Why are gay guys so promiscuous?

[eastofeden]

lol so you are judgmental for people you perceive as being judgmental. Anyway, you're partnered? So looks like you're fine.

Yeah...you could say that. That sounds alot like the Christians who feel "judged" by gays after condemning gays....

...and I would be "fine" even if I wasn't partnered.

[TheSpectatingLoner]

Yeah...you could say that. That sounds alot like the Christians who feel "judged" by gays after condemning gays....

...and I would be "fine" even if I wasn't partnered.

Or even worse. "Bullied."

[Rolyo85]

I'm sure you will find someone who doesn't care. However I don't like how people who don't agree with that lifestyle are labeled as puritans with fucked up views.
We're not all the same just as those who have tons of partners are not all hedonists with no self control.

From my perspective, I prefer those who do not have a pattern of serial promiscuity. It's not based on any Christian influence or fucked up view of the human body. It just often weeds out a few qualities that I personally don't click with. It's just a personal preference.

Notice that I'm not calling you a bigot, but you are mirroring EXACTLY the anti-gay-marriage crowd's line of thought: "Don't call me a bigot just because I don't think you should be able to marry".

Your "agreement" with our lifestyle is neither required, nor asked for. What is very glaringly obviously lacking however, is respect for it. Sex is a personal, private thing, and as long as I am not endangering your health, I think you owe me the same amount of respect for my choices that I give you - which is a lot.

By the way, sorry to Christianize your opinion again, but the "few qualities" argument is again tied to sex-guilt. Not that you aren't right in expecting those qualities to be more often associated with a promiscuous person, but you subconsciously equate them with promiscuity, when they aren't necessarily tied to it.

[Rolyo85]

Sex and integrity intrigue me. I love a man with self respect, but I don't believe having multiple sex partners means loss of integrity. I can't say I feel the same for porn stars, strippers, and etc unfortunately.

I disagree with the notion that sleeping with multiple guys prevents you from giving something special to your partner. You can hook up with anyone, but you cannot love just anyone. There is such a vast difference between hooking up and committing to a relationship. What is given in a relationship does not equate to what is given (or received) in a hook up.

I've done one night stands and have done the fuck buddy scenario. I'm over it now because people are bat fuck insane. When I was in a relationship I don't lust to do it again with these people nor do I want to. Some guys can easily shift between man hoe while single to an amazing boyfriend. Some guys can't and create secret grindr accounts. It is important to know the difference

Dat truth.

I am an amazing boyfriend btw ^_^

[eastofeden]

Or even worse. "Bullied."

Oh yeah...bullies feeling bullied...my favorites

[Rolyo85]

I'm sure there are guys who will reject you for a relationship based solely on your sexual history, having nothing to do with religion.
They might fear your inability to stop having multiple sex partners. And for all you know, you may not be able to stop it. Just because you say you can, doesn't make it so. People reject others for all kinds of reason, sexual history being just one possible reason. Choices in life have consequences.
People keep telling others not to judge them for their sexual pasts, but then they do it to those who have limited sexual experience by calling them puritans.

If the sexual history is a factor, that IS based on religion.

Also, both me, and I assume Laufey, have had boyfriends. We KNOW that "we can stop having multiple sex partners". Your less than subtle implication that it's some sort of addiction or disorder, is completely out of line.

And sorry, but to me the puritan crowd getting offended by being called out is like the 'phobes getting offended when gays call them bigots. Calling out bigotry is not itself bigotry.

If promiscuity is not for you, then it's your choice and nobody's damn business. But if you will judge me for being promiscuous, then you're a puritan and a bigot. It's a simple distinction.

[JustMe5]

A form of slut-shaming throughout history that's always used against women, against gay men, yet suspiciously never heterosexual males.

Since you mentioned women, picture a woman having had hundreds of different male sex partners. Wouldn't that look absolutely horrible? What man in his right mind would want her after all of that??? So why is it considered acceptable here for a gay man to do it?

And I definitely think that sexual addiction is a big reason for some or perhaps many cases of gay promiscuity. An addiction often goes unrecognized by those who have it.

[sixthson]

^^You might want to start reading what people say instead of reading things between the lines that are not there.

[eastofeden]

Since you mentioned women, picture a woman having had hundreds of different male sex partners. Wouldn't that look absolutely horrible? What man in his right mind would want her after all of that??? So why is it considered acceptable here for a gay man to do it?

