How many sex partners is "promiscuous"?

[PrivateTim]

So the question is, how many sex partners is "promiscuous"? Is promiscuous even an appropriate word to use, or is it too judgy? Okay, so shoot me I am judgy. I don't really want a partner who has been with more than 1,000 guys (as one of my friends has at age 51). But is 200 guys okay? Is 50 better? AIDS deaths in the U.S. peaked my freshman year of college (1995) so every one was aware of the danger, but as becoming HIV+ became no longer a death sentence, it seemed like so many guys, especially the guys who came after me, didn't take it seriously. I had a lot of older gay friends (20 years older and beyond) when I was 19 and everyone had horror stories about losing friends and partners. But that alone didn't make me averse to casual sex, my own moral beliefs did. I get that that is entirely personal and certainly no one needs to adhere to my hybrid set of morals, but are there any standards of behavior that a community should have?

[lawfulneutralmage]

1 hour ago, PrivateTim said:

[...], but are there any standards of behavior that a community should have?

We shall have standards of behavior towards each other i.e. we greet each other when meeting etc, and one can criticize others for being impolite or rude, but what others think and do that does not directly involve the person they are interacting with is nothing of their concern.

So, simple questions:

1. what is it to anyone if I had it with one or one thousand?

2. why would having many sexual partners make someone a better or worse person (as a "moral" judgment automatically implies) ?

3. what drives such a judgement?

Especially the last part. If I heard about the guy who had 1000 partners. I would wonder about whether there are any deep rooted psychological issues at hand and if really not, I would wonder how he achieved that. But I would never dare thinking him being a bad person for that reason.

For me, "morals" mean judgement, and I really think the world would be a better place with less of that.

Edited June 20, 2023 by lawfulneutralmage
Additional thought and spelling mistake

[PrivateTim]

1 hour ago, lawfulneutralmage said:

For me, "morals" mean judgement, and I really think the world would be a better place with less of that.

Morals and judgment are a somewhat different topic, but I think we need both. Should it not be wrong (immoral) for someone to slug you? Can we not judge someone who rapes someone? There are many areas where both morals and judgment are appropriate, others not so much.

On the specifics of the topic, I suppose if you view sex as something special and involving emotions, vs is it merely something animals do, that is one thing, but the other is the spreading of disease that comes with promiscuous sex. One of the things I remember when I first became sexually active at the height of AIDS was that "when you sleep with someone, you sleep with everyone they've slept with". Logic dictates that the higher number of partners, the higher the risk to health.

[lawfulneutralmage]

1 hour ago, PrivateTim said:

Morals and judgment are a somewhat different topic, [...]

Can you honestly tell me about any morals that do not evoke judgement?

Quote

[...] if you view sex as something special and involving emotions [...]

Some do, some do not and some can do both. It is not for others to judge how somebody feels about that.

People are not required/forced to have sex with many people if they do not wish to do so.

People who think that it was their business judge, although it has absolutely nothing to do with them. That is what I criticize.

Quote

[..] "when you sleep with someone, you sleep with everyone they've slept with". Logic dictates that the higher number of partners, the higher the risk to health.

Absolutely correct but what does that have to do with morality? That is just simple self-preservation, but has nothing to do with good/evil.

Edited June 20, 2023 by lawfulneutralmage
Clarification

[PrivateTim]

1 minute ago, lawfulneutralmage said:

Can you honestly tell me about any morals that do not evoke judgement?

I mean a general discussion of morals and judgment is a different topic than the specific one of sexual morality, especially as it relates to promiscuity. 

You said the world be a better place with less morals and judgment. I disagree, but that is a much broader topic than the question I posed.

1 minute ago, lawfulneutralmage said:

Some do, some do not and some can do both. But again: people are not required/forced to have sex with many people if they do not wish to do so. People who think that it was their business judge, although it has absolutely nothing to do with them. That is what I criticize.

The point I am making is I am forced to have sex "with a 1,000 people", if you withhold your sexual history from me.

The second point is, are people with 1,000+ sexual partners harming society and their own community?

1 minute ago, lawfulneutralmage said:

Absolutely correct but what does that have to do with morality? That is just simple self-preservation, but has nothing to do with good/evil.

Again, we will disagree. I do think someone with 1,000+ partners is doing something bad to society, maybe even evil.

