Gays and Promiscuity

[LeCharivari]

I'm sure I recall this being discussed here previously although I can't find it with a search, but as the question of gay promiscuity has been raised elsewhere with some so-far unsupported claims that "most" reports on studies and surveys show that gays are more promiscuous than our straight counterparts I thought I should contradict it here rather than possibly de-rail another thread.

The idea that gays are by nature and by behaviour more promiscuous than straights is a myth perpetuated by the rather curious bedfellows of the extremist anti-gay groups such as carm, sub-Saharan Africa anti-gay religious groups, and promiscuous gays attempting to justify their behaviour and sexual practices as representative of gays in general and "normal" when the evidence clearly shows that it is neither.

In all the objective surveys based on either random or like sampling which I am aware of the median average of gays and straights is consistently similar. Any differences are due to the mean average, where a relatively small number of highly promiscuous gays with an abnormally high number of partners skew the average.

One of the few surveys based on "like-minded" samples was by one of the world's largest dating websites (OK Cupid). They concluded the following:

Median Reported Sex Partners: straight men:6 gay men: 6 straight women: 6 gay women: 6

% of people who have had 5 or fewer partners: gays: 45% straights: 44%

% of people who have had 20 or fewer partners: gays: 98% straights: 99%

"It turns out that a tiny fraction of gays have single-handedly two-handedly created the public image of gay sexual recklessness—in fact we found that just 2% of gay people have had 23% of the total reported gay sex, which is pretty crazy."

This is supported by nearly identical data from a separate study (The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States.) which concluded that:

"A further analysis of the GSS data (on which Laumann based his results) indicates that the median (50th percentile) number of sexual partners for heterosexuals is five and for homosexuals is six. The discrepancy between the mean and median is indicative of a small sub-population of gay males who tend towards high rates of sexual partners, skewing the mean, while the majority of gay men tend to have rates about the same as heterosexual males.”

The New England Journal of Medicine told a similar story in 1994 when it reviewed previous surveys and studies:

" More recent population-based studies ..... of men who had homosexual contact after the age of 20, almost all had 20 or fewer homosexual partners in their lifetimes. Of 1450 men in the sample, only 2 were reported to have had 100 or more same-sex partners. The inconsistency in the data on the number of sexual partners of homosexual men probably reflects flaws in the sampling techniques of the earlier studies (e.g., recruiting subjects in gay bars) and their completion before the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) epidemic. The overlap between gay and heterosexual men with respect to the number of partners is considerable, although a small subgroup of gay men have had sex with a great many more partners than almost any heterosexual men."

The primary "source" quoted by the extremist openly anti-gay groups such as carm, by anti-gay religious groups in sub-Saharan Africa, and by promiscuous gays supporting their own lifestyle is "Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women" published in 1978 by the Kinsey Institute. This has since been proven to be so flawed in its basic sampling that it is worthless as a study of homosexual behaviour in general.

The "control" group of heterosexuals were selected entirely at random, using census data. The gay group, on the other hand, were selected entirely from the gay cruising areas of San Francisco: 22% from gay singles bars, 9% from gay saunas, 6% from cruising areas in parks/public toilets, 5% from commercial sex clubs, 23% from referrals from the previous respondents (friends of those from the gay bars, saunas, etc) and the remainder from advertisements in gay magazines and mailing lists. Possibly valid if you base your views on gay behaviour on the goings-on in gay saunas and cruising areas in shopping malls, or on what is written on public toilet walls, but hardly representative.

http://gizmodo.com/5661086/data+backed-shocker-gay-people-are-basically-the-same-as-everyone-else

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/oct/19/gay-men-promiscuous-myth

http://timrfisher.tripod.com/dgstats.htm

http://www.jeramyt.org/gay/gayhealth.html#prom

http://www.jeramyt.org/gay/gayhealth.html#appa

http://carm.org/carm-homophobic

Edited December 6, 2013 by LeCharivari

[MB1]

The problem you have here is that for every study that says gays are more promiscuous than straight people, some other study will say straights are more promiscuous..

Having spent time as a straight guy with the gay population in a large city in the UK from an early age and even now in my early 50's I've talked to many gay people who openly admit to being promiscuous, and I've talked to many straight people who admit the same, then you get the ones who say their not..

