If so, please identify yourself and explain to us what makes you tick. I'm seriously curious.
There seems to be an overwhelming number of your sort on Datalounge these days. You can't all be Christian freepers, can you? I know some gay people are also always pointing accusing fingers at people who actually do things with their penises.
OK, I'll bite. In the late 1970s, I kept telling my friends that one day you are going to get something that cannot be cured with a shot of penicillin. I'm here. They're not. I must have done something right.
They're just trolling for a response.
Are you a booger-eating baboon, OP?
I can't get over the reactions in the thread about the parents who gave their gay son The Joy of Gay Sex. It's like a Baptist ladies bible meeting. So strange.
Remember when Datalounge was a gay website?
Thanks R5. That was precisely my point. Datalounge isn't very gay anymore. At least not as gay as it once was.
I don't eat boggers but I didn't hate on the Lay of Biscay because she did. We are all baboons.
Sex spreads disease.
So I choose to avoid it.
The buzzwords 'sex-negative' and 'sex-positive' are the most ludicrous creations in the English language.
I'm not sex-negative, but sucking anonymous cock at glory holes and restrooms is a pathology imho.
So being gay MUST mean that we can't be a little conservative or delicate in our discussion of sexual matters. I really don't think it's classy to be SO frank about our sexual practices. I'm a gay man, but of course I must be self-loathing if I refrain from discussing sex at my grandparents' shabbat dinner table.
I consider myself sex-pragmatic.
So pragmatism about sex means celibacy? Who knew?!
[quote]I really don't think it's classy to be SO frank about our sexual practices. I'm a gay man, but of course I must be self-loathing if I refrain from discussing sex at my grandparents' shabbat dinner table.
This isn't your grandparents' shabbat dinner table. This is Datalounge.
Strange that you didn't know that.
To be frank, I never had the self-confidence to be a joyful whore. I developed other hobbies instead. It doesn't make me sex-negative though. Just like the fact that I don't like to cook doesn't make me food-negative.
r14, you know what I mean.
[quote]So pragmatism about sex means celibacy? Who knew?!
The entire generation that died probably wishes they did.
Good luck with the new AIDS, which is probably circulating as we speak.
OK, R1 here. I had not read the Parents...Joy of Gay Sex thread when I posted. I am a bit shocked by the responses. Really, nobody has know a parent to give a child "Show Me!" or "Our Bodies, Our Selves"? If this thread is a response to that thread, I am not in the sex negative category. My only response to the parents giving the son a copy of the Joy of Gay Sex is why did they wait so long. He came out in August.
[quote]The entire generation that died probably wishes they did.
ENTIRE GENERATION??? *IF* we assume that EVERY AIDS death in the US since 1980 was a gay man, then it's roughly ONE PERCENT of gay men alive since 1980 who died of AIDS.
I am a lesbian, and I was fairly promiscuous in my youth -- and I don't regret it for a minute.
There are too many straight women on this site, IMHO.
I think the "sex pragmatist" is the sort of self-loathing, closeted man who goes to a gay bar and inevitably tries to pick up someone's hag.
R17 you're an idiot. I don't know a single guy who died of AIDS who regretted sleeping around.
You sick fuck ! Wasn't your other judgmental post enough to make you feel better about yourself? Please don't take this complete prolapsed anus seriously, he is trolling.
Stop equating it to a straight couple giving their kids a book or health related manual about sex.
These parents did not give an educational book or manual. Most straight parents aren't handing out the Karma Sutra to their teen-aged kids. This is invasive. Has nothing to do with sex itself.
Massive sex abuse as a five and six year old. I was a teenage whore, now I can't stand to be touched. It's shitty and unfair, but such is life. That said, I don't give a rat's ass what others do and love hearing my friend's slutty stories.
I'm "disease-negative," which some of you seem to confuse with "sex-negative."
But, really, it's so ridiculous to think it's all so black and white. Which makes me think the people who keep harping on terms like "sex-negative" don't actually have much real sex in their own lives.
R24, do you really think "Show Me", "Our Bodies, Our selves" are just sex manuals? Really this seems to be about identity politics. How dare a heterosexual get involved in gay sex (even though they are the parents.) I have come to the conclusion that the comments aren't sex negative, they are heterophobic.
And for r22, I know of many, many men who said if they had it to do over again, they would have made better choices. And yes, I said "better" not "different". I imagine R22 is your age, because anyone around in the 1980s would not have made that comment.
And their better choices would have been more sex, not less R27. Stop lying. You're being stupid. Nobody regrets being gay or getting laid. Ever.
R11= Self-loathing queen.
They always think that mentioning the words gay sex= talking about a gangbang with granny.
Your self-loathing ass does realize that one can talk about gay sex without being lewd or raunchy, right? Of course you don't, cause you're a self-loathing queen who thinks gay sex=dirty forbidden subject.
Encouraging a teen to read about gay sex (or talk about it with an adult) is much more preferable to that teen watching degrading porn. Funny, how you don't seem to get that connection.
Completely agree with R9. I don't hear those terms come up among friends, but the minute I challenge someone's "right" to have sex in public, I'm called sex-negative or a mincing prisspot. Only on DL, of course.
R29, you seem to love LEAPING to conclusions.
Imagine a straight man saying:
I refuse to talk about straight sex with my teen son because it's raunchy and dirty, and such lewd talks aren't appropriate for discussion.
Oh yeah, that would never happen because straight people don't equate straight sex as a dirty topic like r11 does with gay sex. Well, the religious nuts do...
R31, what conclusions?
He stated that he doesn't like to talk about gay sex because it's an inappropriate subject to talk about in front of others. He thinks that talking about gay sex means telling everybody about a kinky fantasy.
Straight people don't think discussing straight sex= telling granny the details about the sex you had last night.
You CAN talk about gay sex without being lewd which is what r11 implies.
OP, sorry I'm not poz. That's what really makes you mad, right?
[quote]Datalounge isn't very gay anymore. At least not as gay as it once was.
I think DL is as gay as it ever was but we're facing a real generational divide between the eldergays and everybody else. It's the only theory I have to explain the resistance to gay life evolving to any extent.
I'd love to hug all the older gay guys and tell them that the fight is over and that we've won. We no longer need to be hypersexual. Gone are the days when we needed to show the hateful straight world that we won't conform to their sexual mores. Of course, that demonstration sprung from the jealousy of being denied to live their mainstream lives. Now that we're accepted by the hets, we can stop letting our libido drive our decisions and live happy normal lives and not cruise for dick in every alley way.
Well said, R36. Of course, I can already sense the spittle forming.
[quote]we can stop letting our libido drive our decisions and live happy normal lives and not cruise for dick in every alley way.
Yes, it's true. I want to be as level headed about sex as any straight guy. They don't have affairs, fuck around, think about pussy all the time or look at porno.