And I definitely think that sexual addiction is a big reason for some or perhaps many cases of gay promiscuity. An addiction often goes unrecognized by those who have it.

NOT AT ALL

...isn't it bad enough you are slut shaming?...now anyone who wants them is not in their right mind? You have the problem. You have Baptist Ladies Syndrome.

[eastofeden]

if the sexual history is a factor, that is based on religion.

Also, both me, and i assume laufey, have had boyfriends. We know that "we can stop having multiple sex partners". Your less than subtle implication that it's some sort of addiction or disorder, is completely out of line.

And sorry, but to me the puritan crowd getting offended by being called out is like the 'phobes getting offended when gays call them bigots. Calling out bigotry is not itself bigotry.

If promiscuity is not for you, then it's your choice and nobody's damn business. But if you will judge me for being promiscuous, then you're a puritan and a bigot. It's a simple distinction.

^^^qft^^^

[JustMe5]

NOT AT ALL

...isn't it bad enough you are slut shaming?...now anyone who wants them is not in their right mind? You have the problem. You have Baptist Ladies Syndrome.

Please. It's quite ridiculous how you and Rolyo85 are trying to turn this around on what you call "puritans". In fact, you're the ones throwing around different terms to describe us: puritans, bigots, Baptist Ladies Syndrome. Whereas I didn't call anyone here any names.

[Rolyo85]

Since you mentioned women, picture a woman having had hundreds of different male sex partners. Wouldn't that look absolutely horrible? What man in his right mind would want her after all of that??? So why is it considered acceptable here for a gay man to do it?

And I definitely think that sexual addiction is a big reason for some or perhaps many cases of gay promiscuity. An addiction often goes unrecognized by those who have it.

You keep posting under the delusion that somehow your worldview - of women or gay men - is universally valid and we're just trying to make excuses for a degrading behavior. You are incorrect. Start reading the posts you respond to, before you respond them. You're repeating yourself in an annoying way that shows you simply aren't paying attention.

[Rolyo85]

Please. It's quite ridiculous how you and Rolyo85 are trying to turn this around on what you call "puritans". In fact, you're the ones throwing around different terms to describe us: puritans, bigots, Baptist Ladies Syndrome. Whereas I didn't call anyone here any names.

I could give two fucks whether you've used direct insults, when your entire stance implies I'm a disease-ridden sex-addicted whore with denial syndrome who is incapable of love or commitment, and would be a source of shame and disgust for anyone who would be demented enough to even consider dating me.

Bigots often try to play the victim card when called bigots. I am sorry, my dear, but you are up for elimination.

[JustMe5]

You keep posting under the delusion that somehow your worldview - of women or gay men - is universally valid and we're just trying to make excuses for a degrading behavior. You are incorrect. Start reading the posts you respond to, before you respond them. You're repeating yourself in an annoying way that shows you simply aren't paying attention.

This coming from someone who thinks he can speak for everyone:

If the sexual history is a factor, that IS based on religion.

[Huntneo(PT)]

I am sorry, my dear, but you are up for elimination.

You are definitely not my favorite person on this forum...but you get cool points for using that line.

[Laufey]

I'm sure you will find someone who doesn't care. However I don't like how people who don't agree with that lifestyle are labeled as puritans with fucked up views.
We're not all the same just as those who have tons of partners are not all hedonists with no self control.

From my perspective, I prefer those who do not have a pattern of serial promiscuity. It's not based on any Christian influence or fucked up view of the human body. It just often weeds out a few qualities that I personally don't click with. It's just a personal preference.

You having it as a personal preference for yourself does not bother me one bit. It being a deal breaker for a relationship however does.

I'd never rule someone out because they have slept with few people.

See the difference?

[Nishin]

Since you mentioned women, picture a woman having had hundreds of different male sex partners. Wouldn't that look absolutely horrible?

No ... why should it?

What man in his right mind would want her after all of that???

A man in love?

So why is it considered acceptable here for a gay man to do it?

Why consider it unacceptable for anyone? What exactly is wrong with enjoying sexual pleasure?

[Laufey]

I'm not saying the religious view of that person must be the reason for his view. I'm saying Christianity has influences the western culture so much that is the biggest root to people seeing promiscuity as something dirty. The cultural impact can effect peoples morals even if they aren't Christians/religious.