Who's right and who's wrong on this, I don't have the answer, do all tell the truth when participating in studies, I doubt not..

I just have the attitude of do what you want in life as long as your not hurting others....

[Jingthing]

Age is a strong factor of course among men in general, the younger the more slutty generally.

Sad to say that my youth was spent in San Francisco as the pandemic emerged and I am one of the few survivors of the people I knew there. Oddly the closest friend I lost to that was one the least promiscuous gay men I've even known.

If I had to bet money, I'd say yes gay men are more promiscuous but that doesn't mean all or even most gay men are, especially older ones.

[isanbirder]

I wonder whether the view that gay men are more promiscuous is derived from the fact that gay sex has always been associated with relatively public venues, such as clubs and saunas.

Gay cruising areas are well-known; can you say the same of straight cruising areas? As a generalisation, I would say no.

[Scott]

There are so many variables to take into consideration in a topic such as this. First, we have to consider that men in general are probably more promiscuous than females -- whether they are straight or gay. Second, we have to consider who is considered gay and who isn't. There are a fair number of men who have sex with other men who do not consider themselves as gay and probably wouldn't be identified by others as being gay. Finally, we have to consider what constitutes sex.

How wide or narrow these areas are defined will influence the discussion.

[LeCharivari]

I wonder whether the view that gay men are more promiscuous is derived from the fact that gay sex has always been associated with relatively public venues, such as clubs and saunas.

Gay cruising areas are well-known; can you say the same of straight cruising areas? As a generalisation, I would say no.

Maybe it would be as true to say the reverse: that identifiable "gay venues", such as clubs and saunas, have always been associated with sex - as have comparable "straight venues" such as singles bars.

The difference is that the straight singles bars have always been seen to be something of a place of last resort for straights, visited only by a small minority (probably true) looking for a long or short term relationship, while the equivalent gay clubs and saunas have always been seen to be something of a "standard" meeting place where the vast majority of gays have to go to find a long or short term relationship (probably totally untrue). I don't know of any studies on "where gays meet", but in my own limited experience I'd say that gays meet their potential short or long-term partners anywhere, just as anyone else does, and that only a small minority meet in the "clubs and saunas".

I don't think a run-down of "where I met my boyfriend (or boyfriends)" would serve much purpose amongst gay expats in Thailand any more than one would amongst straight expats, but even a cursory glance at the

capacity of gay venues in most major cities compared to the size of the gay population (at, say, a conservative 3%) makes it pretty obvious that either the vast majority of the gay population DON'T spend their time in the gay venues or that gays only make up a fraction of one % of the population.

The perception doesn't match the reality.

[Jingthing]

I'd say gays are less slutty in general than the stereotypes, if that's saying much of anything.

[anon8]

I lived in Toronto on Churc and Wellesly, other than San Fransisco, I dont think there is more clearly defined gay ghetto in NA.

For few years that I lived in the area, I had sex several times a day. Mind you never was in relationship at the time, so maybe this doesnt count as being promiscous.

There was a bathhouse, Spa On Maitland, i was there sometimes 72 hrs straight, i knew staff, they let me leave to get fast food, and come back in.

I dont think it is possible for a straight guy to have sex 4, maybe more times a day, unless he pays for it.

In the Spa, I saw guys who were in long term relationships, guys who i knew, they were doing the same thing, except they checked out after they got layed, so they could get home on time.

Sent from my C6903 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Scott]

One post deleted. Let's try to keep to the topic rather than to personal information about our own pasts. If you wish to share personal experiences, please use discretion in your choice of words.

Also, let's not assume that every sexual encounter involves high risk sex or unprotected sex.

[Scott]

Both in my professional career prior to coming to Thailand and in my personal experience, gays are a lot more promiscuous than straight men.

Because of the issues surrounding sexuality, I think it would be very difficult to find a representative sample of gay men.

Up until very recently, in many places admitting you were gay had legal consequences. Certainly studies done in the 1990's and many done later would be hampered by this.

[isanbirder]

I wonder whether the view that gay men are more promiscuous is derived from the fact that gay sex has always been associated with relatively public venues, such as clubs and saunas.

Gay cruising areas are well-known; can you say the same of straight cruising areas? As a generalisation, I would say no.

