here is "moral compass." I've always had a problem with that phrase when it is used by people whose morals I don't understand. You used the word "acceptable," saying that other people doing something doesn't make it acceptable -- a statement with which I agree -- but it begs the question "what does make something acceptable?" And to whom is it made acceptable? You? Me? The individuals involved? Society at large?

There's a lot of blather I hear about "moral relativism," which is generally used by moral absolutists who cannot actually defend or explain their morality, they chalk it up to tradition and writ; but it does raise the question of what makes an action moral or immoral, what relative factors are involved.

For example, killing is immoral, that's an absolute; but what about in war? What about in self defense? What about in defense of the defenseless? Is it still wrong? If not, then the morality of killing is relative to the situation.

And so with sexuality: you cannot say that having sex is wrong, so you start creating rules about when it's wrong and when it isn't. But not everyone agrees on those rules. So what is an acceptable sexual behavior? How much sex is okay and how much is slutty? Is it by how many partners you have? What kinds of relationships you have with those partners? And how are you to judge? And then, finally, what right have you to judge?

The OP mentioned this moral compass and prefaced it by calling himself a Christian; that makes me wonder where his compass came from, on what it is based, and whether it is an actual compass or just a prejudice. And you mentioned things being "acceptable" and I have to wonder, from other things of yours I've read, what makes something acceptable to you.

For me it's that it does no harm. If I'm not hurting you, or someone you think you need to protect, then it's none of your business what I do; the same goes for you... so long as you don't harm me or mine, or anybody else whose plight appeals to my sense of fairness, whatever you do is none of my concern.

Other people's sexual behavior, so long as they're not hurting anyone other than those who choose to be in the relationship with them, I can't imagine caring how many people you sleep with. If you're raping people, or damaging them maliciously, I have a problem; but if you're cheating on your spouse or fucking five thousand men a year, none of my concern.

Your thoughts?

I think the OP was trying to say that sex outside of monogamy is immoral. So sexuality is given its morality in a monogamous context, and any sex outside of an enduring monogamous relationship is immoral.

I don't know what's "acceptable" for everyone else. I only stressed that straight people and their sexual behavior should not be used to automatically justify anything that gay people do. I wasn't really making a statement on what's universally acceptable.

As for "loose" sexual behavior not hurting anyone, that is a very individual argument. In principle, it makes sense. But you could argue that sexual promiscuity, when it's supported and put on a pedestal by the (gay) masses and gay culture, hurts those who are relationship-oriented because it creates a culture dismissive of or indifferent to monogamous love, sex, and relationships as desirable ends.

 

[Musik2400]

As for "loose" sexual behavior not hurting anyone, that is a very individual argument. In principle, it makes sense. But you could argue that sexual promiscuity, when it's supported and put on a pedestal by the (gay) masses and gay culture, hurts those who are relationship-oriented because it creates a culture dismissive of or indifferent to monogamous love, sex, and relationships as desirable ends.

You could also argue that the propagation of these ideals and behaviour can also contribute to destruction of the community's health (and I suppose the economy by association). Granted people SHOULD know better, and practice safe sex, that does not change the fact that when it is socially acceptable to have multiple partners, there are higher chances/frequencies of infection, whether protection is used or not, as even a condom is not foolproof. Add in the number of people who may engage in this behaviour with little to no awareness of STD's, or with the "it won't happen to me" mindset, and it can quickly become harmful to others.

 

[rareboy]

Oh Christ in a cracker.

Has this site been infected with puritanism in order for a whole lot of guys to try and explain why they aren't getting any?

Firstly, sex outside of a committed relationship does not make anyone, gay or straight a slut. Sex is a great way to explore compatibility. Unlike the traditional Judeo/Islamist/Christian concept of heterosexual marriage based on tribalism and purity of bloodline where virginity was a culturally imposed virtue and it didn't matter a fuck if the couple were sexually compatible, we live in an age where women are not chattels and their purpose has moved beyond being considered as cumdumpsters for their lords and masters. Extending this argument, two men have none of these ridiculous conventions to be concerned about.