Not me, OP!
Sex, sex, sex, sex! That's all I want to talk about and all I want to do! I proudly display copies of THE INSTIGATOR on my coffee table for all my guests to see, and put centerfolds from FISTING Magazine up on my cubicle at work!
My guess is that most sex-negtive posters on DL aren't Puritans but rather just enjoy being nasty to anyone who opens up about sex.
The spittle has arrived!
r38, relatively speaking, I'd say that gay guys are much more promiscuous than straight guys, especially when you're talking about guys over 30. I would hazard to guess that the number of straight couples with open relationships or "arrangement" is not even close to the number of guys with these types of relationships. And please don't entertain me with that stale story about how straight guys would be just as promiscuous if women would play along. It's about restraint.
[quote] I think DL is as gay as it ever was but we're facing a real generational divide between the eldergays and everybody else. It's the only theory I have to explain the resistance to gay life evolving to any extent.
I don't think that's a fair statement at all.
A BETTER statement would be that we're all realizing that the gay community's main thing in common? Is that we ALL LOVE DICK. And outside of that, we are as diverse as the straight community. Some people are liberal, some conservative, some are early adopters, some cling to the well trodden path, etc.
Age can be an indicator for a more conservative approach, but I also know a lot of thirty and forty something men who aren't like that.
This is a good thing, really. We're not all the same, and maybe if the media gets its shit together, they'll start reflecting that on TV, in films, etc.
[quote]Well said, [R36]. Of course, I can already sense the spittle forming.
It's not spittle, Mary, and if you loosened your corset once in awhile, you'd know that.
Gays are more promiscuous because they are MEN dealing with other MEN.
If women had the same sex drive as guys, there'd be just as many open relationships.
A gay guy that longs for a monogamous relationship has the same amount of restraint as a straight guy who longs for a monogamous relationship.
Of course in your self-loathing mind, gays guys are incapable of monogamy.
[quote]And please don't entertain me with that stale story about how straight guys would be just as promiscuous if women would play along.
So many straight guys I have known have said that they wish the amount of sex available to a gay guy was on offer to them.
As for restraint, I don't need to restrain myself sexually as I am completely happy with my partner of five years. I have always had monogamous relationships without any need for restraint. However, a couple of friends have open relationships and are happy with how they choose to have a relationship.
I absolutely hate the phrase "sex positive" because saying you enjoy sex is not exactly a controversial position. And using the term "sex positive" defeats the purpose. It's supposed to insinuate that a person has lots of sex without shame about it. But the need to use a term like that to defend your behavior means you DO feel shame about it.
I really wish there was some sort of tick/ like type function on DL, cause I would tick R45's post.
I think the promiscuity in gay life is sad, but not as sad as the reasons for it in most cases.
r45 is just another old fool who thinks anyone repulsed by excess and hedonism MUST be a self-loather. Just because I choose not to cruise Central Park or saunas for cock doesn't make me self-loathing. Quite the opposite actually. As others have mentioned, the tendency toward excessive sex is indicative of self-hatred (the need for constant validation from other men through sex), not to mention psychological issues such as depression.
r46, you do realize that straight guys who say that are just joking around so that they don't come off as close-minded? I mean, you do know that, don't you?
You mean people were up set about Joy of Gay Sex? What a bunch of idiots!
Gay or straight, men are promiscuious...the fact is, so are women but they are better at it.
Amen x1000 to R36.
[quote]Gays are more promiscuous because they are MEN dealing with other MEN.
You ARE indeed a 100%-red-blooded HE-MAN!!!!
When did I say you were a self-loather because you don't cruise parks and saunas? Are you that stupid you have to make up shit to have an argument? I said you were a self-loather because you think gay men are all sluts. Just because you can't find a men that will love you doesn't mean all gay men are incapable of love. You're a deluded self-loather who accuse anyone who call you out on your bs of being super sluts.
You also must not know any straight men because they do feel that way. All of them. Except the ones in happy relationships and the religious fucked up nuts.
Some gay men are promiscuous, but that's because they're men not because they're gay.
You're a sad person who lives in a sad world where everyone is either A) Super gay sluts with hiv, or B) Straight monagomous men who are so much better than those filthy gays.
I agree with R45. And you are kidding yourself R42 that some straight guys wouldn't be just as promiscuous as some gay guys are if it were as easy for them to be.
But, lots of gay men believe in sexual restraint and real relationships. Especially once they do the slutty thing for a while you grow up.
Obviously gay men do tend to have more sexual partners overall than straight men but life works by the opportunities given to you.
[quote]I would hazard to guess that the number of straight couples with open relationships or "arrangement" is not even close to the number of guys with these types of relationships.
I'm sure the percentage of straight, supposedly "monogamous" marriages where one or both partners has cheated is far higher than the percentage of gay couples who have openly and honestly negotiated their non-monogamy, but of course you just ignore that glaring reality.
The idea that the heterosexual myth of monogamy is the ideal that gay couples should strive for is, frankly, laughable on the face of it. It's like listening to Donald Trump and Newt Gingrich rail against gay marriage.
Am I wrong in my quiet belief that more often than not healthy negotiation of non monogamy probably involves one partner caving rather than being entirely alone?
Personally you couldn't pay me to condone my partner's cheating and privately I think open relationships are second class. If that's good enough for you, congratulations. It's an opinion in real life I keep to myself because people should be free to do as they please so long as no one gets hurt. But since we're talking about it, that's my view.
Christ almighty, R36/R41!! Do you think we had sex "back in the day" just to show straight people we weren't like them??? How fucking dense are you?? Is that why YOU have sex??
Gays in the 70's threw off the restrictions that straight elders put on sex -- and honey, we weren't the only ones. Young straights did the same damned thing. Didn't you ever hear the phrases "free love" or "the sexual revolution"?
One upon a time (before the birth control pill), straight couples who had sex generally became parents sooner or later, because other methods of birth control weren't nearly as effective as "the pill." A straight couple was expected to abstain from sex until marriage, and if they "slipped" and had sex/ got pregnant beforehand, that meant they "had to" get married. No one had a baby unless she was married, and young women who got pregnant and didn't get married were shipped off to homes for unwed mothers, where they were expected to have the baby, give it up for adoption, and pretend that nothing happened (see "Mad Men").
After the advent of the pill in the late 60's, young people began to see that the customs and mores of the past were no longer applicable, and those customs were rejected, much to the dismay of the Archie Bunker types. And gay people followed suit. No longer would we be having furtive encounters in dark alleys or Mafia-run bars. We would have sex -- and relationships -- out in the open and without shame.
Young straights rejected the marriage model, and so did gays. In fact, young people in general were experimenting with communal living arrangements and different relationship models. Even now, many straight people have LTRs and even children without the "benefit" of marriage. And everybody knows how many marriages end up in divorce.