[Zombie]

57 minutes ago, lawfulneutralmage said:

People who think that it was their business judge, although it has absolutely nothing to do with them. That is what I criticize.

I don’t think people choose to judge others, they just do. It’s probably a survival instinct from the caves, looking over at the big hairy guys in the next door cave to judge if they’re going to be trouble. And we do it automatically all the time (actions, inactions, interactions) from the moment someone walks into the room (looks, face, age, clothes, walk, talk) so the same applies with this topic - people will be judged. We just can’t help it

 

Edited June 20, 2023 by Zombie

[lawfulneutralmage]

1 hour ago, PrivateTim said:

I mean a general discussion of morals and judgment is a different topic than the specific one of sexual morality, especially as it relates to promiscuity.

Why is being judged different depending on what topic one is being judged?

Quote

The point I am making is I am forced to have sex "with a 1,000 people", if you withhold your sexual history from me.

I was under the assumption that the question was whether being being promiscuous was being moral or not, and I stated "although it has absolutely nothing to do with them" i.e. in general that is none of your business. However, your statement now changes the question to something else entirely (please correct me, if I am wrong): is being promiscuous and not telling me/pretending it not to be moral or not (in case we were about to have sex). Now, it directly affects you, and that is a different case. Withholding such information and then leading to sex can, if I remember correctly, even be interpreted as rape i.e. gaining consent under false pretense.

Generally, I try to live by Luke 6:37: "Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven." While that does not mean anything goes with regards of behavior towards other people (as indicated in my first response), it does mean that people shall live their lives as they wish.

The problem with moral and judgement is that queer people will very quickly be at the receiving end of it.

 

 

[Ron]

1 hour ago, PrivateTim said:

The point I am making is I am forced to have sex "with a 1,000 people", if you withhold your sexual history from me.

I see this as a false equivalency. It operates under the presumption that with each sexual partner a person will end up contracting something or other from that partner which will then be passed along followed by the assumption that every partner is diseased. That's a stretch. 

1 hour ago, PrivateTim said:

The second point is, are people with 1,000+ sexual partners harming society and their own community?

This is, of course, a personal judgement call. We each make these calls in our heads and about many subjects all the time, but we don't get to make decisions globally for the few or the many that fall into the frequent-sex category, nor should we. 

 

Edited June 20, 2023 by Ron

[PrivateTim]

7 minutes ago, Ron said:

I see this as a false equivalency. It operates under the presumption that with each sexual partner a person will end up contracting something or other from that partner which will then be passed along followed by the assumption that every partner is diseased. That's a stretch. 

No, it is based on the presumption that sex with a partner who has had two other partners is less likely to transmit a disease to you than one with 1,000.

7 minutes ago, Ron said:

This is, of course, a personal judgement call. We each make these calls in our heads and about many subjects all the time, but we don't get to make decisions globally for the few or the many that fall into the frequent-sex category, nor should we. 

Are there not objective standards that could be used to judgment call that was not personal, but universal? Infection rates? Many states have laws that criminalize actions that spread communicable diseases, some are HIV/STD specific. Are those laws judgmental, or good public health policy?

[Ron]

37 minutes ago, Ron said:

2 hours ago, PrivateTim said:

The point I am making is I am forced to have sex "with a 1,000 people", if you withhold your sexual history from me.

I see this as a false equivalency. It operates under the presumption that with each sexual partner a person will end up contracting something or other from that partner which will then be passed along followed by the assumption that every partner is diseased. That's a stretch. 

 

16 minutes ago, PrivateTim said:

No, it is based on the presumption that sex with a partner who has had two other partners is less likely to transmit a disease to you than one with 1,000.

This is true - less likely but not without risk. But this is written differently from your initial statement.

 

18 minutes ago, PrivateTim said:

Are there not objective standards that could be used to judgment call that was not personal, but universal? Infection rates? Many states have laws that criminalize actions that spread communicable diseases, some are HIV/STD specific. Are those laws judgmental, or good public health policy?

Let's consider policies under Covid 19, that didn't go well. I'm not a law maker but I think that most of the HIV/STI laws are punishment for deliberate transmission (so therefore judgmental) and not a preventative measure. Prevention is always better, that's why we have PREP and DoxyPEP (for those not familiar this is taking daily doses of doxycycline to prevent bacterial STIs).