I would never use the term "puritan" to describe someone with few or no sexual partners. I have, however, described the lowered estimation of one's worth as a human based on their sexual history as a "puritan belief."

Same here.

I don't label someone a puritant just for having few sexual partners. I do however when that person is preaching on a high horse and sees me as someone less fit to be in a relationship just because of my sexual history.

[eastofeden]

This coming from someone who thinks he can speak for everyone:

I dunno...about 85% of the time across the board he pretty much speaks for me. That rarely happens in my life so it surprises me when it does.

I don't remember him ever saying he thinks he speaks for anyone but himself. Can you show me where he said he thinks he speaks for anyone else but himself...much less "everyone"? I do remember other people saying that about him when they were trying to attack the messenger and ignore the message.

[Rolyo85]

You are definitely not my favorite person on this forum...but you get cool points for using that line.

I grow on you with time ^_^

[DigitalFudge]

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.

Ok, me as well...

Right in the feels.


Ugh, just as I was going to agree to a fuckbuddy thing with this dude that's been on my jock, too. A mess, back to the struggle I guess.


At least my risk for HPV and Syphilis has been lowered

[FlimFlam]

Notice that I'm not calling you a bigot, but you are mirroring EXACTLY the anti-gay-marriage crowd's line of thought: "Don't call me a bigot just because I don't think you should be able to marry".

Your "agreement" with our lifestyle is neither required, nor asked for. What is very glaringly obviously lacking however, is respect for it. Sex is a personal, private thing, and as long as I am not endangering your health, I think you owe me the same amount of respect for my choices that I give you - which is a lot.

By the way, sorry to Christianize your opinion again, but the "few qualities" argument is again tied to sex-guilt. Not that you aren't right in expecting those qualities to be more often associated with a promiscuous person, but you subconsciously equate them with promiscuity, when they aren't necessarily tied to it.

Your pattern of painting other people is laughable. Sex-guilt? I have had tons of sex but a lot of it was with a small number of people. I have a very high sex drive. I have friends that "slut it up" and I don't judge anyone. I, myself, have had my fair share of partners.

What's hilarious is how you talk like you know everything when reading your posts, it's obvious your experience in the world, especially gay life, isn't enough to justify that attitude. And the analogy to anti-marriage bigots is a reach not worth mentioning.

I don't care how much sex you have or how many partners. However, I can't have tons of sex with tons of different partners. To me, it's old, it's a waste of time and most importantly I cannot repeatedly have sex with people I do not know and do not care about. Sex to me is something intimate that is best shared with someone that means something to me. That is my PERSONAL view and feeling and when I pick someone to date, I would like the same. If I'm not dating or fucking you, I don't care AT ALL how many partners you have. Have fun while you can.

Now I would appreciate you not talking about me and my views like you actually know me. Because I have plenty of respect for your lifestyle, whatever that is. I talked about how I personally feel. I don't know anyone here personally so I'm not going to assume anything about anyone else.

[bankside]

I'm sure there are guys who will reject you for a relationship based solely on your sexual history, having nothing to do with religion.
They might fear your inability to stop having multiple sex partners. And for all you know, you may not be able to stop it. Just because you say you can, doesn't make it so. People reject others for all kinds of reason, sexual history being just one possible reason. Choices in life have consequences.
People keep telling others not to judge them for their sexual pasts, but then they do it to those who have limited sexual experience by calling them puritans.

Just in case your views are dismissed due to your faith somehow "tainting" your observations, I thought I should signal my agreement: you're making sense and I agree about the tediousness of being called a puritan.

Moreover:
Yes, love and lust are different things. Yes, I want both of them in the same way that I want both food and shelter. To me, they complement each other, and enrich each other when occuring simultaneously. Thus I not only want both, but I would forgo one without the other.

If someone else feels no loss from seeking only unalloyed lust, I hope they will have as much physical pleasure as I do in bed. But it is clear to me that if they want both, too much time spent fucking strangers puts love out of reach.

First of all, sportfucking is a time consuming pastime. If you spend every night at the cinema you will never get to the symphony. Similarly, time spent hooking up is time wasted on finding love. If you spend every night at the cinema, you might run into a symphony fan, but really? And if you spend every night at the cinema, will you have much to talk about when you finally meet the symphony fan of your dreams?

