Why are gay guys so promiscuous?

[bankside]

To put my point above in more musical terms, the lyrics of the song are:

I want to fuck you like an animal
I want to feel you from the inside

But a certain sect of feminists like to believe the lyrics are:

I am about to fuck you like an animal
I'm going to feel you from the inside whether you agree or not because I am a man and That's How Men Are™
(Song degenerates into men shouting "Arrrr arrrr arrrr" like Tim Allen in Home Improvement.)

[TheSpectatingLoner]

Hm. So rage-y.

Men aren't entitled to have sexual access to women's bodies just because they want to 'get some.' You make it sound like these men are being denied something that is owed to them when they're not. If they choose to pursue a woman, they can either respect the terms she sets out or they can move on to someone who is more compatible. And vice versa. Choosing not to be promiscuous (or wanting a potential sexual partner to persuade you in some fashion) does not warrant being called derogatory names.

As for the women who are interested in NSA sex but show some reluctance, you might want to consider how the level of 'slut-shaming' that exists in our society plays in to this. Especially since women are the primary targets of it, even from the men they choose to sleep with in many cases.

Quoted for truth. Let these fools know.






As for the question, it's a slap in the face to gay men who aren't promiscuous to ask questions like these. Personally, I'm promiscuous because I have absolutely no time or desire to search endlessly for someone to fall in love with, and I'm not going to fake it with someone just so I can bust a nut.

[FlimFlam]

Quoted for truth. Let these fools know.






As for the question, it's a slap in the face to gay men who aren't promiscuous to ask questions like these. Personally, I'm promiscuous because I have absolutely no time or desire to search endlessly for someone to fall in love with, and I'm not going to fake it with someone just so I can bust a nut.

And those are the only two scenarios?

[xbuzzerx]

Then why the big push for marriage equality if gay men seldom want it?

Because as things like joint property and medical considerations and the sharing of money become pertinent in a relationship, even guys who may not necessarily have had the wedding chapel in their eyes at 22 may want to legalize their relationship at 32 or 42 or 52, and should have every equal right to do so. Some straight people never wanting to get married (my sister is in that camp) should still have access to the same rights should she ever choose to do so.

Oh, I thought it was because of love and commitment. My bad, I guess.

Sixthson I have bad news. Marriage 500 years ago was a contract. Marriage today is still a contract. You do not need a marriage for "love and commitment."

[Adrock-JD]

It's in our jeans.

[eastofeden]

Because as things like joint property and medical considerations and the sharing of money become pertinent in a relationship, even guys who may not necessarily have had the wedding chapel in their eyes at 22 may want to legalize their relationship at 32 or 42 or 52, and should have every equal right to do so. Some straight people never wanting to get married (my sister is in that camp) should still have access to the same rights should she ever choose to do so.

Marriage 500 years ago was a contract. Marriage today is still a contract. You do not need a marriage for "love and commitment."

YES! I think the main reason I will not consider "marriage" is because nearly everyone has endlessly tried to define it and the last thing I would want to do is embrace such an oppressive institution. For me marriage IS a contract and defining my relationship within that contract is my business and no one else's.

Sadly...it turns out that many gay men are as much marriage mafia material as so many of the straight counterparts and some of them sound exactly like the moral majority of the 70s...judging other people's relationships as worthy or not...UGH.

[sixthson]

Sixthson I have bad news. Marriage 500 years ago was a contract. Marriage today is still a contract. You do not need a marriage for "love and commitment."

Thank you for enlightening me.

[Rolyo85]

Thank you for enlightening me.

You seemed like you needed it. Love and commitment are a great thing for marriage, but they don't need marriage to exist and marriage doesn't need them to exist.

[eastofeden]

So I'm familiar with the general observance that many men have a high sex drive. It's amazing though how many people out there don't even seem to be interested in relationships. I've kind of re-entered the looking around market and am really looking for a relationship. I've never really had a whore phase and don't intend to. I'm the type that could easily be happy cuddling and kissing with a partner all day rather than having sex every 5 minutes.

However, it seems like everyone I talk to, whether it be from gay apps like Grindr or Growlr (granted promiscuity is almost a given on these things), in real life, or from dating websites, it seems like just about everyone just wants a hookup. I've even seen a surprisingly high number of people in open relationships looking to have random sex (something I can't even start to comprehend how it could possibly work in the long run.)