I am all for sex education in public schools. Young adults should be informed about the ins and outs of unprotected sex and what the options are if they make a mistake. They should also learn about forming healthy relationships of every kind. I looked forward to young gay people living in a world where relationships and sex between consenting partners were the norm. And not like when I grew up and those things needed to happen in secret, without the knowledge we have available today, where the chances of making a mistake were all too easy to make. That happy thinking looks like a mirage now.

[Canuk]

To my mind "promiscuity" is not (solely) about number, it is about attitude. Someone who has had seven different partners in seven days, to my mind could be considered promiscuous. Where as a person who has a dozen partners over two years is not necessarily promiscuous. Me, I have had two dozen partners, but only one in the last 24 years... by my parents standards, promiscuous, by some of my cohort, a mix of a virgin and a strumpet!

[ReaderPaul]

4 hours ago, Ron said:

  I am all for sex education in public schools.  Young adults should be informed about the ins and outs of unprotected sex and what the options are if they make a mistake.  They should also learn about forming healthy relationships of every kind.  I looked forward to young gay people living in a world where relationships and sex between consenting partners were the norm.  And not like when I grew up and those things needed to happen in secret, without the knowledge we have available today, where the chances of making a mistake were all too easy to make.  That happy thinking looks like a mirage now.

I almost completely agree, @Ron.  But schools need comprehensive sex education, not "abstinence only" or "bare bones" (insert penis "P" into vagina "V" and rock back and forth until ejaculation).  Kids need to be aware of differing types of sexuality.  Kids need to understand birth control options.  Kids need to have an emotional understanding of sex and sexuality (though that is quite a task to accomplish).

As far as promiscuity, there are many differing views of what consists of promiscuity.  I would say someone with one sexual partner in 20 years is not promiscuous, even if there were 20 sexual partners or hook-ups before that.  But some will always disagree with any definition someone develops.

[Ron]

@ReaderPaul Without going into details that’s exactly what I meant when I wrote I was all for sex education. Thanks for fleshing it out.

[Bill W]

When you can't list them as contacts on your phone because there is no more room, then you've reached the limit.  

Edited June 21, 2023 by Bill W

[Ron]

I do believe that a lack of education is a root cause of many of the ills of sexual relationships. Some people don't consider oral sex to be an act of having sex and some don't define anal penetration as having sex either. Unless all you're doing is kissing and/or heavy petting, I find no distinction myself between the other acts and penetration of the vagina - sex is sex. And if you're only doing it for the feeling that may well lead to multiple partners and what some consider promiscuity. But if one is otherwise educated, it is then possible to make a more informed decision when pursuing one's sexual life.

I'd like to add this, as reported in the Boston Globe: On Wednesday Massachusetts Govenor Maura Healey unveiled a draft proposal to update the state's health and physical education framework for the first time since 1999 to incorporate a "modern understanding" of health and wellness into the curriculum.

In a press release, Healey's administration said the bill is "LGBTQ+ inclusive, medically accurate, and developmentally and age appropriate" and covers LGBTQ+ health and wellness, mental and emotional health, personal safety, bodily autonomy, dating safety, violence prevention, physical health and hygiene, nutritionally balanced eating, physical activity, substance use disorder, and public, community, and environmental health.

"All of our students benefit when they learn from the up-to-date, evidence-based material grounded in science," Healey said in a statement Wednesday morning.

I might note for those who aren't aware that my state's governor is lesbian. It makes all the difference in the world, I believe.

 

[W_L]

On 6/22/2023 at 10:57 AM, Ron said:

I do believe that a lack of education is a root cause of many of the ills of sexual relationships. Some people don't consider oral sex to be an act of having sex and some don't define anal penetration as having sex either. Unless all you're doing is kissing and/or heavy petting, I find no distinction myself between the other acts and penetration of the vagina - sex is sex. And if you're only doing it for the feeling that may well lead to multiple partners and what some consider promiscuity. But if one is otherwise educated, it is then possible to make a more informed decision when pursuing one's sexual life.

I'd like to add this, as reported in the Boston Globe: On Wednesday Massachusetts Govenor Maura Healey unveiled a draft proposal to update the state's health and physical education framework for the first time since 1999 to incorporate a "modern understanding" of health and wellness into the curriculum.

In a press release, Healey's administration said the bill is "LGBTQ+ inclusive, medically accurate, and developmentally and age appropriate" and covers LGBTQ+ health and wellness, mental and emotional health, personal safety, bodily autonomy, dating safety, violence prevention, physical health and hygiene, nutritionally balanced eating, physical activity, substance use disorder, and public, community, and environmental health.