I would have serious doubts about anyone's basic level of skill and awareness and readiness for a relationship if they told me they had fucked a hundred strangers until I came along. The only thing that would make my heart sink faster is if they told me not to worry because "6 of those had been long term relationships. The other 94 were just when I was horny."

Six "long term relationships?" Don't make me laugh. The reason Elizabeth Taylor's history of marriages was such a joke is because everyone realised after the first 5 that she had no fucking clue what she was doing.

And the other 94 just show that someone has probably very little self control. There is a point where being free and open crosses the line to being desperate and unable to show any self discipline. Disciple is one of the great measures of masculinity, and it is sexy. We all get horny. The ability to decide, to set your will to something, all very sexy. When someone fucks a hundred strangers, it starts looking like they have no self control, which is a turn-off especially for someone who wants a relationship and realises what it takes to make it work.

Finally, when people sleep with dozens of strangers they are showing they really don't give a damn whether the people they sleep with have got a disease or not. Sure they might use a condom "most of the time" or "all the time" or "when appropriate" or whatever the personal ad says on the hookup site.

But nothing is foolproof. And I would not be willing to bring that level of risk into the bed of someone I actually love. The level of risk I would be willing to expose someone I love to is basically zero. So any sleeping around before I met him would have really cramped my style when I did meet him. It takes a long time after exposure for a test to show that a person is healthy. I just wouldn't want that hanging over the start of a relationship that could be important to me. Not worth it just for getting off.

[eastofeden]

Now I would appreciate you not talking about me and my views like you actually know me. Because I have plenty of respect for your lifestyle, whatever that is. I talked about how I personally feel. I don't know anyone here personally so I'm not going to assume anything about anyone else.

Seriously? YIKES!

Honestly? Because it matters. If you've had hundreds of partners.. what does that mean? That you can't stay with someone long? That you have an insatiable sexual appetite? That you do not care about the safety of your body?
There is SOMETHING amiss there. Now if you go through a phase early in your gay life where you were promiscuous I understand. However, serial promiscuity is just as bad as serial dating. Anything in excess is somewhat odd.

^^This is what YOU said. You also went on to describe people as hedonists with no self control. How can you say you don't "assume" anything?

[Adrock-JD]

Because it's raining men. Hallelujah.

[FlimFlam]

Seriously? YIKES!

Honestly? Because it matters. If you've had hundreds of partners.. what does that mean? That you can't stay with someone long? That you have an insatiable sexual appetite? That you do not care about the safety of your body?
There is SOMETHING amiss there. Now if you go through a phase early in your gay life where you were promiscuous I understand. However, serial promiscuity is just as bad as serial dating. Anything in excess is somewhat odd.

^^This is what YOU said. You also went on to describe people as hedonists with no self control. How can you say you don't "assume" anything?

Please show me where I described anyone as hedonists with self-control. Please! lol.

And I already clarified that what you just put in bold is what people often think when looking for a partner. I have no problem with anyone who is promiscuous for whatever reason.

[eastofeden]

Please show me where I described anyone as hedonists with self-control. Please! lol.

And I already clarified that what you just put in bold is what people often think when looking for a partner. I have no problem with anyone who is promiscuous for whatever reason.

WOW...read what you said...again....you said you don't assume anything...you obviously DO assume...alot....

You assumed something is amiss with someone who has a multitude of sexual partners...or that something is odd...and you are talking about me and alot of other people here. You are the one who is "odd" when you can't even comprehend what you have written.

We're not all the same just as those who have tons of partners are not all hedonists with no self control.

Your words. You assume that some people who have multiple partners are hedonists with no self control. And you know this...how? By assuming...alot.

[Rolyo85]

Please show me where I described anyone as hedonists with self-control. Please! lol.

And I already clarified that what you just put in bold is what people often think when looking for a partner. I have no problem with anyone who is promiscuous for whatever reason.

Well, my second paragraph was also not about you, but that didn't prevent you from taking it personally.

Seriously, some people's "I overcame my gay disadvantage and now I'm all about love and commitment" stance makes me think of "ex-gays"...