The only Mosaic law that applies is to not cheat on a partner.

Secondly, what is the big fucking problem with someone being a 'slut', or sexual libertine to use a more appropriate term?

The problem belongs to all the prissy, tight assed schoolmarms out there who think themselves to be spiritually and morally superior. Fine. Feel that way. But for the love of Christ, keep your thoughts on this to yourself, because Christ Himself certainly did.

You'd have to think that with the subjects that concerned Him and the fact that He was crucified for running off at the mouth about the things that really got His goat...if He'd had a big problem with sluts or homos for that matter, I've no doubt we would have heard from Him on the subject.

In fact, the reverse is true. He allowed a known 'slut' to wash His feet with perfume and chastised his disciples who whined about it.

Thirdly, there is nothing as offensive as ascribing morality to viruses and bewailing the destruction of community health because of sexual congress. Put your efforts and your money into helping to find a cure for opportunistic viruses.
Frankly, flu epidemics have killed more people than sex, so unless you think that humans should just seal themselves off from any interpersonal contact....accept that sex, like shaking hands, sometimes has consequences.

But also respect that AIDS is no longer a death sentence. Like syphilis and a host of other venereal diseases it will be conquered as well.

 

[DenimKnight]

Going onto a site that has porn, some of which is showing its own memebers aroused. Of course calling us sluts is easy. I would much rather be a slut than sexually repressed.

 

[SLOPPYSECONDS]

Going onto a site that has porn, some of which is showing its own memebers aroused. Of course calling us sluts is easy. I would much rather be a slut than sexually repressed.

yeahhhhh

hahaaaahaaaaa

ans folk keep writin novel everyday ta it ans rest threads folk spit out whateva questions

neva knew a sex was so wordy haaaa

6 suasuages fa lunch please extra extra laaaaarge
' sure ! '

 

[kallipolis]

Going onto a site that has porn, some of which is showing its own memebers aroused. Of course calling us sluts is easy. I would much rather be a slut than sexually repressed.

Our option need not be one, or the other.

Many of us are able to enjoy a loving relationship, combined with a healthy sexual life which avoids the risks attached to promiscuous sex when our health is easily compromised.

That this site also offers its members the opportunity to view pornographic images is hardly evidence that its membership is by association filled with sluts.

 

[MMMonsterBoy]

science does not agree that men are sluts. it is actually a highly contentious and disputed assertion, with evidence saying that men are sluts, men are not sluts, women are sluts, women are not sluts.

however some certainly are, regardless of orientation.

if it seems like most gay guys are sluts, i think you should really compare to the straight guys too, who never shut up about it.

i think there can be a certain amount of healthy adventurousness in a man's sex life that means he might end up with more than one partner in his lifetime, which is far better than a lifetime of repression or denial or fear of sexuality.

however that is different from a lack of self-control or a certain kind of desperation that drives some men to fuck anything that moves. and i'm happy to sit on my high horse in judgement of both of those things. the first adventurous man i approve of. the second, desperate man who cloaks his insecurities in lust, something between pity and scorn.

as in all things, a happy medium is usually....happy...

Couldn't agree with all of this more

 

[MoltenRock III]

Oh Christ in a cracker.

Has this site been infected with puritanism in order for a whole lot of guys to try and explain why they aren't getting any?

No kidding. I think a lot of it is still the underlying "programming" of religion some homos grew up with. They've been taught that sex is evil, naughty, and responsible for all of man's ills. The church needs to exert control via guilt manifesting itself by failing to follow impossible rules, ie... masturbation is dirty, premarital sex is an abomination. This is the biggest affront to god IMO, if one believes in a "god" of a tribal judeo-christian flavor.

