Gays and Promiscuity

[Scott]

My post was directed at to another poster, not to you.

[Scott]

Since you have asked, I am reviewing what you have posted when I have time. I am quite busy so it's hit and miss, but this is interesting:

There is a clear overall pattern in this [study]. In all cases, when we dichotomize our sample, the group of people with same-gender partners (or who define themselves as homosexual or bisexual) have higher average numbers of partners than the rest of the sexually active people in the sample. In many, if not most, of the cases for the men, _these differences are not statistically significant_. (314)

“The higher mean numbers of partners for respondents reporting same-gender sex corresponds to a stereotype of male homosexuals that is widespread in our society. . . . While some evidence in our data supports this general tendency, _the differences do not appear very large_ in view of the higher variability in our measures that results from the small sample size of homosexually active men.” (316)

This, in and of itself supports the fact that gay men have a higher mean number of partners. It also points out that results come from a small sample size.

I also note that the document is a refutation of a study which says gay men are more promiscuous. The person refuting has an email ending with christian.net . Perhaps an agenda?

There is also this, which is my main concern with the studies cited. It is very difficult to get a statistically valid sample of this group. This was done in 2006.

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.

[Scott]

The Norwegian study was a 5 year study starting in 1987, so again it is fairly dated. It was a questionnaire of the general population and from this was gleaned the statistics on gay sexual behavior. A questionnaire is not generally considered a very statistically valid method of getting information. It does not cite the number of gays or anything about them. Considering they are a reasonably small subset of the general population, I don't think we can glean much information from it. It also only shows a decrease in the number of partners over a 5 year period.

In 2010 the average age of males was close to 39 years of age. One would expect that with the general population you would see a decrease as people age.

In short, the study raises more questions than it answers and it was never designed to answer the question of promiscuity.

[Scott]

Recently my partner downloaded some documentary about older people coming out, which was rather interesting. Some had been married and their spouses had died, so some had spent most of their lives in a stable relationship.

One of the problem in studying promiscuity was a remark made by one of the people interviewed. He maintained he was reasonably faithful to his wife, except he did not seem to consider that mutual masturbation was really sex.

If you recall, Bill Clinton's view of what constituted sex was different from Hillary's or Congresses view.

[LeCharivari]

Since you have asked, I am reviewing what you have posted when I have time. I am quite busy so it's hit and miss, but this is interesting:

There is a clear overall pattern in this [study]. In all cases, when we dichotomize our sample, the group of people with same-gender partners (or who define themselves as homosexual or bisexual) have higher average numbers of partners than the rest of the sexually active people in the sample. In many, if not most, of the cases for the men, _these differences are not statistically significant_. (314)

“The higher mean numbers of partners for respondents reporting same-gender sex corresponds to a stereotype of male homosexuals that is widespread in our society. . . . While some evidence in our data supports this general tendency, _the differences do not appear very large_ in view of the higher variability in our measures that results from the small sample size of homosexually active men.” (316)

This, in and of itself supports the fact that gay men have a higher mean number of partners. It also points out that results come from a small sample size.

I also note that the document is a refutation of a study which says gay men are more promiscuous. The person refuting has an email ending with christian.net . Perhaps an agenda?

There is also this, which is my main concern with the studies cited. It is very difficult to get a statistically valid sample of this group. This was done in 2006.

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.

"This, in and of itself supports the fact that gay men have a higher mean number of partners."

We seem rather surprisingly to be agreeing, since THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I HAVE MAINTAINED FROM MY OPENING POST.

The problem with taking a mean average is that it is inherently unrepresentative of the majority, which is why most surveys which attempt to be representative and not to be influenced by a minority take a median average (the 50th percentile). In this instance, the "2%" who "have had 23% of the total reported sex" make the figures totally unrepresentative of the vast majority (98%) of gays.

I am not denying that SOME gays are promiscuous - SOME gays certainly are, but they are a tiny minority of 2%, while the remaining 98% are on a promiscuous par with their straight counterparts.

The paragraph following the one you quoted makes this point crystal clear, and is in my opening post: "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.”

