Gay and UnGay Promiscuity

[Lordpendragon]

I am intrigued by the nature of objectifying sex.

I have felt that even on what was known and appreciated as a one off thing that I have been able to give my heart and soul to the passion as much as dare I say to a long term GF - this isn't supposed to be the case but it has been for me.

I will also share another experience, though it is very personal.

When I was at University, after a dinner (the ones where you pretend to be grown ups), I had had too much to drink and was back in my room half asleep. Another student (woman) came in, did not turn the lights on, stripped, got me ready, mounted me and shagged my and her brains out, dressed and left.

Not a word was spoken and it was never mentioned.

Now I realise why I have gone back to college.

 

[fortiesfun]

If you want the opinion of an uninformed redneck on the original question then read on.

I did. I am, as always, struck with how much you, Dolf, crammed into that short post and its thoughtfulness. It was truly intriguing.

 

[tygrrr]

(..) it seems that gay guys have far more opportunity for promiscuity.

Is this correct or just a myth?

Is it because guys have the same sexuality as each other? No issues of the dreaded "Slut" label.

Is it that we can deal with sex on an objective level better?

If I may be allowed to be blunt: the way I see it, men are men and men are sluts - at least at a basic level - this goes for gay and ungay alike.
(By this, I don't mean that all men are sluts all the time, or that there are no exceptions to this 'rule'.)
I think this has to do with the positive connotiations to the 'virile male' - men are most often brought up to be sexually aggressive - it is, to a degree, expected behavior in a male.
(I am not entirely ok with the word 'slut', but it works well for this particular discussion and I'll use it again in this post... If someone comes up with a better term, I'll gladly apply it.)
Gay men naturally are quite conscious about both their own and others mens sexuality - and the possibilities for 'objectified sex' are always there (at least for one that lives in a larger city). I guess a true male slut could be defined as one that has sex with several different anonymous people several times a day :biggrin1:

For myself, I had tired of the seeming unlimited availability of emotionally detached sex already by my early and mid twenties, and I'm not sure that I had (or have) more sex than I would have had if I had only been interested in women - though I have most likely had lots more objectified sex than if that had been the case...
I certainly like to know that sex is 'available', but I much prefer the sex I have when I am also emotionally involved and in a steady relationship.
That said, I am also intrigued by the nature of objectifying sex however - I have always continued to explore it - and I certainly feel enriched by many those experiences.

Some men are of course more naturally shy than naturally 'slutty'... One childhood friend of mine - also gay - appears to only have been with his two successive partners. Among all of my acquaintances everywhere, he seems to be quite rare indeed.
I'd like to add that I don't think it's less natural for a gay male couple to be monogamous in a relationship than for an ungay (I'm starting to get used to that expression - almost weird! :tongue: ) couple - but I think that since the modern gay movement appeared more or less simultaneously with the 'sexual revolution' this has brought a particular flavour to the nature of gay relationships in the world of today.

About 'sluttiness': It's such an obsolete expression by now (look at the e.g. the fashion industry; the t-shirt slogans etc. etc. I've seen kids just barely into their teens wearing t-shirts saying 'Porn Star'...) What next? Is it gonna be: 'Slutty is the new modest.' ?? On second thought, we're probably way past that stage by now even... - I am able to use the term slut when it comes to men because it then has a humorous flavour as well - but I never apply it to women unless it's clearly meant as a joke.
Things have been changing dramatically since the days of 'make love, not war' (that slogan almost sounds like a bit prudish and sort of 'Victorian' statement by now) - and with the newest generation especially. My impression is that these days opportunities for promiscuity are ample whatever your sexual preference is.

 

[D_Harvey Schmeckel]

Hey,

I'm in my third LTR with a man and have observed male horndoginess in all variations. The standard study of male partners found that after a year or two almost all male couples had to deal with the urge to find novelty with other sex partners. In one scenario, they are faithful but tension builds up that leads to a breakup over jealousy. With another arrangement, sex outside the relationship starts early and leads to a breakup over jealousy. Have been in both situations; what I'm aiming for this time around is to use outside sex to strengthen the relationship rather than weaken it. (Playing together IOW.) Some straight couples manage this but I think it's more rare than with male couples. As for lesbians, I gather that most are more monogamous than straights even.