Maybe it would be as true to say the reverse: that identifiable "gay venues", such as clubs and saunas, have always been associated with sex - as have comparable "straight venues" such as singles bars.

The difference is that the straight singles bars have always been seen to be something of a place of last resort for straights, visited only by a small minority (probably true) looking for a long or short term relationship, while the equivalent gay clubs and saunas have always been seen to be something of a "standard" meeting place where the vast majority of gays have to go to find a long or short term relationship (probably totally untrue). I don't know of any studies on "where gays meet", but in my own limited experience I'd say that gays meet their potential short or long-term partners anywhere, just as anyone else does, and that only a small minority meet in the "clubs and saunas".

I don't think a run-down of "where I met my boyfriend (or boyfriends)" would serve much purpose amongst gay expats in Thailand any more than one would amongst straight expats, but even a cursory glance at the

capacity of gay venues in most major cities compared to the size of the gay population (at, say, a conservative 3%) makes it pretty obvious that either the vast majority of the gay population DON'T spend their time in the gay venues or that gays only make up a fraction of one % of the population.

The perception doesn't match the reality.

I agree that the perception doesn't match the reality, but the perception is what we are most likely to be judged by.

[Jingthing]

Yeah obviously gay men especially young ones living in an urban gay ghetto are typically very promiscuous but I just don't think they represent the majority of gay men in the world.

[Scott]

Growing up in a very rural, and anti-gay area, there were meeting places and it seemed that there was a lot of partners. In that area there were virtually no gay couples -- other than a couple of lesbian couples who were eventually outed and one lost custody of her children because she acknowledged being a lesbian. Gay men simply did not live together.

The problem with historical studies of gay men is actually figuring out who was gay and who wasn't. It's not like they registered somewhere so that you could get a statistically valid sampling.

There was a group that formed a social club. They were a bit 'tamer' but since there was no gay marriage or civil union at the time and living together would have raised questions, they seemed to have occasional indiscretions on their partners. The extent I don't know, but I didn't know any of them over a period of years that were completely faithful.

[LeCharivari]

I lived in Toronto on Churc and Wellesly, other than San Fransisco, I dont think there is more clearly defined gay ghetto in NA.

For few years that I lived in the area, I had sex several times a day. Mind you never was in relationship at the time, so maybe this doesnt count as being promiscous.

There was a bathhouse, Spa On Maitland, i was there sometimes 72 hrs straight, i knew staff, they let me leave to get fast food, and come back in.

I dont think it is possible for a straight guy to have sex 4, maybe more times a day, unless he pays for it.

In the Spa, I saw guys who were in long term relationships, guys who i knew, they were doing the same thing, except they checked out after they got layed, so they could get home on time.

Sent from my C6903 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

As above (post # 14).

(edit - sorry, post #14 has been deleted). Maybe I'll be permitted to say that my own "personal experience" and "professional career" gave me experiences that were very different to most people's, including the majority in the same career, so I don't base my views on what constitutes human behaviour on that but on a wider view.

While you haven't suggested that your experience and actions were/are in any way typical, all surveys suggest that it is not and that you are part of that "2% of gay people (who) have had 23% of the total reported gay sex" - someone has to be!

As for opportunities for straights (male or female) to have sex several times a day I can only quote from my personal experience (albeit it not physically personal):

In Northern Ireland during "the troubles" the British Army manned "sangars" (re-inforced observation/protection towers) which were manned 24 hours a day; TV cameras mounted on the towers recorded all external activity, including visitors, which was relayed to a control room, and this included visits by "sangar-bangers" who would "visit" the towers up to ten times a day, and those manning the sangars definitely didn't "pay for it".

During one tour in the UK one local girl came to the Guard Room and presented me (as Duty Officer) with a list of those from the battalion that she felt should be warned because she had contracted an STD; there were 90 names on the list, we had only been there three months, and she had similar (possibly longer) lists for the other two battalions and for other units in the district. Those on the list were informed and none had "paid for it".

If you're not fussy, its available!

Edited December 8, 2013 by LeCharivari

[LeCharivari]

I wonder whether the view that gay men are more promiscuous is derived from the fact that gay sex has always been associated with relatively public venues, such as clubs and saunas.