"It also points out that results come from a small sample size."

"small" in this case is comparative. That particular study was based on data from The General Social Survey by the University of Chicago with about 50,000 people being randomly surveyed every year - in this case 3,432 turned out to be randomly selected MSM. Its certainly the most comprehensive annual survey in the US, possibly anywhere in the world, and its pretty universally accepted as random sampling with statistical controls.

"There is also this, which is my main concern with the studies cited. It is very difficult to get a statistically valid sample of this group. This was done in 2006."

I actually give the lines you quote in their full context in post # 19.

"The person refuting has an email ending with christian.net . Perhaps an agenda?"

An agenda, but it's certainly not a hidden one and there's no "perhaps" about it. The author (Tim Fisher) was executive director of the Family Equality Council / Family Pride Coalition / Gay and Lesbian Parents Coalition International, has an adopted son and daughter with his gay partner, and is a very active member of the Lutheran church and promotes Lutheran acceptance of LGBTs on their Joint Synod Committee for Inclusivity and is best known for his opposition to a church view by groups such as carm that homosexuality as a sexual orientation can be "changed". I may not agree with all that he says by any means, but I'd certainly side with him against the likes of carm. http://timrfisher.tripod.com/

[LeCharivari]

The Norwegian study was a 5 year study starting in 1987, so again it is fairly dated. It was a questionnaire of the general population and from this was gleaned the statistics on gay sexual behavior. A questionnaire is not generally considered a very statistically valid method of getting information. It does not cite the number of gays or anything about them. Considering they are a reasonably small subset of the general population, I don't think we can glean much information from it. It also only shows a decrease in the number of partners over a 5 year period.

In 2010 the average age of males was close to 39 years of age. One would expect that with the general population you would see a decrease as people age.

In short, the study raises more questions than it answers and it was never designed to answer the question of promiscuity.

"The Norwegian study was a 5 year study starting in 1987, so again it is fairly dated."

"dated" possibly, but it was published two decades after the study cited by carm that you linked to that led to my starting this thread!

"A questionnaire is not generally considered a very statistically valid method of getting information"

Agreed, but I'm pretty sure it beats a survey based on questioning gays from gay single bars, gay saunas, cruising public toilets and parks and their friends for validity (see my opening post for a breakdown of that survey's sources). None of these surveys are fully reliable or authoritative, but we've got to go with the best we've got.

"One would expect that with the general population you would see a decrease as people age."

I don't think the average age could change that much over a five year period, so I really don't see how this would show up in terms of less sex.

"It does not cite the number of gays or anything about them."

I haven't read the survey which is why I didn't link to it, so I can't say if it does or not; I believe later questionnaires do, though, and that the 2010 survey had replies from 1,527 men so this is surprising. Could you give a link to either the Vierod study or the original data, as I haven't been able to find either?

[LeCharivari]

(edited)

If you recall, Bill Clinton's view of what constituted sex was different from Hillary's or Congresses view.

If I recall correctly it was different to pretty well everybody's view!

[anon8]

 

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

Of course. We, gay men would not have sex w another man, until we marry the guy.

Its not like would go with a good looking guy at first opportunity. NEVER!

[anon8]

LeCharivari, we, gay guys would never go and have a quickie with some stranger, at first opportunity.

We wait. We make sure that guy is really commited. We would never have sex with some handsom stranger. It is simply something most of us would never do.

Edited December 10, 2013 by valgehiir

[Scott]

I can't find a link to some of the works done, such as Bell and Weinberg (although they are listed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexualities:_A_Study_of_Diversity_Among_Men_and_Women ).

They found that 28 percent of homosexual males had had sexual encounters with one thousand or more partners. Furthermore, 79 percent said more than half of their sex partners were strangers. Only 1 percent of the sexually active men had had fewer than five lifetime partners.

In a book published by McWhirter and Mattison --The Male Couple, they studied 156 couples that had been together from 1 to 37 years. The expectation of the couples was predominately that they would be faithful, however the researchers could only find 7 that had been able to be faithful. None of those couples had been together for more than 5 years. Of the couples that had been together more than 5 years NONE had been sexually exclusive.