With straight couples the urge to try out a new sex partner leads either to deception or heartbreak, so many straights of either sex miss out on the fun that gays find more easily. Some of us, at least, don't lie to one another or get our hearts broken, but just accept that novelty is an inherent part of sexual attraction.

My guess is that the differences between gays and straights in terms of sexual experience will likely lessen over time.

 

[Gisella]

If I may be allowed to be blunt: the way I see it, men are men and men are sluts - at least at a basic level - this goes for gay and ungay alike.
(By this, I don't mean that all men are sluts all the time, or that there are no exceptions to this 'rule'.)
I think this has to do with the positive connotiations to the 'virile male' - men are most often brought up to be sexually aggressive - it is, to a degree, expected behavior in a male.
(I am not entirely ok with the word 'slut', but it works well for this particular discussion and I'll use it again in this post... If someone comes up with a better term, I'll gladly apply it.)
Gay men naturally are quite conscious about both their own and others mens sexuality - and the possibilities for 'objectified sex' are always there (at least for one that lives in a larger city). I guess a true male slut could be defined as one that has sex with several different anonymous people several times a day :biggrin1:

For myself, I had tired of the seeming unlimited availability of emotionally detached sex already by my early and mid twenties, and I'm not sure that I had (or have) more sex than I would have had if I had only been interested in women - though I have most likely had lots more objectified sex than if that had been the case...
I certainly like to know that sex is 'available', but I much prefer the sex I have when I am also emotionally involved and in a steady relationship.
That said, I am also intrigued by the nature of objectifying sex however - I have always continued to explore it - and I certainly feel enriched by many those experiences.

Some men are of course more naturally shy than naturally 'slutty'... One childhood friend of mine - also gay - appears to only have been with his two successive partners. Among all of my acquaintances everywhere, he seems to be quite rare indeed.
I'd like to add that I don't think it's less natural for a gay male couple to be monogamous in a relationship than for an ungay (I'm starting to get used to that expression - almost weird! :tongue: ) couple - but I think that since the modern gay movement appeared more or less simultaneously with the 'sexual revolution' this has brought a particular flavour to the nature of gay relationships in the world of today.

About 'sluttiness': It's such an obsolete expression by now (look at the e.g. the fashion industry; the t-shirt slogans etc. etc. I've seen kids just barely into their teens wearing t-shirts saying 'Porn Star'...) What next? Is it gonna be: 'Slutty is the new modest.' ?? On second thought, we're probably way past that stage by now even... - I am able to use the term slut when it comes to men because it then has a humorous flavour as well - but I never apply it to women unless it's clearly meant as a joke.
Things have been changing dramatically since the days of 'make love, not war' (that slogan almost sounds like a bit prudish and sort of 'Victorian' statement by now) - and with the newest generation especially. My impression is that these days opportunities for promiscuity are ample whatever your sexual preference is.

"I guess a true male slut could be defined as one that has sex with several different anonymous people several times a day :biggrin1: "

Tygrrrr...I have few questions if you dont mind:

How to find several people in a day to engage in anonymous sex? There is a place to find them so fast? And how long does the sex takes and what kind of sex ?

 

[Lordpendragon]

If I may be allowed to be blunt: the way I see it, men are men and men are sluts - at least at a basic level - this goes for gay and ungay alike.

I haven't even read the rest of your post Tygrrr, but I have come to the same conclusion.

What I am slightly embarassed about is why I should even have thought that my sexuality should be any different from yours even though the objects of our individual desires may be different.

I wonder why I would have thought that and whether any gay guys might like to admit that they think that the nature of their desire should be any different to mine.