Gay cruising areas are well-known; can you say the same of straight cruising areas? As a generalisation, I would say no.

Maybe it would be as true to say the reverse: that identifiable "gay venues", such as clubs and saunas, have always been associated with sex - as have comparable "straight venues" such as singles bars.

The difference is that the straight singles bars have always been seen to be something of a place of last resort for straights, visited only by a small minority (probably true) looking for a long or short term relationship, while the equivalent gay clubs and saunas have always been seen to be something of a "standard" meeting place where the vast majority of gays have to go to find a long or short term relationship (probably totally untrue). I don't know of any studies on "where gays meet", but in my own limited experience I'd say that gays meet their potential short or long-term partners anywhere, just as anyone else does, and that only a small minority meet in the "clubs and saunas".

I don't think a run-down of "where I met my boyfriend (or boyfriends)" would serve much purpose amongst gay expats in Thailand any more than one would amongst straight expats, but even a cursory glance at the

capacity of gay venues in most major cities compared to the size of the gay population (at, say, a conservative 3%) makes it pretty obvious that either the vast majority of the gay population DON'T spend their time in the gay venues or that gays only make up a fraction of one % of the population.

The perception doesn't match the reality.

I agree that the perception doesn't match the reality, but the perception is what we are most likely to be judged by.

"I agree that the perception doesn't match the reality, but the perception is what we are most likely to be judged by."

Unfortunately for the 98% who have relatively "normal" sex lives, the "2% of gay people (who) have had 23% of the total reported gay sex" insist on maintaining that the rest of us are all like them - even if its accidental, the extremist openly anti-gay groups such as carm and anti-gay religious groups in sub-Saharan Africa couldn't ask for better supporters.

[Scott]

A nasty off-topic post has been deleted. If you are unable to argue your point then stop posting.

I would like to know where they representative samples of gays were taken? Who was sampled and how were the samples derived? You point out the faults of previous studies, but don't show how they have overcome them.

[LeCharivari]

There are so many variables to take into consideration in a topic such as this. First, we have to consider that men in general are probably more promiscuous than females -- whether they are straight or gay. Second, we have to consider who is considered gay and who isn't. There are a fair number of men who have sex with other men who do not consider themselves as gay and probably wouldn't be identified by others as being gay. Finally, we have to consider what constitutes sex.

How wide or narrow these areas are defined will influence the discussion.

Well, let's look at those "variables" in turn.

"First, we have to consider that men in general are probably more promiscuous than females -- whether they are straight or gay."

I would think that's an assumption rather than a variable, and while it may be widely assumed it's not supported by current surveys which mainly show the reverse - that women are now at least as promiscuous as men, if not more so. For the mathematicians amongst us, I concede that ALL these surveys could be flawed if they use a mean average rather than a median one, as then the average number of opposite-sex partners would have to be identical (assuming equal numbers of men and women).

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1093011/Women-far-promiscuous-men-says-shock-new-study.html / http://metro.co.uk/2008/12/09/young-women-more-promiscuous-than-men-224152/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/5213956/Men-are-no-more-promiscuous-than-women-survey-finds.html

http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/features/promiscuity-differs-by-gender

Its also probably worth noting that the entire premise that men are more promiscuous than women is based on a 1948 study of the mating habits of the fruit fly (drosophila melanogaster) which has since been proven to be flawed: http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/ucla-biologists-reveal-potential-235586.aspx http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23360967

"Second, we have to consider who is considered gay and who isn't. There are a fair number of men who have sex with other men who do not consider themselves as gay and probably wouldn't be identified by others as being gay."

Agreed 100%. The 1978 "Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women" Kinsey Institute study I referred to as being the standard but flawed "authority" so popular with those beating the "gays are promiscuous" drum labelled everyone on the 1 - 6 Kinsey scale who was between 2 and 6 as being "gay" for the purposes of the study. Usually only those who are a '5' or '6' would be considered "gay", with those who are 2's, 3's or 4's being considered "bi" - usually the most sexually active group with the most partners, according to studies, which would make "gays" appear far more promiscuous than they actually are (which it did).

"Finally, we have to consider what constitutes sex."