[Scott]

From the Family Research Council: http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02

MONOGAMY VS. PROMISCUITY: SEXUAL PARTNERS OUTSIDE OF THE RELATIONSHIP

Lest anyone suffer the illusion that any equivalency between the sexual practices of homosexual relationships and traditional marriage exists, the statistics regarding sexual fidelity within marriage are revealing:

Research indicates that the average male homosexual has hundreds of sex partners in his lifetime:

The Dutch study of partnered homosexuals, which was published in the journal AIDS, found that men with a steady partner had an average of eight sexual partners per year.[12]

Bell and Weinberg, in their classic study of male and female homosexuality, found that 43 percent of white male homosexuals had sex with 500 or more partners, with 28 percent having one thousand or more sex partners.[13]

In their study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals published in the Journal of Sex Research, Paul Van de Ven et al. found that "the modal range for number of sexual partners ever [of homosexuals] was 101-500." In addition, 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent had between 501 and 1,000 partners. A further 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent reported having had more than one thousand lifetime sexual partners.[14]

Dr. Daily may have an agenda, but many of the sources are credible and rather thorough.

[LeCharivari]

From the Family Research Council: http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02

MONOGAMY VS. PROMISCUITY: SEXUAL PARTNERS OUTSIDE OF THE RELATIONSHIP

Lest anyone suffer the illusion that any equivalency between the sexual practices of homosexual relationships and traditional marriage exists, the statistics regarding sexual fidelity within marriage are revealing:

Research indicates that the average male homosexual has hundreds of sex partners in his lifetime:

The Dutch study of partnered homosexuals, which was published in the journal AIDS, found that men with a steady partner had an average of eight sexual partners per year.[12]

Bell and Weinberg, in their classic study of male and female homosexuality, found that 43 percent of white male homosexuals had sex with 500 or more partners, with 28 percent having one thousand or more sex partners.[13]

In their study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals published in the Journal of Sex Research, Paul Van de Ven et al. found that "the modal range for number of sexual partners ever [of homosexuals] was 101-500." In addition, 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent had between 501 and 1,000 partners. A further 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent reported having had more than one thousand lifetime sexual partners.[14]

Dr. Daily may have an agenda, but many of the sources are credible and rather thorough.

"Dr Daily may have an agenda ...."

"may have" ?

The question of the credibility of sources and their "agendas" has been raised a number of times, and when the data available is limited and the sources questionable (something I think we all agree on) I think it is only fair to look at those sources and agendas:

From the FRC website:

Family Research Council believes that homosexual conduct is harmful to the persons who engage in it and to society at large, and can never be affirmed. It is by definition unnatural, and as such is associated with negative physical and psychological health effects. While the origins of same-sex attractions may be complex, there is no convincing evidence that a homosexual identity is ever something genetic or inborn. We oppose the vigorous efforts of homosexual activists to demand that homosexuality be accepted as equivalent to heterosexuality in law, in the media, and in schools. Attempts to join two men or two women in "marriage" constitute a radical redefinition and falsification of the institution, and FRC supports state and federal constitutional amendments to prevent such redefinition by courts or legislatures. Sympathy must be extended to those who struggle with unwanted same-sex attractions, and every effort should be made to assist such persons to overcome those attractions, as many already have.

http://www.frc.org/homosexuality

From the CARM website:

CARM recognizes the moral and social implications of the homosexual agenda that seeks to move into all areas of society and redefine morals in a manner consistent with the homosexual agenda. What is the agenda? It is to make homosexuality an accepted lifestyle in society, to have it be considered a normal and healthy lifestyle, a legitimate marriage choice, and a morally sound option among all people.

To this, CARM stands in opposition because the Bible clearly says that homosexuality is a sin ... . Therefore, we exercise our right to express our religious views, defend what the Bible teaches, and expose the spiritual, physical, and emotional harm that homosexuality poses.

.....homosexuality is not genetically based. Therefore, homosexuality is a learned behavior and should be called a preference, not an orientation.