How many times do Puritanical practices need to be exposed as frauds before people stop engaging in them? Watching homos grasp onto the "if it feels good it must be evil" is sickening. If one believes in a kind, generous god why wouldn't he/she want us to explore our sexuality, our bodies, and other's bodies in love, friendship, and communion?

 

[innocentbychoice]

Most guys (gay or straight) are sluts...It's called testosterone.

The difference is that gay guys can find other guys who are just like them and therefore possibilities of having sex are everywhere, while straight guys have to deal with women, who would rather pose as princesses and not prostitutes.

 

[Solid Gold]

In the mid eighties after having slept with well over 300 women I came to the realization I was attracted to men more. In high school and college I was a hot commodity because I was class president and also appeared in Playgirl. So what?
Was it fun...hell yeah!

Forward to 1992...found out my older brother who was always distant from the rest of us was also gay and had A.I.D.S. He was very slutty in a big city and cried like a baby when I told him about myself. Took his advice that sleeping with men was different than women...find a good one first and keep him. I didn't listen at first and had quite a few rounds ...then I witness him die a slow agonizing death that literally killed my father 3 months after he died..

Was in a relationship with the same guy for 18 years only to end with him being a freaking pedophile blamed on his childhood.

Now at 50 Iam happy to be alive and quite content with friends, family,co-workers and last but not least...J.U.B.

For you younger guys some advice, make sure you know who you're hooking up with and their past,trust your instincts,never hook up after drinking, and have fun learning all that you really are and can be.

 

[SLOPPYSECONDS]

Most guys (gay or straight) are sluts...It's called testosterone.

The difference is that gay guys can find other guys who are just like them and therefore possibilities of having sex are everywhere, while straight guys have to deal with women, who would rather pose as princesses and not prostitutes.

methinks gons figure why many country ecomonics folkys no cans add up

thankyou

 

[bulge]

Imagine a thread on a str8 forum titled "Why does it seem most str8 guys are sluts?"

The guy opening such post on a str8 forum is banned. Period.

 

[ShihTzuTylenol]

Alright, I'm going to preface this with a little about myself so you all will know where I'm coming from. I grew up in a Christian home, went a Christian school, and still very much consider myself to be a Christian.

So I met a guy back in October of last year, and managed to keep things under wraps until January, when I came out to my friends. Since then I've been hanging out a lot with friends of the guy I met.
The thing that gets me about 90% of the people that I meet is that it seems like they have no moral compass whatsoever; like the whole 'gay' thing is just a meat market to them.

It seems like all the gay guys I meet are duchebags that run around and sleep with whomever; some of them while they're in a relationship or are talking to someone. It just seems like there are never any guys that have a conscience (for lack of a better word), like myself.

pancuronium? is that Italian? you write beautifully...do you type here often? we oughta get on the webcam and I can show you my package...**tosses red M&M in the air/catches it on tongue**...of M&M's chocolate candies

Bitch, please. You'll never have it like this

again!

is that margret cho? why would anyone be kissing on margret cho? eeew

 

[SLOPPYSECONDS]

oil pump no care folk agree or disagree da oil run out ans it fucked

ha

 

[innocentbychoice]

^WTF? Trolling.

 

[elGeniuoso1721]

For you younger guys some advice, make sure you know who you're hooking up with and their past,trust your instincts,never hook up after drinking, and have fun learning all that you really are and can be.

Great advice!!!

 

[MMMonsterBoy]

I'm not sure I like notion that gay men sleep around a lot because we're just 'being men.' That could imply that females who sleep around are out of nature, and therefore 'sluts.' Some of you talk about this double standard, but play right into it. Not saying those of who do are doing this intentionally, just something I've noticed...

If you get around, you get around. Male, female, straight, gay, Christian, or whatever.

 

[Nomenclature]

Because guys love sex. Women control how often guys have sex, and are shamed for having it too often, but there's no such thing with men. Straight men probably be sluts, too if women were willing to go on hook-up lines, use gloryholes etc.