Ummm ..... let's not have too much information here (maybe we already have!). I'd say that where men are concerned ejaculation is a pretty simple identifier, whoever or whatever they are having sex with.

[Scott]

No let's have some current information from some current studies that are statistically valid.

Let's take the first link. A newspaper, the Telegraph, from 2009:

Researchers found that women and men in countries like Britain tended to have the same number of children with the same number of partners.

The study of more than 10,000 people in 18 countries seems to throw on its head the generally accepted expectations that men tend naturally towards promiscuity and women are more particular when it comes to choosing a mate.

The number of children with the number of partners is somehow related to promiscuity?

The Telegraph? Really.

Using that premise gays have almost no sex, since the number of children is undoubtedly low. Does that mean that gays have no sex partners?

[LeCharivari]

A nasty off-topic post has been deleted. If you are unable to argue your point then stop posting.

I would like to know where they representative samples of gays were taken? Who was sampled and how were the samples derived? You point out the faults of previous studies, but don't show how they have overcome them.

Presumably you are asking me.

As explained in my third link ( http://timrfisher.tripod.com/dgstats.htm ):

One of the big difficulties with the social-science literature is that it is extremely difficult to obtain representative samples of a hidden—and stigmatized—population such as homosexuals. Most researchers must resort to what is called a “convenience” sample, which is what it sounds like: the sample is gathered in a particular way because it is convenient to do so. This method potentially skews the results. For instance, many sexuality researchers have solicited study volunteers in such places as gay bars, bath houses, AIDS health centers, and pornographic magazines.

Obviously, if researchers look in places that are likely to be frequented by highly promiscuous gay men, no one should be surprised if what they find is a lot of promiscuity. Most often, it is impossible to conclude that a convenience sample is representative—that is, that it applies to the general population of gay men.

Many studies have used convenience samples for the expressed purpose of finding gay men who are at high risk for being HIV-positive. The idea here is not to find samples representative of the general population of gay men, but rather samples representative of men who are most likely to contract AIDS. Having many sexual partners is associated with higher risks of contracting AIDS. What these studies intended to do was find gay men who might have AIDS. Since the researchers had reason to suspect that AIDS correlated with multiple sex partners, and they wished to test their hypothesis, the researchers looked for gay men in places where they knew relatively promiscuous gay men interacted.

Each of the links I gave to studies, and the studies referred to in those links, explains exactly how their sample was selected, from OKCupid (dating data) to the General Social Survey by the University of Chicago (the GSS) , the Journal of Gay and Lesbian Social Services , the National AIDS Behavioral Surveys, etc.

The "faults of previous studies" have been overcome by TIME - in 1978 when the study you linked to at the anti-gay/homophobic carm website ("Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women") was published gay bath houses, gay commercial bars and public toilets may well have been the only available source of gays who could be surveyed, just as sources were limited in the 1940's when Kinsey was making his equally flawed surveys. Time has moved on. Other sources are now available, and the more objective, more reliable, more recent surveys have used those sources and their studies openly identify them.

Some of those sources are questionable: OKCupid, for example, used data from their dating website which could well be flawed, but it is not unreasonable to assume that it is as flawed and unrepresentative for straights as it is for gays (as my link says). No surveys or studies are perfect, by any means, but there are studies which are obviously unrepresentative and flawed (such as the one you linked to) and studies which are at least reasonably objective and open about their sources and samples (such as those I have linked to).

If for any reason you are unable to find "where they representative samples of gays were taken? Who was sampled and how were the samples derived?" for any of the studies referred to in my links I will happily try to point you in the right direction, particularly for a specific study as most of that information is readily available with a simple "Google", but obviously I can't reproduce the specifics here for all of them as they run into hundreds of pages.

I have actually only pointed out the faults of one previous study, as you have only referred to one (and your own "personal experience"), but if you have any other sources which support your view I would be very interested to read them.

[LeCharivari]

No let's have some current information from some current studies that are statistically valid.

Let's take the first link. A newspaper, the Telegraph, from 2009:

Researchers found that women and men in countries like Britain tended to have the same number of children with the same number of partners.

The study of more than 10,000 people in 18 countries seems to throw on its head the generally accepted expectations that men tend naturally towards promiscuity and women are more particular when it comes to choosing a mate.