..... Saying that homosexual behavior harms no one is not true. The very lifestyle of homosexuality is highly promiscuous and brimming with disease, although pro-homosexuals will try and separate the behavior from related illnesses in their attempt to demonstrate that homosexual behavior doesn't harm anyone. But the evidence doesn't support that notion.

..... Since behaviors always have contexts, and rarely have no effect upon anyone else, it is obvious that homosexual behavior is indeed harmful. It is full of promiscuity and its related health risks. The facts speak contrary to the idea that mere homosexual activity harms no one.

..... HomoSEXuality is a behavior, an action. It is not the same thing as a genetic condition such as skin color, height, or gender. Homosexual intercourse (is there homosexuality without it?) is a behavior and is, therefore, something people choose to do. Actions are what people choose to do - whether or not they have a tendency. On the other hand, being born in black or white skin is not a choice and is not a behavior.

Therefore, when homosexuals appeal to the argument that being born gay is like being born into a particular race, they don't know what they're talking about.

http://carm.org/carm-homophobic

It is perfectly POSSIBLE that "many of the sources are credible and rather thorough", but I have yet to see ANY evidence to support that. What authorities or organisations support that view, apart from the two extreme homophobic websites above that quote them?

In this thread and the one that led to it the ONLY sources saying "many of the sources are credible and rather thorough" are CARM and the FRC whose conclusions many (most?) gays disagree with - particularly when CARM quotes similar "studies" to support their conclusion that "... Therefore, homosexuality is a learned behavior and should be called a preference, not an orientation." http://carm.org/homosexuals-born-that-way

Rather than quote these anti-gay websites as sources when they may be editing the material to suit their agendas and omitting key facts and conclusions that were in the original, would it not be preferable to quote the original source and give a link to it? Or if it's not available to quote ONLY sources which are, so that we can check their veracity and objectivity for ourselves rather than take the FRC and CARM's word for it?

[Scott]

So, your defense is that you don't like the links? Well, I don't either, but they are as close as it is possible to come to the sources of information where the actual research has been done. Much of the research is not available on the internet, so it is referenced in other links. Some of the information I have from books and papers I have written, but I need to find you a source, so I have. All you can do is attack the link. Well here's one again, in case you missed it.

In a book published by McWhirter and Mattison --The Male Couple, they studied 156 couples that had been together from 1 to 37 years. The expectation of the couples was predominately that they would be faithful, however the researchers could only find 7 that had been able to be faithful. None of those couples had been together for more than 5 years. Of the couples that had been together more than 5 years NONE had been sexually exclusive.

They were gay and they were a couple.

There is a huge body of information about the number of sex partners before the AIDS epidemic and then after. Both show a large number of partners, but decreases with the development of the AIDS epidemic.

Bell and Weinberg, in their classic study of male and female homosexuality, found that 43 percent of white male homosexuals had sex with 500 or more partners, with 28 percent having one thousand or more sex partners.

Please note, Bell and Weinberg studied homosexuality....not a questionnaire to the general public and then gleaned information from it.

[Scott]

Studies taken with regard to AIDS and HIV infection rates are dealing with a different issue entirely. The target population is different and studies are done for a different purpose.

[LeCharivari]

So, your defense is that you don't like the links? Well, I don't either, but they are as close as it is possible to come to the sources of information where the actual research has been done. Much of the research is not available on the internet, so it is referenced in other links. Some of the information I have from books and papers I have written, but I need to find you a source, so I have. All you can do is attack the link. Well here's one again, in case you missed it. (edited)

"So, your defense is that you don't like the links?"

No, I DON'T like the links - I don't think there is anything to "like" about anything CARM or the FRC write.

"All you can do is attack the link."

Well ..... I hoped I had done rather more than that. I had thought that I had provided links to recent studies and surveys that anyone could access and read (although some are more "readable" than others). I had thought that some of those links were well researched and objective, whether they were national questionnaires or the GSS survey, which are generally recognised as authoritative, or data from over 3 million on a dating website (with the caveats given). I realise that my own experience is limited (and covers a survey of one), and as I have never had some of the experiences recommended here I freely admit that I am reliant on studies and surveys done by others who are far better qualified than I am - and I can only really judge those surveys' reliability if they are available, rather than judging them exclusively on what someone else has said.