[njcollegekid]

seeing this thread for the first time.
i read somewhere that homosexual and bisexual men have higher average plasma testosterone levels than heterosexual males (sucking dick makes you more of a man, endocrinologically speaking, ). and the more T or DHT you give an animal, the more 'male-like' it behaves (more frequent self-urination in rams, more territorial activity in geckos, and higher instances of mounting - attempted sex). this holds true for intake males, castrated males, and females. so if more T means more attempts at sex, and if gay guys have more T, a=b b=c, gay guys should fuck more. while more frequent sex is still possible in a monogamous relationship, it means when you (or i, for that matter; ive been called a manwhore by several girls and one guy before) are between partners, you might be more likely to engage in casual sex.

but this whole logic of mine hinges on the T levels of gay/bisexual guys. and that is the one bit of science i mentioned that i do not have a primary source for. so it might be false.

[jmadaf]

To find a close relationship with anybody, you need a common intrest other than sex, a bonding agent, otherwise all tou want is a better fuck. Sts have making kids, so gays need a common hobby.

[bankside]

I assume that some most many people with a very long list of partners are hedonists with no self control. I don't always like hedonists. But when I do, I like them when they have self control.

[jmadaf]

I would love to fuck the blonde.

[eastofeden]

I assume that some most many people with a very long list of partners are hedonists with no self control. I don't always like hedonists. But when I do, I like them when they have self control.

Glad you own it.

[xbuzzerx]

I assume that some most many people with a very long list of partners are hedonists with no self control. I don't always like hedonists. But when I do, I like them when they have self control.

This statement could be turned right around on its face and we could say-- and it would be true-- that some probably not accurately measurable portion of men with low numbers of sex partners fall into one of these categories:

a) are uncomfortable with sex or their own sexuality
b) have some kind of psychological sex-guilt imposed by abstract concepts of Judeo-Christian morality in western societies
c) have low self esteem
d) are in the closet and have difficulty in finding partners

I can go on the net any day of the week and find tons of males of any and every sexual orientation who are either virgins or have had a miniscule number of clumsy, awkward sexual experiences-- to presume that all of these people are better-adjusted individuals with superior morals or superior self-control is absolutely ridiculous. I would feel more than safe in saying that most men I know of BOTH sexual orientations (gay and straight) who have a tiny number of sex partners are in that state involuntarily-- either because they cannot find many willing partners or are unattactive or socially impaired in some manner-- not because of some higher moral fiber in their character that dissuaded them from pursuing more.

[bankside]

Well yeah. I suppose it's more of an observation than an assumption. I take people as they come (heh) so I wouldn't assume that about an individual. But I think it is fair comment on promiscuous people overall. On the hole. (Heh)

[TheSpectatingLoner]

Oh God, another Bankside lecture. I can't.

Cliff notes version: I'm so happy in my one monogamous relationship that I assume and believe untrue things about people who have been in more than one or have had sex with more than one person.

[xbuzzerx]

Well yeah. I suppose it's more of an observation than an assumption. I take people as they come (heh) so I wouldn't assume that about an individual. But I think it is fair comment on promiscuous people overall. On the hole. (Heh)

I just think we could just as easily sit and have a discussion where we draw a line and say the people who stop eating just before they're full are normal, and the people who stop eating when they're stuffed are hedonists. But we don't care, because our Judeo Christian inspired sense of western morality hasn't imbued in us the sense that consumption modesty is as important morally as sexual modesty.

[Rolyo85]

This statement could be turned right around on its face and we could say-- and it would be true-- that some probably not accurately measurable portion of men with low numbers of sex partners fall into one of these categories:

a) are uncomfortable with sex or their own sexuality
b) have some kind of psychological sex-guilt imposed by abstract concepts of Judeo-Christian morality in western societies
c) have low self esteem
d) are in the closet and have difficulty in finding partners

I can go on the net any day of the week and find tons of males of any and every sexual orientation who are either virgins or have had a miniscule number of clumsy, awkward sexual experiences-- to presume that all of these people are better-adjusted individuals with superior morals or superior self-control is absolutely ridiculous. I would feel more than safe in saying that most men I know of BOTH sexual orientations (gay and straight) who have a tiny number of sex partners are in that state involuntarily-- either because they cannot find many willing partners or are unattactive or socially impaired in some manner-- not because of some higher moral fiber in their character that dissuaded them from pursuing more.

Omg so much truth!

[Laufey]

You know a lot of women lie about their number of partners (saying it's less) because people see it more so as a bad thing for them to have had many partners compared to men (kinda fucked up since most men have just sex with women).

Are we reaching the point of gay men doing the same?