"All of our students benefit when they learn from the up-to-date, evidence-based material grounded in science," Healey said in a statement Wednesday morning.

I might note for those who aren't aware that my state's governor is lesbian. It makes all the difference in the world, I believe.

 

It does make sense and I am glad Governor Healey updated the almost quarter-century-old guidelines. 

As for promiscuity, personally, I have had about 11 lovers in my life. Looking back, I don't define myself as being particularly judgy, but a quickie in the bathroom or a quick romp in a car doesn't do it for me. Again, it's a matter of your personal sexuality, not merely sexual orientation. 

Took me a long time to understand the difference, some people are inherently sexual and some find sexuality lower on their emotional needs. Having realized I am demi as well as being gay sort of made me understand a few things about the false concepts that permeate the ideas of sexuality. There is attraction and there are emotional needs that affect what sex and interpersonal relationship entails. The old stereotype of gay and bi men being promiscuous and open to advances was how the world saw a version of us when sexual needs were repressed and encounters were fleeting. However, beyond the encounter phase, we're still human and have needs beyond pleasure and orgasms. Some people never want or never can get beyond the encounter stage of a relationship due to various issues. 

I am probably on the other side of the spectrum of promiscuity, but I hope my views and experiences can help.

[gdaniel]

On 6/20/2023 at 4:37 PM, lawfulneutralmage said:

Why is being judged different depending on what topic one is being judged?

I was under the assumption that the question was whether being being promiscuous was being moral or not, and I stated "although it has absolutely nothing to do with them" i.e. in general that is none of your business. However, your statement now changes the question to something else entirely (please correct me, if I am wrong): is being promiscuous and not telling me/pretending it not to be moral or not (in case we were about to have sex). Now, it directly affects you, and that is a different case. Withholding such information and then leading to sex can, if I remember correctly, even be interpreted as rape i.e. gaining consent under false pretense.

Generally, I try to live by Luke 6:37: "Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven." While that does not mean anything goes with regards of behavior towards other people (as indicated in my first response), it does mean that people shall live their lives as they wish.

The problem with moral and judgement is that queer people will very quickly be at the receiving end of it.

 

 

None of us have any room to condemn others. We condemn ourselves by our own actions.

 

[gdaniel]

Websters defines it thusly: 1 having or characterized by many transient sexual relationships. 2 indiscriminate or casual:

which begs the question of how many is "many, indiscriminate or casual."

As a bisexual Christian who has had only two gay experiences late in life, I can only say that as such a person who lived a straight life for 74 years. Through the 50's and 60's a girl was "promiscuous" if she slept with more than 1 guy. I struggle with what is apparently a part of gay culture, that of having sex with multiple partners. I don't condemn it, because I'm not a part of it and I am ignorant of it. But as the first 4 words of this paragraph state, from a straight Christian's standpoint, more than two is promiscuous, and more than 5 makes one a slut.

Please don't be harsh with me. I don't mean to be judgmental in my comments. Only trying to offer my own perspective on the subject. Feel free to respond as you like.

[Ron]

24 minutes ago, gdaniel said:

I don't mean to be judgmental in my comments.

Oh goodness, but you are judging and your every comment reads as judgment regardless of your statement otherwise. I think we all need reminding every now and again that our opinions are our own, and we need not always express them fully. Because, after all, opinions are subjective and not necessarily facts—and usually not factual at all.

[gdaniel]

1 minute ago, Ron said:

Oh goodness, but you are judging and your every comment reads as judgment regardless of your statement otherwise. I think we all need reminding every now and again that our opinions are our own, and we need not always express them fully. Because, after all, opinions are subjective and not necessarily facts—and usually not factual at all.

Thank you for your response, @Ron. I accept it as it 2was intended, and yes, I suppose my comments were judgmental even though I might have meant otherwise. Again, my only excuse is my ignorance, which is no excuse, really. I learned in ROTC in college that an "excuse" is what we give when we don't have a "reason." And in the military, excuses are not acceptable. But, judgmental though they may be, I do not retract or apologize for them. It's just where I come from.