I find some sources credible, others less so, but I only really believe that someone has said something if I can either read it myself or if it is quoted by an objective and reliable source. I don't consider CARM or the FRC either objective or reliable, I don't trust anything they say, and I think they have probably been "economical with the truth" in their editing - particularly when all their quoted sources unfortunately seem to be unavailable, as here. You seem to have a different view of them, and obviously you are entitled to that view.

I really don't think much more is to be achieved on topic by "defending" or "attacking" the likes of CARM and the FRC. I don't think they deserve the attention on a Gay Forum. I think it's an interesting subject, particularly given the topicality of "gay marriage", but I don't think CARM and the FRC have much objective to contribute so I don't see much point in my commenting further on what they say.

Hopefully (if anyone's still interested) there are alternative sources and "authorities" to quote, and other views.

[Scott]

The sources of information is the research that was done. The links simply point to the existence of the research because much of the research isn't available on line.

Even your sources point to the fact that gays are more promiscuous, the only difference is how much more.

[ProThaiExpat]

Perhaps I suffer from over exposure to nature shows on televisions but it seems to me that nature has something to do with this issue.

The female of the species is the human in a heterosexual coupling who, by nature, are driven to select males who would have the perceived best genes for procreation. Thus the truth behind the assertion that women are more carefull, usually, in choosing a mate.

Further the female psyche seems to be much more emotionally involved in the sex act by nature as well for underlying procreation reasons as well. Of course, generalities are dangerous by their very nature as well.

In nature the male of most species is ready to mate at almost a moments notice while the female only becomes agreeable to sex when she is fertile. Sometimes referred to as the "Guardian of the gate" or words to that effect.

Herterosexual men necessarily must woo a woman or romance her or seduce her in most cases while men on men sex is much less complicated and can occur with limited foreplay for the foregoing reasons.

My obvious point is that humans are driven by nature when it comes to sex, however societal attitudes do temper that activity.

[LeCharivari]

The sources of information is the research that was done. The links simply point to the existence of the research because much of the research isn't available on line.

Even your sources point to the fact that gays are more promiscuous, the only difference is how much more.

I disagree on both counts.

"The sources of information is the research that was done."

If the "research" is unavailable all we have from the "sources" is what they SAY the research said, which is no more reliable than what one poster here may SAY another said.

You may accept what CARM and the FRC say as being a fair and objective report of what the original research says; given their "agendas" I do not.

"Even your sources point to the fact that gays are more promiscuous, the only difference is how much more."

NO, "my" sources/links do NOT "point to the fact that gays are more promiscuous", only that a small minority are which is a totally different issue and which could be a reflection not only of mean and median differences but of radically different sampling methods (random samples vs samples from gay bars, etc). As I have also emphasised (and as all objective studies conclude) these are also at best indicators NOT "fact"s.

I have re-checked all my posts and links here, though, and this is quite a good example of why one interpretation / report of what was written may be a less than accurate reflection of what was actually written.

[anon8]

It is very difficult, maybe impossible to research, and work out reliable data on subject like this. Simple reason, people questioned are never honest.

Who wants to give an honest answer to something that is so personal.

Even on anonymous web boards people are often dishonest, they post and take pride how loyal and committed they are. And they do this in order to impress complete strangers, on anonomous web board, to people they will most likely never meet in real life.

To admit that you have sex as often as possible is looked down upon for some reason, alltho most people who rush to call you a slut, do the exact same thing.

I never understood this.

So we can argue about who sleeps around more, straight or gay people, but wont know. Any research into this cant be trusted, because people lie, they wont give honest answers to researchers qestions.

People lie, they then feel better about themselves.

I trust what I see with my own eyes observing what people do. In a large city you see and take notice how people really are, and how they behave.