The number of children with the number of partners is somehow related to promiscuity?

The Telegraph? Really.

Using that premise gays have almost no sex, since the number of children is undoubtedly low. Does that mean that gays have no sex partners?

I'm a bit confused as my "first link" in the opening post is to data from OKCupid, followed by a link to the Guardian newspaper and then links to other studies and reviews.

In post #17 my third link was to an article in the Telegraph, so I am guessing this is the one you are referring to.

It was given as a rebuttal to your comment that "First, we have to consider that men in general are probably more promiscuous than females -- whether they are straight or gay" and stated:

"The study of more than 10,000 people in 18 countries seems to throw on its head the generally accepted expectations that men tend naturally towards promiscuity and women are more particular when it comes to choosing a mate. ..... Dr Gillian Brown, of the University of St Andrews, said: "The study shows that women are just as likely to seek out just as many partners as men."

To answer your first question ("The number of children with the number of partners is somehow related to promiscuity?" ), though, the answer is a definitive YES: THE NUMBER OF CHILDREN WITH THE NUMBER OF PARTNERS IS DEFINITELY RELATED TO PROMISCUITY.

1 man having 2 children with a maximum of 2 partners (the average in the west, according to the research and the article) is rather less promiscuous than 1 man having 11 children with up to 11 partners (the case "in some African societies" according to the research and the Telegraph article).

Really.

Your second question appears to be based on the premise that counting the number of children with the number of partners/parents is the ONLY one way of counting "sex partners" and, presumably, promiscuity. It's certainly one way, and pretty definitive, but I don’t think anyone else has ever suggested that it is the only way.

We appear to drifting way off-topic to focusing on male vs female promiscuity rather than gay vs straight promiscuity, though, which is the topic I started so its those studies I would prefer to look at.

[Scott]

Much of the information that you are providing about women's promiscuity is from magazine surveys, which are hardly very scientific.

Your link between children and paternity is pretty tenuous at best.

Regarding male promiscuity, how do you account for the decimation of the male gay population from HIV? It may be easier to contract through gay sex, however, it still requires a pool in which there is a lot of exchange of bodily fluids and that would tend to support multiple partners by many gay men. There is also that large proportion of MSM who do not consider themselves gay and many of them are HIV + as well.

Now remember that HIV is usually associated with anal sex. There are many people who engage in less instrusive sexual encounters.

Before your statistics are acceptable, please explain where they are getting their sample. In the past, a lot of people would not identify themselves as gay and certainly wouldn't be interviewed.

You have made assertions that those that were interviewed in places like San Francisco from gay bars, saunas etc., were not representative of gay people. Just where do you find a representative population?

[Scott]

By the way, regardless of the outcome, it's a rather interesting topic and worthy of discussion.

I am learning a lot and could learn a lot more if I get the time to read all the links -- even when not agreeing, or seeing flaws, there has been some interesting stuff done.

[LeCharivari]

Much of the information that you are providing about women's promiscuity is from magazine surveys, which are hardly very scientific.

Your link between children and paternity is pretty tenuous at best.

Regarding male promiscuity, how do you account for the decimation of the male gay population from HIV? It may be easier to contract through gay sex, however, it still requires a pool in which there is a lot of exchange of bodily fluids and that would tend to support multiple partners by many gay men. There is also that large proportion of MSM who do not consider themselves gay and many of them are HIV + as well.

Now remember that HIV is usually associated with anal sex. There are many people who engage in less instrusive sexual encounters.

Before your statistics are acceptable, please explain where they are getting their sample. In the past, a lot of people would not identify themselves as gay and certainly wouldn't be interviewed.

You have made assertions that those that were interviewed in places like San Francisco from gay bars, saunas etc., were not representative of gay people. Just where do you find a representative population?

"Much of the information that you are providing about women's promiscuity is from magazine surveys, which are hardly very scientific"

As this thread is about GAYS and promiscuity I am not going to discuss women's promiscuity any further, apart from to say that NONE of the information I am providing about women's promiscuity is from "magazine survey's". NONE. NOT ONE SINGLE LINK OR REFERENCE.

"Your link between children and paternity is pretty tenuous at best."