It seems to me that young gays today want to revert to the customs of straight people in the 50's under the pretense of "we want the same benefits that straight people have." That is patently ridiculous. Even straight people have rejected those ancient customs. Our move should be away from marriage, not toward it. Young straights today don't get married; they "hook up." And yet here we are, silly gays, trying to be just like Grandma and Grandpa in the 50's.
Gay people have always been at the cutting edge of societal change. We have been great artists, composers, inventors, authors. Why young gays today are endorsing the sexual habits of the Calvinists I will never understand. But our sexuality is an integral part of who we are, and we should embrace it, in whatever form we choose to express it. And those of you who would seek to put your own restrictions on it should look in the mirror and examine your motives.
Live and let live, ladies and gentlemen.
I disagree. I think people who don't cruise parks and saunas are mentally ill. Someday you will wish you had more sex in your life. Deal.
Arrogant @ R59. Some good points, but arrogant and touting a different version of conforming to societal norms.
[quote]I disagree. I think people who don't cruise parks and saunas are mentally ill. Someday you will wish you had more sex in your life. Deal.
When would that be, while you care giver is changing your diaper because AIDS ate away your motor skills and bodily functions? Is that when?
Yeah, for a self proclaimed live and let live type, R59 sure seems to have set the one forward course everybody is supposed to follow.
[quote]Gay people have always been at the cutting edge of societal change. We have been great artists, composers, inventors, authors.
Except for the near-entire generation of them who died young and never realized their full potential as societal innovators because they COULDN'T STOP FUCKING.
Not a slut but damm I've had some good sex with guys that I liked, that I knew, and got to know first. Then came the cum. but not before.
[quote]Except for the near-entire generation of them who died young
Drama much? Again... roughly ONE PERCENT OF GAY MEN died of AIDS 19801-1995, and that's assuming EVERY AIDS DEATH in the USA was a gay man (so the actual percentage is smaller)
So it's NOT an ENTIRE GENERATION
it's not a 'NEAR-ENTIRE GENERATION'
Most of them survived.
It wasn't because THEY COULDN'T STOP FUCKING. It's called a DISEASE, you asshole.
A DISEASE they got because THEY COULDN'T STOP FUCKING.
Not Me, OP! My girlfriend and I used to have sex ALL the time....Then she died...
It's wonderful to see so many people viewing this from a true Christian viewpoint. Sex without love and marriage is not what Jesus would want for us.
Well it wasn't straight men who were getting AIDS by the thousands in the 1980s. Lots of false equivalency trolls in here. Dangerous stuff.
Good luck, guys.
Actually thousands of straight did get AIDS in the 1980s. Just not in North America.
I'm fairly sure we're talking about North America.
Oh, these young 'uns piss me off. I was a "sex negative" when I was 18 because I was in love with one man and it was a consuming fire. But he rejected me and I had sex with 200 men and you know what, I'm so glad I had that experience. And lots of them died of AIDS, and not one ever regretted being gay or being slutty, they just wished they'd started earlier and gave up the guilt, the hangups, etc. I still get "naturally monogamous," meaning when I'm in love, that guy means everything to me. But to make some kind of virtue out of that compulsion is just dumb. Sleeping around is good for everybody that tries it, gay or straight. And FYI, bitches, gay men on average get less sex than straight men, even though gays have more partners. So this notion that we are "hypersexual" is just bullshit. Partnered=more sex. You stupid young people are still buying all the negative stereotypes and false claims about gay people. I was an adult throughout the AIDS epidemic and I knew lots of men who died and not a single one regretted sleeping around. I'm sorry that your judgemental little minds can't process that. I might add that the ones who died were not sucking dick at rest stops and having sex in public. The ones who died were socializing in small social groups where everybody knew each other and did each other. There is very little opportunity for unsafe behavior in a public place. You also didn't see that much crossover where married guys were getting AIDS and giving it to women, did you, even though married guys were out at the truck stops and glory holes, weren't they? I'm not saying that you all need to run out and do that, but I am saying you young people have to get the sticks out of your asses. You're as bad as your grandparents.
If you're comfortable with your cohices, R74, that's great, but stop telling everybody how to live their lives. I thought the whole point on this exercise was the freedom to live the lives we want, not the lives people would proscribe for us. You're as bad as anybody with your condescension of people who aren't like you.
[quote]But he rejected me and I had sex with 200 men and you know what, I'm so glad I had that experience.
I'm curious, exactly why are you so glad? The experience obviously still warms the winter of your life. Share with us the benefit of your volume.
Sorry, benefit of your wisdom.
I'm not telling you how to live. What I am telling you is to stop demonizing casual sex.
Or sex in general.
Isn't the title redundant? or are there sex-positive puritans?
How dare you claim that none of the dead regret their choices, R74. Who do you think you are?
I think sex positive puritans are monogamous.
R66, do you have a link?
It's not that I don't believe you but it sure feels like more than 1% of the gay men 15 years older and and 5 younger than me are thin on the ground.
I have to say R74 has a great post. To me it seems like these threads always wind up arguing two sides of a dispute when there really is just a spectrum of behavior. Some sluts are enlightened, some are stuck; ditto for the monogamous.
I've been in both types of relationships, one open, one not. They're just different, neither is inherently superior.
58 year old
OP slimed her out of: "Parents Give Newly Out Of The Closet Son, "The Joys of Gay Sex" With Letter"
She thinks parents giving their son how-to gay sex books is normal. Freakazoid.
I'm somebody who didn't treat people with AIDS like Typhoid Marys and cross the street to get away from them like you did, R81. I was there, and I listened. Did they say it for my benefit? Well, maybe, but most were a pretty blunt bunch who were not much concerned about hurting feelings. There was no, "if only I'd been faithful" talk. None. Not even from one or two self-loathers who tried Christianity on for a fit. Not one of them every regretted the relationships or sex experiences they had.
[quote]It seems to me that young gays today want to revert to the customs of straight people in the 50's under the pretense of "we want the same benefits that straight people have." That is patently ridiculous. Even straight people have rejected those ancient customs. Our move should be away from marriage, not toward it. Young straights today don't get married; they "hook up." And yet here we are, silly gays, trying to be just like Grandma and Grandpa in the 50's.
And yet, hundreds of thousands of straight people got married all the same last year in the US. How many gay people could?
Why are you espousing "live and let live" while denying rights of those who WANT to get married to get married?
Clearly, you only want "live and let live" to apply to other people judging you. You don't want other gay men to have or to want anything different from what you want for yourself.
R81=Joel Osteen's wife
R66 = holocaust denialist
R84, I think it's great those parents did that too.
R88=Christian toady who thinks gays are only 1% of the population.
My pussy is tight and pure, sex is dirty dirty dirty!