 

[tygrrr]

"I guess a true male slut could be defined as one that has sex with several different anonymous people several times a day :biggrin1: "

Tygrrrr...I have few questions if you dont mind:

How to find several people in a day to engage in anonymous sex? There is a place to find them so fast? And how long does the sex takes and what kind of sex ?

Ah, Gisella, there are numerous possibilities - and anyone who's been to a gay sauna (where you for obvious reasons have not visited) would not have asked such a question some like to hang out at those places for hours and hours (maybe even days and nights for what I know), and - trust me - it is possible have several encounters in a few hours if one so wishes...
A (partnered) friend of mine told me once he likes to go to a sauna during lunch hour
Then there are outdoors cruising areas, internet cruising, porn video arcades, actual sex clubs, bars and clubs with darkrooms and some with neat little private stalls even.---
That's just some of the obvious possibilities - and there are probably lots more that could be added to that lil' list.
I once picked up a guy in the middle of 5th Avenue on Manhattan (it was night-time though, no cars, no other people in sight) - we were 'eyeing' each other as we passed each other crossing the street. We both stopped, turned around and looked at each other, still in the middle of the street - I don't remember who made the first move after that - probably me :biggrin1:
With a good 'gaydar' one can actually do succesful cruising almost anywhere... :wink:

 

[tygrrr]

I haven't even read the rest of your post Tygrrr, but I have come to the same conclusion.

What I am slightly embarassed about is why I should even have thought that my sexuality should be any different from yours even though the objects of our individual desires may be different.

I wonder why I would have thought that and whether any gay guys might like to admit that they think that the nature of their desire should be any different to mine.

No need to be even slightly embarassed - and I'm glad you can also see it that way.
It's so easy to gather that since there are some differences, there will be lots more. (Like e.g. those sometimes strange beliefs about uncut guys that exist among (some) of those that are cut.)
I can only speak for myself, of course - I guess there are some gay guys that will see this differently from me, as will perhaps also some of those not so gay ones. Though no-one can deny that a guy is a guy...

 

[Gisella]

Ah, Gisella, there are numerous possibilities - and anyone who's been to a gay sauna (where you for obvious reasons have not visited) would not have asked such a question some like to hang out at those places for hours and hours (maybe even days and nights for what I know), and - trust me - it is possible have several encounters in a few hours if one so wishes...
A (partnered) friend of mine told me once he likes to go to a sauna during lunch hour
Then there are outdoors cruising areas, internet cruising, porn video arcades, actual sex clubs, bars and clubs with darkrooms and some with neat little private stalls even.---
That's just some of the obvious possibilities - and there are probably lots more that could be added to that lil' list.
I once picked up a guy in the middle of 5th Avenue on Manhattan (it was night-time though, no cars, no other people in sight) - we were 'eyeing' each other as we passed each other crossing the street. We both stopped, turned around and looked at each other, still in the middle of the street - I don't remember who made the first move after that - probably me :biggrin1:
With a good 'gaydar' one can actually do succesful cruising almost anywhere... :wink:

:hug:

Ah Tygrrr...after I posted my questions I thought if I was being indiscret wanting to know more details... Thank you for answer me!

Wow..you for sure are having fun..men are such simple creatures people.

 

[tygrrr]

:hug:

Ah Tygrrr...after I posted my questions I thought if I was being indiscret wanting to know more details... Thank you for answer me!

Wow..you for sure are having fun..men are such simple creatures people.

Ain't that the truth! :biggrin1:

No worries! And I very frankly like your curiosity! :kiss:
I wasn't at all prepared for just that question, but that made me enjoy it even more - as much as I also enjoyed being able to give you a glimpse of the world of possibilities for gay male sluttiness.

 

[dolf250]

I did. I am, as always, struck with how much you, Dolf, crammed into that short post and its thoughtfulness. It was truly intriguing.