Sent from my C6802 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Edited December 13, 2013 by valgehiir

[LeCharivari]

Perhaps I suffer from over exposure to nature shows on televisions but it seems to me that nature has something to do with this issue.

The female of the species is the human in a heterosexual coupling who, by nature, are driven to select males who would have the perceived best genes for procreation. Thus the truth behind the assertion that women are more carefull, usually, in choosing a mate.

Further the female psyche seems to be much more emotionally involved in the sex act by nature as well for underlying procreation reasons as well. Of course, generalities are dangerous by their very nature as well.

In nature the male of most species is ready to mate at almost a moments notice while the female only becomes agreeable to sex when she is fertile. Sometimes referred to as the "Guardian of the gate" or words to that effect.

Herterosexual men necessarily must woo a woman or romance her or seduce her in most cases while men on men sex is much less complicated and can occur with limited foreplay for the foregoing reasons.

My obvious point is that humans are driven by nature when it comes to sex, however societal attitudes do temper that activity.

Thank you for posting something that while not "new" is at least not based on something from CARM or the FRC! This has already been discussed in posts #14, 20, 25 and 26, with links to a number of studies of varying reliability, but there are a number of other flaws in your argument:

"The female of the species is the human in a heterosexual coupling who, by nature, are driven to select males who would have the perceived best genes for procreation."

Correct - IF women only "couple" "for procreation" rather than for pleasure. No recent studies support that view, and all those I am aware of take the opposite view.

"In nature the male of most species is ready to mate at almost a moments notice while the female only becomes agreeable to sex when she is fertile."

"nature" very obviously does NOT apply to the majority of women! That is one of the dangers of studying fruit flies rather than people and concluding that their motivation is the same - if we followed the same mating pattern as many insects, I'd definitely choose to be gay! http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/episodes/what-males-will-do/meet-the-mate-munchers/953/

"Herterosexual men necessarily must woo a woman or romance her or seduce her in most cases while men on men sex is much less complicated and can occur with limited foreplay for the foregoing reasons."

If the "foregoing reasons" are incorrect (as every recent study shows them to be), so are your conclusions.

"My obvious point is that humans are driven by nature when it comes to sex ..."

Your obvious point is obviously incorrect according to all the studies - women do NOT only have sex to procreate (far from it!) any more than men. When it comes to sex humans are generally driven either by lust or by love and procreation is a comparatively minor consideration.

Edited December 13, 2013 by LeCharivari

[sustento]

"Gays and promiscuity"? I wish!

[onthemoon]

Some very long postings here. Have we defined yet what 'promiscuous' means?

We learned that there is a measurement problem: Number of sexual encounters vs number of sex partners.

Does it make a difference whether the subject is in a relationship?

What is a relationship? When you've known each other for 3 hours or 3 weeks or 3 years? Or only when you are married or monogamous?

So many questions.

Sent from my I-405 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[ToddWeston]

Some very long postings here. Have we defined yet what 'promiscuous' means? We learned that there is a measurement problem: Number of sexual encounters vs number of sex partners. Does it make a difference whether the subject is in a relationship? What is a relationship? When you've known each other for 3 hours or 3 weeks or 3 years? Or only when you are married or monogamous?So many questions.Sent from my I-405 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

According to my Husband even my thoughts and smiling back at someone is considered being promiscuous :)

[onthemoon]

Some very long postings here. Have we defined yet what 'promiscuous' means? We learned that there is a measurement problem: Number of sexual encounters vs number of sex partners. Does it make a difference whether the subject is in a relationship? What is a relationship? When you've known each other for 3 hours or 3 weeks or 3 years? Or only when you are married or monogamous?So many questions.Sent from my I-405 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

According to my Husband even my thoughts and smiling back at someone is considered being promiscuous :)

I would disagree with that definition, and luckily, so does my soon-to-be husband. He a actually has great fun when I watch a guy in his early twenties walking by and takes a napkin while announcing that I am 'drooling'. That usually causes a laugh.

He does not get jealous, because he knows that my heart belongs to him. Eyes are a different story, and he knows he does not need to feel challenged. He knows me better than that.