R85 sure, sure they did.
R87 = Jacks off to Joel Osteen's earwax.
[quote]There was no, "if only I'd been faithful" talk. None.
Well, they wouldn't have known anything else to say would they? Back then it was one long orgy. It was freedom. Just like they wouldn't have known how the things they did would end their lives. With more information and understanding maybe they would have told you something different.
Thing is, times have changed. We know more, about everything, from the transmission of HIV to the options for how we can live our lives as gay people. You make your choices based on the information you have, but this notion that the great gay days of the 70s and 80s is the only way to go... it just makes you irrelevant if you can't at least acknowledge there are other choices, which you really don't when you read what you've posted.
"... this notion that the great gay days of the 70s and 80s is the only way to go..."
I don't think anyone is saying this, anymore than anyone should say monogamy "...is the only way to go..."
I read this thread as though there's a lot of defensiveness that this is what is being said by the 'opposing' poster, but I don't think it's reflective of most of the posters' attitudes.
Or maybe it's just not reflective of mine. It all can work. Why not have options?
R83, happen to be monogamous 10 years
Just because people don't cruise toilet blocks or truck stops doesn't mean the behaviour of gay men has changed with respect to anonymous sex. If Grindr was around in the 1970s, men would have stopped using public venues for sex as well. Just because you get your fix via an app doesn't put you above gay men of 40 years ago. Plenty of hets still think you're disgusting.
Plenty of gays, too. I'm looking for somebody to build a life with. Preferably one without anal warts.
[quote]It's wonderful to see so many people viewing this from a true Christian viewpoint. Sex without love and marriage is not what Jesus would want for us.
Jesus never said any such thing, R70. Quit putting words in his mouth and go study some real bible history, not the regurgitated crap most Christians accept as real.
I'm guessing OP, you're someone who shrieks "judgmental!" when a sightly older gay guy says "Young guys who have unsafe sex are morons!"
I could be wrong, but I have lots of younger friends, and this response is quite common. Anyone who doesn't embrace their unnecessary sero-converting is "sex negative", and "expressing judgment."
[quote]Now that we're accepted by the hets, we can stop letting our libido drive our decisions and live happy normal lives and not cruise for dick in every alley way.
No, we just post on Grindr and Scruff and Manhunt trolling for anonymous cock. No fats, fems or Asians. We're so much more enlightened now.
There is so much blatant mental illness and self loathing on this thread. It's sickening.
There's so much sickness, period.
Bring me your penises and testicles, and I will punish them appropriately.
Burn, baby, burn.
R94, you aren't wise, you're just a scared little misanthrope. Agnes Gooch has done more living than you, and she's FICTION.
"But he rejected me and I had sex with 200 men and you know what, I'm so glad I had that experience. And lots of them died of AIDS, and not one ever regretted being gay or being slutty, they just wished they'd started earlier and gave up the guilt, the hangups, etc."
"That experience?" That experience of exchanging body fluids with 200 people? God knows what kind of people they were or what they looked like.
As for all those men who died of AIDS but never regretted being promiscuous and wished they'd started fucking furiously SOONER...I would have liked to have asked them a question. I would have liked to have said to them: "you're suffering and soon you'll be dead...was all that promiscuity worth dying for?" I guess some of the poor souls would have said yes.
Of course they would, R105.
The other poster is delusional.
R105 not one of those men would have traded places with you.
I get the impression that OP is the type that thinks being sex positive means engaging in a host of behaviors that will likely lead to STIs and other infections.
"Young straights rejected the marriage model, and so did gays."
Uh, no. Even at the height of the so-called sexual revolution the average age at first marriage was about 21 for females. I grew up in Bumfucke and tons of girls got married right out of high school or college. People who were still unmarried at 30 were considered weird or sad.
Fuck the book, he should give his son a copy of "Dawson's 50 Load Weekend"
It's surprising, but even going back to the 1600's women tended to get married around age 18 and men around age 21.
Hardly anyone got married before age 18.
The only time women married younger was family stress (death of parents) They'd live with relatives and get married at age 16.
25 was really late for either sex to get married.
r109 is correct. The sexual revolution was mostly lost on the het world. That was for what was then considered the fringe of society, much like war protests etc were. The overwhelming majority of straight people followed their parents's paths and married and had kids young. A very small percentage experiemented sexually, or ran off to Haight Ashbury to live hippie lives, for that matter. Gay guys, on the other hand, went wild during the 70s and unfortunately paid the price.
"R105, not one of those men would have traded places with you"
Who are you to speak for anybody else, you fuckhead? I find it hard to believe that anyone with AIDS would not want to trade places with someone who is HIV-negative. I guess your view is that it's preferable to be a slut, even if you do end up dead from AIDS.
You are a truly sick individual.
If someone thinks that promiscuity and loveless sex were worth getting HIV, that reveals the state of that person's values and priorities in life. They are morally impaired to value promiscuity over health and life. Their sexual behavior reflect a hollowness of the soul, a lack of wisdom and judgment about what really matters in life. They value fleeting experiences of the moment over longterm health and morality, and they pay the price for it.
Sexual Liberation was much more culturally positive than Hetero-normalizing.
Too bad about AIDS, though.
I speak for them because they spoke to me R113. You and R114 have nothing but your ignorance and fear, torturing you every night.
Besides disease, sexual lib also resulted in a general numbness about sex. Sex has pervaded every aspect of society, and it's become just another bodily function. What should be an amazing experience between two people expressing their love and affection has degenerated into something akin to peeing. Sex should be special...the climactic expression of love. I'm a gay guy, and sorry to sound like a little old church lady, but when you look at the big picture and see a hypersexualized society--with its deadly diseases and apathy toward sex--that is an end unto itself, maybe we need to rethink our behavior. I'm just as liberal as the next guy, but progress isn't always a positive thing. Think about it. Just my 2 cents.
R118 is doing it wrong if it is just like peeing to him. Sex is joyous giving, not selfish taking. It is because they see sex as selfish, compulsive, animal, that one understands right winger church lady types like R118 to be defective individuals, ruined by overly strict toilet training.
Why did some eldergays not get AIDS?
I'm talking about the ones who, when they came of age, relinquished the sex-negative puritanism they'd been brought up in, putting it out there as often and as freely and as bottomly as their dead age cohorts.
Yet they didn't get bit by the bug.
Does anyone know?
No r118 -- Sexual Liberation is different from the Sexual Revolution, which you describe. The "revolution" had a distinct political and social agenda, liberation sought to free sex from any agendas.
[quote]Sex is joyous giving, not selfish taking.
So is the guy in the sling giving or taking?
I was apparently spared so I could speak the truth to you old sourpuss young'uns.