I do not know of ANY "children" that do not have a clear link with "paternity" apart from the immaculate conception! Maybe you meant a link between children and promiscuity? Either way, the study was pretty extensive but again it's not relevant to this thread so I will not reply to it further here.

HIV was considered a predominantly gay disease which was "usually associated with anal sex" thirty years ago but that view is decades out of date. While the "male gay population" was undeniably the first and worst casualty of HIV/AIDS it was NOT "decimated" by any means - although the promiscuous "2%" very clearly were, and the HIV rates reflect that. To try to put gay HIV rates in perspective, let's look at a few FACTS rather than the allegations and misrepresentations so favoured by the anti-gay brigade:

0.7% of all HIV infections are now thought be from same-sex sexual contact; that's 7 in 10,000. That's almost exactly one tenth of 2% of 3% (a decimation of the promiscuous "2%" of the gay population of 3%). This rate is deceptive and to be honest its quite possibly a co-incidence though, due to the correlation between higher gay transmission in the west and a higher availability of antiretrovirals, so its generally thought that there have been over a million gay/bi AIDS-related deaths, with about a third in the USA. These figures are so open to interpretation at every level that there's no way they can be any sort of guide to gay promiscuity in any way.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_gay_and_bisexual_men_have_died_of_AIDS

Taking "personal experience" as any sort of guide is probably even more deceptive here than anywhere else, though, as "local" knowledge seldom reflects the global position : "There were 15,861 San Franciscans living with HIV/AIDS by the end of 2010. Most were male (92%) and white (63%). In addition, nearly three-quarters of all HIV/AIDS cases were among men who have sex with men (MSM) and an additional 14% were among MSM who were also injecting drug users." http://www.sfaf.org/hiv-info/statistics/

Basically, while the anti-gay lobby like to use the Kinsey Institute's flawed 1978 study and to misinterpret HIV/AIDS as a "gay disease" caused by our supposed promiscuous lifestyle the FACTS are that both are totally incorrect.

"Before your statistics are acceptable, please explain where they are getting their sample. In the past, a lot of people would not identify themselves as gay and certainly wouldn't be interviewed."

WE'RE NOT LIVING "in the past"!! This is the 21st century, not the USA in the 1960's and 70's! As I've already explained, its not possible due to the length to list the source of the surveys I have linked to, but they are all contained in those links or in their links. I have checked as many as I reasonably can, except the older more obscure ones, but if you can't find the sources for a specific survey then I'll try to give more details.

[LeCharivari]

By the way, regardless of the outcome, it's a rather interesting topic and worthy of discussion.

I am learning a lot and could learn a lot more if I get the time to read all the links -- even when not agreeing, or seeing flaws, there has been some interesting stuff done.

I should probably make it clear that I don't see anything wrong with what the "2%" are doing. I really don't care what people do in private or who or even what they do it with, as long as all parties are consenting adults. If that's what they want to do and they and their partners, short or long-term, are happy with it then I'm happy for them - even for Kenneth Pinyan. http://themanyfacesofdeath.blogspot.com/2013/08/death-by-horse-sex-kenneth-pinyan-usa.html

What irritates me, though, about some of the "2%" is that by claiming that they're not behaving any differently to anyone else who is gay, and by trying to justify their own behaviour as "normal" for gays they are playing straight into the hands of the extremist anti-gay lobby and giving them all the ammunition they need not only to oppose same-sex marriage but to pass and enforce strict anti-gay laws in some countries.

That may not be their intention (I'm sure its not) but it's at best unfortunate that some of the rhetoric used by the most extreme of the anti-gay lobby about "the crazed sexual debauchery of homosexual men" is identical to that being used here.

http://kenyansagainstgays.wordpress.com/2011/06/11/homosexual-promiscuity-the-shocking-statistics/

http://josephnicolosi.com/an-open-secret-the-truth-about/

[onthemoon]

What a discussion. I don't have any scientific facts, but all the men I know (guy or straight) like sex.

The straight guys have the problem that they need to find women that think likewise. Not being sexist, I understand that women in general think differently about sex than men do.

My experience with women (I mean by talking to them) and straight guys says that women are less inclined to have casual sex than men. There are always exceptions though.

When two men, both liking men, meet each other in venues that allow (legally or not) casual sex, it follows that gay men have more casual sex than straight men (well, unless they are well-off and pay for it) and than women.