[ReaderPaul]

15 minutes ago, gdaniel said:

Thank you for your response, @Ron. I accept it as it 2was intended, and yes, I suppose my comments were judgmental even though I might have meant otherwise. Again, my only excuse is my ignorance, which is no excuse, really. I learned in ROTC in college that an "excuse" is what we give when we don't have a "reason." And in the military, excuses are not acceptable. But, judgmental though they may be, I do not retract or apologize for them. It's just where I come from.

Some of it depends on what phase of life one might be in.

If one has several sexual partners in quick succession, that might be termed promiscuous.  But if -- then -- the same person settles down to one person for, say 10 years, I personally would consider them no longer promiscuous.

Different persons have differing interpretations of the definition of promiscuous. 

[gdaniel]

Just now, ReaderPaul said:

Some of it depends on what phase of life one might be in.

If one has several sexual partners in quick succession, that might be termed promiscuous.  But if -- then -- the same person settles down to one person for, say 10 years, I personally would consider them no longer promiscuous.

Different persons have differing interpretations of the definition of promiscuous. 

I totally agree with this comment! Having been married to the woman I loved for 50 years and coming from a family without divorce, I used to think there was something uniquely wrong with gay relationships that didn't last forever. Now, with so many heterosexual relationships not lasting a lifetime, I have a different perspective. As a tax practitioner, I have a gay couple who didn't present as gay. After 4 years of them coming to my office together for ONE of their tax returns, I finally had the guts to ask if they were a couple. Their response was a surprised, "Yes, for 15 years now." When I asked why they didn't get married and file jointly, they answered that they would as soon as Texas recognized same-sex marriages. I also knew a lesbian couple who had been together for 25 years when they moved away. I also have another gay couple who have only been married about 6 years, but they have weathered some trying times and remain together. So my obviously limited experience is that even gay and lesbian couples can stay together for LONG periods of time. I wish that for all.

God bless you all, wherever you are in your relationships!

[JamesSavik]

I find spreadsheets help me to keep track.

Maybe some enterprising soul might invent an app for your cell phone.

[LJCC]

I'm honestly more judgemental towards someone who has several partners and does not know what to do in bed.

If you've had a thousand sex partners, you better blow my mind apart from blowing me up.

If not, then go back to the saddle and re-learn everything. You're not leaving the bed until you've sucked a thousand more dicks and got this right.

 

[W_L]

10 hours ago, gdaniel said:

I totally agree with this comment! Having been married to the woman I loved for 50 years and coming from a family without divorce, I used to think there was something uniquely wrong with gay relationships that didn't last forever. Now, with so many heterosexual relationships not lasting a lifetime, I have a different perspective. As a tax practitioner, I have a gay couple who didn't present as gay. After 4 years of them coming to my office together for ONE of their tax returns, I finally had the guts to ask if they were a couple. Their response was a surprised, "Yes, for 15 years now." When I asked why they didn't get married and file jointly, they answered that they would as soon as Texas recognized same-sex marriages. I also knew a lesbian couple who had been together for 25 years when they moved away. I also have another gay couple who have only been married about 6 years, but they have weathered some trying times and remain together. So my obviously limited experience is that even gay and lesbian couples can stay together for LONG periods of time. I wish that for all.

God bless you all, wherever you are in your relationships!

As a Tax practitioner and EA as well, I can relate, you meet a lot of interesting people in the practice with different circumstances. I do it as a side business for both profit and enjoyment to work on other people's affairs.

Heterosexual relationships are also complex, one male client who owns a business is married to a woman for 30 years, has children around 12 and 15 with another woman he claims as dependents, and another child with another woman who is around 14 that he removed as dependent so the third woman can claim separately. I can tell he has the money and the means to support them. It's a curious reality and situation, but I'm a student of history, I know that polygamy and polyamory technically was normal among those with means and ability. Christian traditions turned against it, only for common folks (Popes, nobles, and Kings had public consorts). He was not the only man with such relationships I've met, among what we would call the high income earners of $1 million+/annual. One interesting thing many may find odd though, if so many people with money are promiscuous or having poly relationships, why don't they just make it official or seek redress for their "bastard" children to be acknowledged? @gdaniel That's the rub, they come from your generation, when such relationships are open secrets and not meant to be publicly acknowledged due to "common decency". People cling to false sense of morality despite the reality sometimes being far different than what is preached or taught even in the realm of heterosexuality. 

So if you apply those lessons to homosexual relationships, it's hard for people not to have judgements on just a normal gay couple.

 

Edited July 13, 2023 by W_L