(I won't though because I wouldn't be able to be with someone who doesn't let me be myself)

[tigerfan482]

I've slept with more than a 100 and to be honest it makes me really sad and frustrated that it's enough for people to label me as "not relationship material" like it somehow makes me a worse lover. Just because I can see love and sex as two separate things it does not mean I have any less love to give or don't want to settle down.

I just don't see a reason to hold back while I'm single. I'm a young male and I have urges to have sex on a regular basis. I would love to be in a loving relationship where I would always have sex with the same person but while I'm single I still need sex. Yes I've tried the whole friends with benefits thing but it has never worked for me longer than couple of months because it always ends up with me or the other guy developing romantic feelings (without getting it back).

And yes the view of a person being somehow less pure... more dirty... because he has had many sex partners... the roots of that in the western world is mostly from Christianity there is no doubt about that. It really has fucked up peoples view on the human body and sex.

Personally, I wouldn't dismiss someone as "not relationship material" simply because they had a sizable number of sex partners. However, it would mean that I would have to work a lot harder to keep the relationship going. The health part goes without saying of course (i.e. getting tested soon and regularly.) The worst part of it would be that it would mean trust would take a longer time to build. I would have to get over that voice in the back of my head asking things like "can he really turn it on and off just like that?", "will I measure up to the 100+ other guys he's been with?", and "is he really working late or does he have his secret Grindr account?" Granted, there are plenty of people out there who may never think that, but it's my thought process and so it's the perspective I have.

I would definitely attribute it to past relationships in which I got involved with a self-confessed "former" promiscuous person, failed to ask those types of questions OR did ask them and gave the guy the benefit of the doubt, and got burned in the end. If anything, I would say that my view of the situation isn't colored by Christianity, but by past experiences that have made me want to avoid being what it is that hurt me. Multiple experiences have shown me that guys who were promiscuous before they entered into the relationship tend to want to remain promiscuous in the relationship. It doesn't make me dismiss them as broken, immoral, or not dating material, but it does make me give extra pause and consideration to various behaviors they have during the relationship. One huge step towards building that trust with me that I find lacking (and what caused me to create this topic) was that it was hard to find a guy who didn't want to have sex on the first date/meeting/chance encounter/etc.

[Rolyo85]

So basically it's more about your insecurity and poor choice of dating prospects rather than the level of promiscuity?

[eastofeden]

Personally, I wouldn't dismiss someone as "not relationship material" simply because they had a sizable number of sex partners. However, it would mean that I would have to work a lot harder to keep the relationship going. The health part goes without saying of course (i.e. getting tested soon and regularly.) The worst part of it would be that it would mean trust would take a longer time to build. I would have to get over that voice in the back of my head asking things like "can he really turn it on and off just like that?", "will I measure up to the 100+ other guys he's been with?", and "is he really working late or does he have his secret Grindr account?" Granted, there are plenty of people out there who may never think that, but it's my thought process and so it's the perspective I have.

I would definitely attribute it to past relationships in which I got involved with a self-confessed "former" promiscuous person, failed to ask those types of questions OR did ask them and gave the guy the benefit of the doubt, and got burned in the end. If anything, I would say that my view of the situation isn't colored by Christianity, but by past experiences that have made me want to avoid being what it is that hurt me. Multiple experiences have shown me that guys who were promiscuous before they entered into the relationship tend to want to remain promiscuous in the relationship. It doesn't make me dismiss them as broken, immoral, or not dating material, but it does make me give extra pause and consideration to various behaviors they have during the relationship. One huge step towards building that trust with me that I find lacking (and what caused me to create this topic) was that it was hard to find a guy who didn't want to have sex on the first date/meeting/chance encounter/etc.

Funny thing...I had the opposite concern. I am bluntly honest with my partners and if they are at all "worried about me" it saves me some time because I have no room for insecure or jealous types and I will never promise fidelity to anyone anyway...I instead promise honesty. I had my share of critics but oddly enough...I have had a great monogamous 26+ year relationship that works very nicely and the critics....eh...not so much.

I used to try really hard to put my worst foot forward. You will never get a hallmark moment from me. I had lots of guys at any given time who wanted to date me (I worked in a gay bar...it comes with the territory) but I was the date from hell and I did it on purpose so I could weed out people who had zero empathy or didn't tune in to other people...I am not compatible at all with them and since so many people lie to themselves and each other initially I had to figure it out before wasting my time. I am definitely a free spirit and anyone who feels the needs to control other people is not for me.