Why, thank you. That is very kind. ***Blushes.***

 

[B_NineInchCock_160IQ]

I consider myself to be fairly promiscuous, even though I went through a period where I felt hopelessly inadequate in most social arenas and it seemed like I couldn't get laid to save my life.... things have turned around for me the last few years and I have a pretty healthy dating/social/sex life. Compared to my two best friends, who are both virgins, I'm quite a stud. I think I'm also way above average in terms of the number of sexual partners I've had. However, some figures given by other people simply boggle my mind. and I have noticed a discrepancy between the straight and gay guys I know. I've heard straight guys claim to have slept with hundreds of girls, and gay guys claim they've been with thousands of guys. I'm still well under 100 sexual partners myself. All of the above is, of course, purely anecdotal and speculative.

In a more theoretical sense, I would imagine that it is easier for gay men to be promiscuous than straight men just because it seems like, on average, men are far more open about their own sexuality than women are, and are far more willing to engage in relationships for no reason other than sexual gratification. Since men and women often tend to want different things out of relationships, have different expectations and communicate in different ways, same-sex relationships should be slightly easier to negotiate. I know there are plenty of exceptions.

 

[Lordpendragon]

I don't want to start the Clinton debate, but I would not include women with whom I had not had penetrative sex in my number of sexual partners.

As I know a number of gay guys who do not do penetration, am I right in presuming that it would be normal for gay guys to include non penentrative encounters?

 

[davidjh7]

I don't want to start the Clinton debate, but I would not include women with whom I had not had penetrative sex in my number of sexual partners.

As I know a number of gay guys who do not do penetration, am I right in presuming that it would be normal for gay guys to include non penentrative encounters?

I certainly hope that it includes non-penatrative sex, otherwise, I didn't get laid until I was 31...:tongue:

 

[fortiesfun]

As I know a number of gay guys who do not do penetration, am I right in presuming that it would be normal for gay guys to include non penentrative encounters?

Sex researchers often use the standard of male orgasm to try to quantify male-male sex. Sex gets defined as an activity in which one or both partners ejaculate. A typical questions runs something like "With how many men have you reached orgasm in the last x period of time?" That tends to encompass a pretty wide variety of sexual behavior (i.e. handjobs, blowjobs, mutual masturbation, penetration) but still distinguish it from strictly social encounters.

I don't know that anyone thinks it is a perfect definition but it is widely used. When it is is criticized it is usually exactly because it does not transfer to straight sex well at all, where it is presumed that there is lots of activity that almost anybody would call sex where nobody ends getting off. :redface:

 

[tygrrr]

I don't want to start the Clinton debate, but I would not include women with whom I had not had penetrative sex in my number of sexual partners.

As I know a number of gay guys who do not do penetration, am I right in presuming that it would be normal for gay guys to include non penentrative encounters?

I'm pretty certain that the answer to your question is yes for most gay guys.
I've never given this much thought before, but it's an interesting question - for several reasons.
I don't see sex that doesn't involve penetration as a 'lesser' sexual experience. In fact it can sometimes even be a better and certainly just as fulfilling experience.
I do think however, that I am inclined to see it the same way as you, LPD, when it comes to sex with women - for myself, that has always included penetration, and I think I even would have felt a bit disappointed if that hadn't happened. --
Still, sexual encounters and sexual intimacy can happen - and develop - in a number of ways. I've read and heard about guys e.g. into bdsm that are not into penetration at all, but that is of course a more 'marginal' group of people. As always, the definition of 'sex', and what it implies, is totally dependent on the two (or more) people involved.
As long as at least one of the persons involved has an orgasm, I'd call it sex.

 

[Lordpendragon]

From a purely heterosexual point of view, I think the distinction is there because of early aged and early relationship activities.

It would be quite wrong for guys who had had a 15 yr old fumble with a girl to then go around saying that they had had sex with them.

There are times in your life as a het when it is just not going to be appropriate or desired to "go all the way" (personally I hate that expression) and that to have hand jobs blow jobs or whatever will be the extent of the sexual activity. So a distinction is rightly made, but it is still sexual activity.