(Of course, I am taking prostitutes out of the equation for argument's sake. That would be a different discussion.)

[LeCharivari]

What a discussion. I don't have any scientific facts, but all the men I know (guy or straight) like sex.

The straight guys have the problem that they need to find women that think likewise. Not being sexist, I understand that women in general think differently about sex than men do.

My experience with women (I mean by talking to them) and straight guys says that women are less inclined to have casual sex than men. There are always exceptions though.

When two men, both liking men, meet each other in venues that allow (legally or not) casual sex, it follows that gay men have more casual sex than straight men (well, unless they are well-off and pay for it) and than women.

(Of course, I am taking prostitutes out of the equation for argument's sake. That would be a different discussion.)

'When two men, both liking men, meet each other in venues that allow (legally or not) casual sex, it follows that gay men have more casual sex than straight men (well, unless they are well-off and pay for it) and than women."

You seem to be making the assumption that "women" (except for a few "exceptions") don't "like sex" as much as men!

I'm tempted to just say "bizarre" and leave it at that, but I think you need to do a little more homework.

This thread, as I've said, is NOT about whether men or women are more promiscuous, but since you seem to be saying that gay and straight men are potentially equally promiscuous but gays have more sex because there's more available then I suppose it has some relevance so I'll reply but ONLY (and I do mean ONLY as anything more will be going totally off topic) in that context:

Try reading the following link, which I have already given:

http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/features/promiscuity-differs-by-gender

As you correctly say "women in general think differently about sex than men do", but its not because they want less sex, its because they are more fussy about who they have it with. To paraphrase the study, men will sleep with anyone, and the less intelligent the better, while women are more selective. .... Women have as much casual sex, but not with so many men - lucky for some men but unlucky for most, which is probably why some of the latter assume that because they are turned down regularly so is everyone else.

If gay men are as unselective with their partners as straight men are with theirs, therefore, very few are going to be turned down (particularly the "dumb-blonde" male) and gay men will have more partners (but not necessarily more actual sex) than women (or most straight men).

"What we found is that when men opt for short-term mating, they pursue larger numbers of partners than women," Schmitt says. "When women go short-term mating, they don't go for large numbers. They are a little more discriminating. .....Men's preference for intelligence in short-term mates drops off the scale ..... If you look at what men want in a short-term mating partner, a sexual partner as opposed to a marriage partner, they prefer below-average intelligence." These different desires hold true regardless of whether women or men are married or single, heterosexual or homosexual. And they hold true across six continents.

I have given other links, as below, but they only go into the numerical similarities/differences between men and women, and don't go into the "reasons why", as above, which makes it all credible and understandable.

http://metro.co.uk/2008/12/09/young-women-more-promiscuous-than-men-224152/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1093011/Women-far-promiscuous-men-says-shock-new-study.html /

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/5213956/Men-are-no-more-promiscuous-than-women-survey-finds.html

I should emphasise that although there are references to the More magazine survey, which is much easier reading but not so important, the far more important survey referred to was from on an earlier far wider and well researched US study - the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, by RAND Corporation, for the American Academy of Pediatrics ( http://www.rand.org/pubs/external_publications/EP20081103.html )

[Scott]

Onthemoon, I am on the same page as you are.

Apparently a lot of gay men have been 'saving' themselves for their wedding night....or civil union night.... or Friday night.

[sustento]

Onthemoon, I am on the same page as you are.

Apparently a lot of gay men have been 'saving' themselves for their wedding night....or civil union night.... or Friday night.

I always saved myself for 2 o'clock in the morning.

[Scott]

Onthemoon, I am on the same page as you are.

Apparently a lot of gay men have been 'saving' themselves for their wedding night....or civil union night.... or Friday night.

I always saved myself for 2 o'clock in the morning.

Sustento, you do have a lot of stamina. I am usually pretty well petered out by 2:00 a.m.!

[LeCharivari]

Onthemoon, I am on the same page as you are.

Apparently a lot of gay men have been 'saving' themselves for their wedding night....or civil union night.... or Friday night.

Maybe you could tell us where or what that "page" is, as I haven't seen any studies (or read any links here) that say that or that support your view.