Very few promiscuous anal bottoms survived, R120, so I'm not sure what you're referring to. Most of the survivors from that era who were promiscuous were either exclusive tops or they exclusively preferred oral to anal sex.
A few versatile types were just lucky enough to dodge all the right bullets, but those who bottomed often and indiscriminately, without any protection, are pretty much all long dead. I don't recall any case studies or stories of long-term survivors or never-infected men who claim they were promiscuous bareback anal bottoms during the height of the plague years.
Just like peeing????
If sex--even anonymous sex in a shithole--is ever "like peeing", you have issues.
Sex is a wonderful recreational activity and can foster affection and emotional bonds that, while positive, don't quite approach "love". Not everyone has that much estrogen in their system. Some of us like a playful romp with a buddy once in a while. It doesn't make it "dirty", nor does it make two committed partners who "make love" superior to them.
Why do all the "sex-positive" guys proclaiming the joy of promiscuity and hedonism seem so angry and bitter?
R124, it is those bottoms who bottomed often and indiscriminately I am talking about. However, I am thinking more of the beginning of the epidemic, of those who didn't know what they were doing until it was too late.
[quote]Some of us like a playful romp with a buddy once in a while.
I will only do oral, and only then in a committed relationship. Anal with anyone is just too risky. If a guy has issues with my limits, then it's bye bye baby. I'm hardly the only one. A lot of guys don't do anal and are fine with just oral. The best part of sex anyway is being close and intimate with the person you love, and that can be accomplished without anal sex.
[quote]it is those bottoms who bottomed often and indiscriminately I am talking about.
And I'm saying they never existed. Link to something about promiscuous anal bottoms who survived the AIDS epidemic? You sound confused.
R124 that's a lie. True, I'm not much a bottom, but I survived. It wasn't promiscuity that killed them, it was unsafe sex. Duh.
Sometimes I wonder why gaylings are so stupid. Don't you learn ANYTHING in school anymore?
Gay hate and sex hangups are not just for straights. Some of the worst here are loathesome lonely gay brothers.
The associatIon of sex with Puritan values is sooooo American.
r131, it was both. even if they practiced unsafe sex as a bottom, it would be very unlikely that they would get HIV if they only had one, two, or three lifetime partners as a bottom. You enhance the risk when you start indiscriminately and unselectively having sex with multiple, random partners.
I hate when people say something along the line of "be as promiscuous as you want, as long as you bag it every time." True, condoms offer significant (though hardly 100%) protection against HIV and other STDs, but if you have sexual encounter after sexual encounter, the odds are that eventually something will go amiss (condom breaking or going on wrong; getting precum in your ass) and put you at risk. That's why limiting our number of partners, or better yet, good old fashioned monogamy, is the way to go.
No it was not both. It was unsafe sex, not promiscuity. Your risk is the same for any sexual encounter, higher if you have a partner that you aren't aware is sleeping around and you practice unsafe sex.
those who live like glass assholes shouldn't throw stone dildos.
how many of you UB2 paragons of virtue smoke or drink or enjoy chemicals or hoard objects or waste time at the computer or otherwise abstain from exercise (other than your daily aerobic judgement marathon)?
there all kinds of 'disease' yet HIV/AIDS, which used to be the one area where the community stood together (and I'm including the L's, T's , B's and Q's and all others).
the response to AIDS did much to improve healthcare in areas of patient advocacy, research and treatment delivery. that's something we can be proud of. now HIV become an excuse for some to make themselves feel superior to others.
all of us rely on public assistance in some form, right now, and will rely on it even more in our hissing days. all the time you spend pointing the finger is time not invested in an even more important type of public assistance: our friends and families.
can you stop acting like (pubic) crabs in the cooking pot, tearing each other down in a futile effort to escape your own lack or compassion,imagination and joy?
I experienced late 1970s NYC. I lived in Hell's Kitchen.
The sexual revolution.... the gay sexual revolution... during those years was wonderful. It was a natural and inevitable chapter.
The era was romantic. It was genuinely Bohemian.
I was not much into bottoming. Never took drugs. I was not into the hard scenes at places like the Anvil. So that probably kept me out of a lot of danger. But boy did I have fun.
I appreciate people who are discreet. But I have no time for prudes.
R136, it's not our fault you have AIDS.
You have to wonder how people like Travolta, Spacey, and others who surely would've been sexually active before AIDS came on the scene, are still alive? Sheer luck, or are they exclusive tops?
"I speak for them because they spoke to me [R113]. You and [R114] have nothing but your ignorance and fear, torturing you every night"
So all your former lovers who died of AIDS said they wouldn't change a thing, that having lots of unprotected sex was worth dying for? They must have been delirious or suffering from AIDS dementia. Or maybe you're just full of bullshit.
Here's a quote from Larry Kramer (you've heard of him, haven't you? Maybe not). I think he had you and others like you in mind when he said it:
"How can they value life so little and cocks and asses so much?"
I am not a sex-negative puritian, however, I do practice safer-sex 100% of the time and I limit my number of sexual partners. I do not pick up men on Grind'r or in truck stop bathrooms or in the city park. Casual sex with strangers is a no-no. I am also tested every six months. I hope to live a long happy life. I hope you do as well.
"Strut, pout, put it out. That's what you want from women. Come on baby, whatcha takin' me for? Strut, pout, put it out. All takin' and no givin'..."
Sheena Easton, just saying "Hi, guys"
Promiscuity is unsafe sex. Statistically, monogamy makes it much likely you will encounter an infected person, especially if you are very selective in choosing the person you are in a monogamous relationship with and not just randomly hooking up. The more partners you hook up with, the more likely you will encounter an infected person, whether it is HPV, crabs, or HIV.
That's just not true R143. Experience has shown that the most dangerous lovers have always been serial monogamists, not bathhouse sluts.
[quote]It's not that I don't believe you but it sure feels like more than 1% of the gay men 15 years older and and 5 younger than me are thin on the ground.
It's simple math. Look up the numbers. At most it comes to 2 percent. In major centres like NYC, SF and LA, where no-holds-barred hedonism had been the norm it certainly decimated the gay male population, but then in mid-sized cities and smaller centres, where gay life was more discreet, it was less prevalent.
I am, OP. but I feel safer with my gun at home
I am a sex-neutral Rotarian.
I am STI-negative. Enough said. Choose your partners and behaviors very discriminately.
Fuck yeah, sex-negative is hot, sex-negative rocks my world. I'm proudly sex-negative and some of my hottest dirtiest sex has been with other proudly sex-negative men. I drink sex-negative men's piss. We hate sex but man can we get down with it! Hypocrisy is just part of human nature and we embrace that about ourselves.
Sex grosses the fuck out of us, and we love making people who are open and honest about how much they love sex feel like shit about themselves.
But when it comes down to fucking cocking it up - we go for it! We revel in being the disgusting, revolting whores that we are!