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?

I was promiscuous as hell...been with over 500 but under 1000 guys...and my problem was staying OUT OF relationships. I couldn't outrun them though and have been with the same man for almost 27 years....so it isn't an either/or for me. I am also really happy about my "whore days"...no hand wringing or sorrow.

I am wondering if you know where the bridge is between promiscuity and relationships because if you find it you might have alot better luck.

The key IMO is to avoid "church lady syndrome". Church Ladies like to get together and talk about the things they wouldn't do and how they are above it all...and are slightly more moral and infinitely more "correct" than "the others". Their relationships and desires are "pure and holy" while they tsk tsk or condemn the people who are not like them as somehow lesser beings.

Just an FYI...I can think of 20 gay couples off the top of my head I personally know that have been together 20-40 years and they are all committed in their relationships...and lots of them were whores once upon a time.

[Ryuukie]

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.

[xbuzzerx]

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.

This, this, this. I've never found one while looking for one. People who are all over hookup aps and such every night are less likely to find one than someone who wasn't looking. At least that's been my overwhelming experience.

[Huntneo(PT)]

^ gotta chime in and agree with this ^^ as well.

lol and funny enough, it was when I decided I was 'through with dating' that I actually met the man I settled down with.

life is cute.

[TheSpectatingLoner]

And those are the only two scenarios?

When you're as horny as I am, yes.

[kayman23]

Yes, we live in a world where women are sometimes pathologised simply for exercising their right to autonomy and consent. Yes, we live in a world where the enthusiastic consent of women is sometimes stigmatised. No, women do not have a duty to "lie back and think of England."

But the post you were responding to was not at odds with any of that: that post is primarily a charge of hypocrisy.

We live in a world where sometimes women who want to have consensual sex shame men who want to have consensual sex by portraying them as out-of-control rape-y misogynists who can't manage their own sexuality.

And that charge is valid. It is the way in which slut-shaming of men is conducted.

And how often does that happen? I've seen more slut-shaming conducted by men to other men, particularly with men-whom-sleep-with-other-men (MSM), than women that does such to men. Take a gander at any personal ads on some hook up or gay social media sites personal sections, and read some of these profiles on those type of sites.

As matter of fact, patriarchal hold on westernized society makes it very difficult (almost damn near impossible) for misandry versus misogyny (which has even shown its present on this board).

[kayman23]

Quoted for truth. Let these fools know.






As for the question, it's a slap in the face to gay men who aren't promiscuous to ask questions like these. Personally, I'm promiscuous because I have absolutely no time or desire to search endlessly for someone to fall in love with, and I'm not going to fake it with someone just so I can bust a nut.

Well, I hope you enjoy having to go to the "happy clinic" multiple times a year for your regular "clearance". That shit got old real quickly...

[eastofeden]

And how often does that happen? I've seen more slut-shaming conducted by men to other men, particularly with men-whom-sleep-with-other-men (MSM), than women that does such to men.

Wow! I had never heard the term "slut shaming" before but that is the main underlying reason I left the last and only gay board I was on (plus one of the loudest slut shamers was creepy as hell) and why I was reluctant to join another one but since this one has porn there is much less of it here.

When I worked in a gay bar I would avoid the slut shamers because there is usually so much other crap that goes along with that mindset (control freaks from hell is what I used to call them)

[Telstra]

Because it is not "normal" to get married.
That is why.


I wonder how many % of gays are married and how many are single.

[blackbeltninja]

You seemed like you needed it. Love and commitment are a great thing for marriage, but they don't need marriage to exist and marriage doesn't need them to exist.

Because as things like joint property and medical considerations and the sharing of money become pertinent in a relationship.

Marriage 500 years ago was a contract. Marriage today is still a contract. You do not need a marriage for "love and commitment."

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-

[kayman23]

Because it is not "normal" to get married.
That is why.


I wonder how many % of gays are married and how many are single.

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.

[bankside]

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-

Yup. All of the above.

[Adrock-JD]

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.

[xbuzzerx]

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-

Yup. All of the above.

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?

[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? O.o

[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? O.o

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.

[Huntneo(PT)]

and/or their dick fell off.

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

[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.

[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.