I couldn't be with someone as jealous as your husband. But people are different, and that's OK.

Sent from my I-405 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[sustento]

But people are different, and that's OK.

There you go. That's probably what you meant to say without insulting other posters...

[ToddWeston]

Some very long postings here. Have we defined yet what 'promiscuous' means? We learned that there is a measurement problem: Number of sexual encounters vs number of sex partners. Does it make a difference whether the subject is in a relationship? What is a relationship? When you've known each other for 3 hours or 3 weeks or 3 years? Or only when you are married or monogamous?So many questions.Sent from my I-405 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

According to my Husband even my thoughts and smiling back at someone is considered being promiscuous :)

I would disagree with that definition, and luckily, so does my soon-to-be husband. He a actually has great fun when I watch a guy in his early twenties walking by and takes a napkin while announcing that I am 'drooling'. That usually causes a laugh.

He does not get jealous, because he knows that my heart belongs to him. Eyes are a different story, and he knows he does not need to feel challenged. He knows me better than that.

I couldn't be with someone as jealous as your husband. But people are different, and that's OK.

Sent from my I-405 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

For starters it was meant to be funny - but since you mentioned it I wouldn't have it any other way. The first and last trip I've ever made by myself in 25 years was a few weeks back and neither of us could sleep whilst I was away, not for fear either of us would play around, we are simply are co-dependant, heck I struggle to remember how I take my tea most mornings.

I would never stare down another guy in my husband presence, I think it's terribly inconsiderate, ever notice the straight/gay folks with wondering eyes. I've been spending a lot of time with my young nephew these days and I see the older white guys thinking I have a money boy and I want to smack them, but then I see their money boys smiling at me - all seems rather strange for me.

I believe it's more than your heart belonging to the other person, but as you say people are different and that's okay.

[LeCharivari]

Some very long postings here. Have we defined yet what 'promiscuous' means? We learned that there is a measurement problem: Number of sexual encounters vs number of sex partners. Does it make a difference whether the subject is in a relationship? What is a relationship? When you've known each other for 3 hours or 3 weeks or 3 years? Or only when you are married or monogamous? So many questions. Sent from my I-405 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

It doesn't really matter what "definitions" you use or what "questions" you ask as long as you are CONSISTENT - in other words you apply the same definitions and ask the same questions of samples selected in the same way.

If you don't differentiate between a mean and a median average and one sample is based on those cruising singles bars, saunas, parks and public toilets while another is based on a computer generated randomly selected sample any conclusions drawn are questionable, at best.

[LeCharivari]

For starters it was meant to be funny - but since you mentioned it I wouldn't have it any other way. The first and last trip I've ever made by myself in 25 years was a few weeks back and neither of us could sleep whilst I was away, not for fear either of us would play around, we are simply are co-dependant, heck I struggle to remember how I take my tea most mornings.

I would never stare down another guy in my husband presence, I think it's terribly inconsiderate, ever notice the straight/gay folks with wondering eyes. I've been spending a lot of time with my young nephew these days and I see the older white guys thinking I have a money boy and I want to smack them, but then I see their money boys smiling at me - all seems rather strange for me.

I believe it's more than your heart belonging to the other person, but as you say people are different and that's okay.

"I see the older white guys thinking I have a money boy and I want to smack them, but then I see their money boys smiling at me - all seems rather strange for me."

Thank God I seldom go anywhere where I see any "older white guys" ... or "their money boys".

[anon8]

I couldn't be with someone as jealous as your husband. But people are different, and that's OK

Onthemoon,

You need to accept that we, people who are not married, and not in long term relationships, are not good members of gay community.

We are promiscous, no good sluts, who give nice and loving, commited gay peeps bad name.

In order to be a good gay man, you need to be handcuffed, i mean married, to one guy for 25 years.

Less than that, and you are a bad gay person. Not only hated by homophobes, but also by gay dudes who happen to be in relationship, and think you are not as good as they are

[Scott]

I think that onthemoon is pretty accepting, but there are a few others who are less tolerant, Valgehiir.