Stop trying to make "sex-negative" and "sex-positive" happen, OP.
One can be celibate and still be sex-positive. The hypocrisy of being sex-negative and still fucking around bothers me
I think those two terms are edrusgay relics.
R152 is speaking the truth of most of the pissant young gays on this thread.
I'm not sex negative, but I also think that the explicit, dehumanized sexual images that bombards our culture is damaging and debasing. Especially for children, who--at present--are, for the most part, raised by the media, what with both parents working all the time to keep up with the Jones, OR, to put food on the table.
In other words, sex has become cheap, meaningless, and animalistic. Pop culture has reduced us all to sex machines. I don't know what people don't get about less is more.
At least sex negatives are STD negative.
If being repulsed at the thought of sticking some strangers dick in my mouth without prior knowledge of said dick's whereabouts for the last 24 hours makes me a sex negative, then so be it.
My suspicion is that many of the guys who come off as sex-negative on DL aren't really sex-negative, they just love making others feel bad.
My suspicion is also that many apparent sex-negative people on DL are hypocrites who are just as into sex - both in theory and practice and in a wide array of forms - as others.
Lookit, sex negatives. I will do what I want when I want with my big cock. If you wanna be a sissymary and sit home alone and preach to others, do so. You all say you're sex negative because of fear of diseases. Big fucking deal. STDs are part of life. Get over it. Use a condom and if you catch something, go to your doctor and get treated. Life is too short to sit home alone crying because of lack of human contact. Sex negativity is a mental illness.
I wonder what the over-lap between the sex-negative harpies on here is with the prissy food-Nazis. They're both cut from the same arrogant, judgmental, scolding, holier-than-thou cloth...
r162, I really don't care much what you do with your body, dude, unless of course society has to pick up the costs of your reckless behavior or see its impacts. Do what you do, dude; just do it so we don't have to know about it or see it.
Really [R162] How's that facial wasting coming along.
Give me an orgasm or give me death.
And I don't give it shit what it costs me personally or what is cost society.
This is about ME!!! Got it? ME and my personal freedoms. The hell with the rest of you.
R162 and his sex positvie buddies
I was quite the whore years ago, well into 1,000 partners over 25 years. Haven't had the desire to have sex in a few years. No std's here just no desire. Usually jack few times a week and I'm happy.
Better to be "Sex Negative" than to be "HIV Positive" I always say.
r168...while i follow your sentiment that abstinence is the best protection, I find your comment offensive. Not all people who have HIV recieved it from being promiscuous...I being one of them. There is enough stigma attatched to HIV as it is...
Also you don't have to be sex-negative to avoid being HIV positive, R168. But this is DL, only two sides to every issue.
We're born. We breathe. We eat. We drink. We shit. We piss. We fart. We vomit. We fuck. We age. We die. What else is there?
R171 You should make a song out of that. It's catchy.
R112, if the sexual revolution bypassed straight people, why are there so many "baby mamas"? Why are so many straight couples living together without "benefit" of marriage? Do you even know that those things were very rare before what we now call "the sexual revolution"? Haven't you ever heard the phrase "they had to get married"?
You kids just don't have a context to put this stuff in -- you need to spend more time talking to e1dergays, reading history, and listening to your professors.
"You all say you're sex negative because of fear of diseases. Big fucking deal. STDs are part of life. Get over it. Use a condom and if you catch something, go to your doctor and get treated. Life is too short to sit home alone crying because of lack of human contact. Sex negativity is a mental illness."
You don't sound like you're "enjoying life" at ALL. You sound like a very miserable, very unhappy, friendless person.
You're also stunningly ignorant. If you're HIV-positive that's IT. There is no "treatment" that cures it. How can you not know that? Being HIV-positive is a chronic permanent condiction that progressively destroys your health. Are you totally out of touch with reality or something.
You're the one with the "mental illness."
[quote] I wonder what the over-lap between the sex-negative harpies on here is with the prissy food-Nazis. They're both cut from the same arrogant, judgmental, scolding, holier-than-thou cloth.
It's the same idea, hon.
Whether it's food or cock, I think about what I put in my mouth, and in my body.
R175, the real issue is that you seem to love to lecture others, put others down, and generally make yourself feel superior to others... in a highly obnoxious and off-putting way. Insufferable, smug, arrogant, elitist, and worse.
It's not about your choices. It's about the obnoxious and extremely vocal way you sit in judgment of others. Like those obnoxious evangelical preachers...
I know R176 was speaking but all I heard was: meow meow meow, whine whine whine.
Oh god. I'd agree with the dominant opinion of this thread, EXCEPT...
...people who express dislike for one given sex act (and aren't even scornful about it) are judged very harshly here, too. They'll get called "sex-negative puritans" when they actually just have preferences.
That's because, R177, you don't listen to others. You lecture them. You judge them. You think you always know better. And you're a controlling little bitch.... uptight and probably pretty insufferable to be around.
Oh the blue hair harpies are out in force tonight.
As opposed to the skanky harpies like yourself, r180?
I guess I am. Wow. I never heard this term before, sex negative. I used to be a hottie, dated porn stars and fucked guys in clubs South of Market (San Francisco) and in the Village (New York). I partied quite a bit. Then, about 34 years old I quit being a whore. That was 6 years ago. I never really caught anything a little pill couldnt cure, but at some point i wasnt into stranger sex, even if the guy was super hot. i really didnt want a lifetime desease, i enjoy feeling good and healthy. Now I just sit home and read what you bitches write and sleep alone. Am I missing out or should I count my blessings?
R179 You seem to be confusing "anyone with another opinion or who makes other choices" with "lecturing" and "controlling."
Do as you want. But I don't have to make the same choices, nor am I in any way obligated to celebrate yours.
I was talking to a newer acquaintance last night who says he has only had sex with three guys. He's almost 50! I think he's lying.
Potentially interesting thread ruined by a bunch of ax-grinding queens.
So many defensive assumptions in all these comments. If you're happy with your sex life, why would you care if other people are negative about it?
I love sex and back in my school days was happy to sleep around (always safe).
Now I have a job and a mortgage and would not have to time to rustle up random ass as often as I want to fuck it.
Fortunately I met the perfect match, in bed and out. We have always had better sex than those random encounters. It's a chicken & egg thing, I guess, whether my attachment to him makes the sex amazing or vice versa. But it doesn't matter, because either way it's all about me and him.
I don't care if you all want to hook up on grindr or in the truck stop bathroom or whatever. But I do think there's something unhealthy about separating sex from the people you have it with. If nothing else, it sounds like an impoverished emotional life.
This has been the most fascinating source of information I've read at DL. I can appreciate both sides of the argument.
I have long thought that a man(huge generalization, but) will pretty much fuck anything willing to fuck him, particularly straight men.