When someone did want to date me I used to tell them we would have to fuck first because if we didn't fuck I wouldn't waste my time pretending to like them to get into bed with them.

I am quite proud of my life. I was true to myself...that is the definition of success in my mind.

[Rolyo85]

Haha, I never promise fidelity either, because I find the need to do it offensive. If i am officially with someone, fidelity is to be assumed, and anything else needs to be discussed.

But I definitely respect your bluntness. It seems to have worked out

[Laufey]

The worst part of it would be that it would mean trust would take a longer time to build. I would have to get over that voice in the back of my head asking things like "can he really turn it on and off just like that?", "will I measure up to the 100+ other guys he's been with?", and "is he really working late or does he have his secret Grindr account?" Granted, there are plenty of people out there who may never think that, but it's my thought process and so it's the perspective I have.

Well at least you are honest about your prejudices and insecurity.

You know on the other side there is also the people who cheat because they never had their wild era (especially people who get married young / have been long term with someone since their teen years/young adulthood). I'm not a fan of putting people in boxes and then judging them based on that so I try to stay away from this type of mindset. I hope someday you will too.

[Rolyo85]

Well at least you are honest about your prejudices and insecurity.

You know on the other side there is also the people who cheat because they never had their wild era (especially people who get married young / have been long term with someone since their teen years/young adulthood). I'm not a fan of putting people in boxes and then judging them based on that so I try to stay away from this type of mindset. I hope someday you will too.

Yeah, like Buzzer also pointed out, it's very easy to find serious negative stereotypes for the non-promiscuous types. Which is why we should be careful not to do that

[DigitalFudge]

This statement could be turned right around on its face and we could say-- and it would be true-- that some probably not accurately measurable portion of men with low numbers of sex partners fall into one of these categories:

a) are uncomfortable with sex or their own sexuality
b) have some kind of psychological sex-guilt imposed by abstract concepts of Judeo-Christian morality in western societies
c) have low self esteem
d) are in the closet and have difficulty in finding partners

Nnnnnnnn what kind of backfire.


This thread just keeps giving



What's wrong with having Christian values, though?


Have they ever lead us astray?

[Rolyo85]

Nnnnnnnn what kind of backfire.


This thread just keeps giving



What's wrong with having Christian values, though?


Have they ever lead us astray?

Haha, I SALTS'd at that

[tigerfan482]

Well at least you are honest about your prejudices and insecurity.

You know on the other side there is also the people who cheat because they never had their wild era (especially people who get married young / have been long term with someone since their teen years/young adulthood). I'm not a fan of putting people in boxes and then judging them based on that so I try to stay away from this type of mindset. I hope someday you will too.

And there are those who don't cheat and never have a wild era. There are people of all kinds out there.

And while you may not put people in boxes and judge them based on their sexual experience, you do put people in boxes and judge them on other criteria. Everyone judges others when it comes to something like a relationship which is based heavily on personal preference. So while I may use your history of who you have slept with when it comes to making relationship decisions, that's where it ends. If I met you on the street, I could give two shits about how many guys you've been with. When it comes to being friends with someone, again, I don't care what your background is in sexual activities. However, when it comes to a relationship, that's when that starts becoming a consideration. I think everyone in here has posted indicating that they have some prejudice(s) when it comes to relationships, so I don't see anything wrong with having those.

[bankside]

And there are those who don't cheat and never have a wild era. There are people of all kinds out there.

And while you may not put people in boxes and judge them based on their sexual experience, you do put people in boxes and judge them on other criteria. Everyone judges others when it comes to something like a relationship which is based heavily on personal preference. So while I may use your history of who you have slept with when it comes to making relationship decisions, that's where it ends. If I met you on the street, I could give two shits about how many guys you've been with. When it comes to being friends with someone, again, I don't care what your background is in sexual activities. However, when it comes to a relationship, that's when that starts becoming a consideration. I think everyone in here has posted indicating that they have some prejudice(s) when it comes to relationships, so I don't see anything wrong with having those.

Sometimes they're not "prejudices" though, but "assessments."

[Huntneo(PT)]

btw, have we all come to an 'agreement' on what qualifies as promiscuity?

I never considered myself myself as such during my single years...but I'm interested in hearing if I qualify(ied) or not...
I was kinda bad...