Granted, random het sex with a complete stranger in a bathroom is rare, but when it comes to hookups for the night, straight men would all be riddled with STD's IF het women were not pretty much in control.
The one with the pussy calls the shots.
Be careful you guys, and enjoy your lives.
r186, there is no guy with a "pussy." What you mean is the one who withholds the sex that the other wants. So it becomes a matter of who wants it more - sex drive.
Women "have the pussy"/withhold because they have lower sex drives (on average, yes, some women are cumsluts too etc).
Put two guys together and it's a different story. Two male sex drives = no withholding
Sex negative and STD negative.
I'm sorry [R187] for my awkwardly composed post. What you are saying is what I meant when I said most men(big generalization, but) will fuck anything willing to fuck them. and then I went into comparing a straight sexual premise where men HAVE to conform to the woman's will if they wish to hit the cootch.
Even when I was as young as 20, I completely understood the reason that HIV infection was spreading rampantly before it was completely understood. I remember telling my mom that men think of sex nearly every waking minute.
So, if they are men who love men, there is less of a chance of someone hitting the brakes.
And this has nothing to do with the anal receptive sex which exposed so many guys to the bug. I am strictly speaking to the fact that MOST men would like to have sex as frequently as possible, gay or straight. I have never met a sex-negative puritan.
The notion that men will bang anything is based on the faulty premise that many men don't have countervailing values that keep them from doing so. Many or most men have religious, cultural, societal, familial, and even economic values that keep them from acting on all their hedonistic impulses. Moreover, many men have consciences that keep them from acting on every sexual desire or inclination they have. They are powerful inhibitors on male (and female) sexual behavior, as well as every other type of behavior.
R190 gave me a headache.
Hey, I was blessed with a massive, massive cock and I feel it would be a sin not to share it with the masses. My hole is a dream and must be shown to the world. I am a giving person, I must give. Love to you all.
Your ideas intrigue me, R192, and I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter. And meet you in person.
The question is do you have an STI? If you don't, at least thus far, what you have been doing is working. If you do or ever have had one, perhaps you should radically change your behavior if you have not done so already.
I don't view sex as mere recreation. There are too many health, relational, and moral consequences for it to be so. It is an act with significant impact on the participants.
No way! I live for today and open my ratty, stinky shitter for any man that flashes his eye at me. Diseases be damned! They're not going to keep me from having a good time. Whip it out and let's go at it right now, mother fuckers! The more the merrier!!!!
I am STI negative.
It's not recreation, it's communication.
Really, some of you negative Nancies are too too much. Products of poor toilet training, I'd conjecture.
[quote] Most straight parents aren't handing out the Karma Sutra
r199, you are a creeper.
Not sex negative, but very, very, VERY picky about who I have sex with. The result is I dont get laid nearly as much as most guys. But on the other hand, I have never had an STD. Besides, being unattainable gets more attention than someone who gives it away to everyone and anyone.
Look at me! I "do things" with my penis...I'm gay!
[quote]There are too many... moral consequences for it to be so.
This sounds like it's coming at us from a Christian viewpoint.
I have a small penis and have always been self conscious about it.
Who thought up this "sex negative" and "sex positive" shit, anyway? Some really fucked up troll? I don't think I've ever heard those words used anywhere, except on Datalounge.
I'm not, but I guess what makes them tick is making people feel bad for being sexually freer, and, by doing so, making themselves feel better about themselves.
At least that's for those who are genuinely sex-negative. Others simply put on the show in order to make others feel bad about themselves. They steal might feel better about themselves for doing so, but only through the surreal denial of hypocrisy.
All of you don't get it! You got no right,to talk about my religion liek that!
R207, get out more often. I've heard it first in real life before I heard it here.
R210, no YOU get out more often! Don't freakin' talk about me like that!
R211, talk about who? Your f***ing crazy, girl!
Talk about me! You don't know me!
R213, Ya I do!
Step outside and get a big deep breath of air, you're hyperventilating.
I imagine half the people who clicked on this thread thought it was "sex-negative putain" and thought that was some kind of new THANG.
"I've heard it first in real life before I heard it here."
Where exactly did you hear it? Seems to me only idiot assholes would lump people into boxes called "sex negative" and "sex positive."
I think if I'm being honest with myself I am a bit sex-negative, naturally. I think a lot of it stems from being shy and reserved in personality and this also translates into my views towards sex. I really try to battle this within myself and it's a good thing that I have a few sexually open friends who drag me out of my little shell sometimes.
Sex-negative means you have morals and standards, OP.
R219 Clearly your parents had no morals or standards, seeing how they had sex and all.
OP= convicted pedophile.
Look, sex is a wonderful thing. Magnificent, actually. But there have to be boundaries, and there certainly have to be sexual ethics. The "sex positive" thing is just jargon meant to make everything seem acceptable. It's not. Date rape is not okay. Child molestation is not okay. Consent has to be taken into consideration. As does the fact that there are healthy boundaries and barriers.
[quote]Date rape is not okay. Child molestation is not okay. Consent has to be taken into consideration. As does the fact that there are healthy boundaries and barriers.
Has anyone here said otherwise?
Someone made up these sex negative and sex positive terms so that they could be judgmental and feel superior to someone.
But if you're calling yourself sex positive, why would you care what anyone else thinks about you or your behavior. The fact that the OP care enough to start this thread signals some deep insecurities. It means that the OP secretly thinks what he's doing is wrong or bad behavior or acting out.
sex negative = prissy-pants
"Has anyone here said otherwise?"
Well, fucking underage boys is certainly acceptable to a lot of Dataloungers, and when I say underage I mean under 18. Apparently a lot of "sex positives" think it's absolutely wonderful for a man of say, 30 or older, to introduce a boy, say 15 or 16, to the pleasures of homosex. And of course a lot of the "sex positives" claim that they were fucking hot daddies when they were 16 or 17 and that it was fantastic and they never regretted it and never felt exploited or used. So adult men fucking little boys IS considered a healthy and natural thing by those who call themselves "sex positive."
I would rather be a "prissy pants" than have an STI.
Please note that to be accused of being a "sex-negative Puritan" on Datalounge is to merely suggest that choosing a career path involving prostitution,sucking dick on camera or dancing naked in bars may not be the most enriching,sustainable or even lucrative option out there...and that we as individuals should strive to do just a teensy bit better for ourselves.
So if I don't want to eat shit and drink piss during foreplay am I sex negative?
You're full of shit, R227.
Sex negative= unattractive.
R227 No one here has said anything even remotely close to that. That you feel the need to lie in order to make a point says all we need to know about you.
"Sex Without Love"
How do they do it, the ones who make love
without love? Beautiful as dancers,
gliding over each other like ice-skaters
over the ice, fingers hooked
inside each other's bodies, faces
red as steak, wine, wet as the
children at birth whose mothers are going to
give them away. How do they come to the
come to the come to the God come to the
still waters, and not love
the one who came there with them, light
rising slowly as steam off their joined
skin? These are the true religious,
the purists, the pros, the ones who will not
accept a false Messiah, love the
priest instead of the God. They do not
mistake the lover for their own pleasure,
they are like great runners: they know they are alone
with the road surface, the cold, the wind,
the fit of their shoes, their over-all cardio-
vascular health--just factors, like the partner
in the bed, and not the truth, which is the
single body alone in the universe
against its own best time.
That's "disease-free" sex-negative puritan, OP.
OP= goes to baths and spreads HIV to teenagers.
Can someone explain how casual sex with strangers is "healthier" in any way shape or form than masturbation?
Because that's all it is.
"No one here has said anything even remotely close to that. That you feel the need to lie in order to make a point says all we need to know about you."
You must be new here. Because there have been MANY threads where it's been argued that adult males having sex with teenage boys is fantastic for both of them. Anyone who disagrees is invariably called a "mincing prisspot" or a "sex negative" or a "prude." And there's always somebody who says something like "I was fucking a 29 year old when I was 14 and I loved it! He didn't force me! I wanted it! And I'm completely well-adjusted! It was an incredible experience and I don't regret a minute of it!" And of course someone always replies "Wow! How great for you! I wish I had been fucking a 29 year old when I was that age!" That kind of thing. I remember God knows how many threads like that.
I'm a college teacher, and I teach courses on sexuality and desire in literature. I forbid my students from using terms like "sex-positive" and "sex-negative" in discussion--they're immature and reductive.
R238 Provide links to these threads. If there are so many of them, it should be real easy for you to do that. Lets see what you've got or be branded a liar.
Masturbation is healthy behavior, r237; it is a natural expression of human sexuality. As for someone having casual sex with strangers, why not just have a live-and-let-live attitude?
I will say that casual sex with strangers is motivated by pure lust, or a need to release sexual tension, both of which are a little selfish. In my opinion casual sex is okay once in a while.
Great post, r239.
Sexuality and desire classes are immature and reductive.
"Provide links to these threads. If there are so many of them, it should be real easy for you to do that. Lets see what you've got or be branded a liar."
Find them yourself, lazy ass. That is, if they're still around. Threads get deleted here from time to time. But I speak the truth. The threads usually sounded troll-like; somebody would say "I'm attracted to my neighbor's teenage son. He mows the lawn shirtless. I think he's trying to say he wants me to fuck him. What should I do?" There would be some appalled and disgusted replies but there would always be ones that would say "Go for it!" Any disagreement on that score would be met with the typical sex negative/mincing prisspot/prude accusations. So you can take that "liar" shit and shove it up your ignorant ass.
Most of the 'sex negative' posts I've seen are really xenophobic, not sexphobic.
R243 is a liar.
I'm a sex-positive pervert!
News flash: It's quite positive to be sex-positive and STD-free. Ever heard of condoms?
Me me me me me me me me!
It's all about me!
Now who else can I use for my pleasure?
That's not what sex-positivity is, your grace.
I'll fuck all you bitches right now. Line up and bend over, mother fuckers!
Hasn't any of you heard of the AIDS or the HPV or the Herpes? Condoms don't stop HPV and Herpes and those are horrible.
Lez, Herpes and HPV are so "horrible" that 90% of infected people don't even know they carry the virus. Herpes was hyped up so that Pharma could sell largely ineffective, but expensive drugs. The actual health consequences are generally unnoticed or minimal, but we like to work ourselves up in fear.
restraint is wisdom
And "Wisdom" is a fucking fraud.
Sex positives are usually STD-positive.
Grease is the word!
Sex is dirty!
I wear a big scarlet "G".
Sex negative Puritans tend to be healthy and STD-free. I would rather be sex negative than STD positive.
You have no evidence for this R262. Many countries which are filled to the brim with sex-negative puritans also have extremely high rates of STDs.
I definitely have a streak of sex-negative puritanism in me that wants everybody (including myself) to behave rationally at all times regarding sex, have perfect self-control, and never do anything risky or stupid or hurtful to themselves or others. But then the more enlightened side of me remembers that sex is an INSTINCT, and it's just there in us and we only have a certain amount of ability to restrain ourselves from acting on it, which is actually a good thing.
"Many countries which are filled to the brim with sex-negative puritans also have extremely high rates of STDs."
That's got to be one of the most astonishingly stupid statements I've ever heard on Datalounge, and that is really saying something. You are a pathetic idiot.
The nation’s HIV rate has fallen by a third in the last decade, the federal researchers said in a new report released Saturday.
While many population groups shared in this welcome decline in new HIV cases, one group — young gay or bisexual men — saw a 133 percent increase over the time period.
SEE ALSO: JAMA opinion piece calls for ending lifetime ban on blood donation by gay men
These disparities in HIV rates among young gay and bisexual men “present prevention challenges and warrant expanded efforts,” wrote Anna Satcher Johnson, an epidemiologist with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and her colleagues in the study in the July 23/30 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA).
The JAMA issue is dedicated to HIV/AIDS in light of the 20th International AIDS Conference, which runs July 20-25 in Melbourne, Australia.
The CDC report said that in 2002, there were 24 new cases of HIV per 100,000 population.
By the end of 2011, this diagnosis rate fell to 16 cases per 100,000 population, a 33 percent drop.
Over that decade, some 500,000 people contracted HIV in the United States.
In 2011, some 41,720 new HIV cases were reported, with 26,033 occurring among men who have sex with men (MSM).
Around 62 percent of HIV cases in the United States are due to MSM sexual contact, the report’s data showed.
Among MSM, age played a role in HIV acquisition: Men in the 35-44 age group saw a significant 45 percent decline in cases between 2002 and 2011.
However, case rates rose among men aged 13-24, 45-54, and 55 and older. The most dramatic increase was seen in men 13-24 — in 2002, these teens and young men reported less than 3,000 HIV cases, but in 2011, they reported 6,919 cases, a 133 percent increase.
The MSM age group with the highest number of cases in 2011 was the 25-34 age group. The number of their reported cases — 7,929 — was virtually unchanged from 2002.
Other highlights of the HIV new-diagnosis report in JAMA:
• HIV cases reported by women dropped by almost half, from 15,705 in 2002 to 8,740 in 2011.
• By race and ethnicity, blacks continued to have the highest rate in 2011 (62.6 cases per 100,000), although this was 37 percent lower than in 2002. For whites and Hispanics, the 2011 rates were 6.9 cases and 22 cases per 100,000, respectively. Both of these groups saw a decline of 30 percent or more since 2002.
It's true R266. There are many examples.
India, for example.