A whole enchlada?
Is that anything like a nice warm apple pie?
*snicker*

Hey, so long as everyone is having fun, practicing safe sex and cares about their partner and their needs I think its ok to have one partner or as many as you want (just be honest about it, ok?)

I think thats all I can comment on. (hey,I'm asexual so for me a lot of that stuff is academic to me.)

I am a lesbian womon. My best friend is a straight man. Last summer, I was uncertain about my sexuality, and he was female-identified.

At one point, we made out. I backed off, but I gave him a breast massage. Later that evening, he announced that he had gotten off during my massage. I don't consider this sex. I don't even consider it an especially intense massage.

An ex- and I refer to anything less than penetration as "little-boy sex." That said, we often behaved like 12 year-olds.

Dan Savage is so handsome. But he's the last person I'd listen to for sexual advice. Why does commercial media put forward dingbats to speak on serious issues? I think it's because an ignorant public is better for the commercial economy.

I am a gay man. I have, along the way, had sex with a few women and sometimes women and men at the same time (lots of bisexuality like this in the Army -- I like to speak of "servicing my country" as opposed to "serving my country"). One woman I had sex with identified as a lesbian. Since I am gay and she is a lesbian and used a strap-on on me, wasn't this "gay sex"? This is an unanswerable question, but it was a lot of fun regardless of how it was defined. She was expert at hitting my male g-spot and gave me a reach-around just like a dude would. She was an awesome top. I don't think there is an answer to the whole amount of sexual partners question. Some right-wing fanaticism clearly comes across as sexual frustration and I wonder if they are getting enough sex (which is why people like Larry Craig are cruising for cop cock in airport toilets). Every one is different and has their own emotional make-up. There are things that are not emotionally healthy for some and fine for others. I have never been to a bath house, but I did live in an Army barracks which I believe is similar to a bath house

simple: if it gives you a hard on it's sex. if you can't get hard, or if you don't have a dick, god knows cuz i have never been there. if it doesn't give you a hard on, then i guess it's being friendly. [or unfriendly if that's the case] asfar as i know whatever it was i was doing with my last wife, i would never call it sex. if it's something someone else is doing to you without your permission, no matter how good it may feel or how guilty you get, that is not sex. most heterosexists are not having sex, but doing it to someone to prove something. that's something else.

For me sex involves penetration.

Everything else is foreplay or an appetizer to the main meal.

I didn't realize I defined sex like that until I participated in a focus group on HIV issues and was asked if I ever had unprotected sex. I immediately said no, but when they said that included oral, I had to change my mind.

I don't consider oral "real" sex.

As far as how many partners is too much, everyone has their own standards. I read once that men had somewhere under 10 partners over their lifetime, which means either a lot of people are lying, there are differing definitions of sex, or sex is presented as more ubiquitous than it is.

"gay men this, and gay men that."

who the fuck is this guy to speak for gay men? and who are these "gay men," anyway?

really, i'd like to know who died and left him in charge?!!

one word: tedious.

How many partners are "too many"? At once, or over time? *snicker*

X = too many partners;

Y = just enough partners;

X = Y + 1.

Now, what's Y? How many partners are "enough"? Well, 1 would be the lower bound. The upper bound would be limited by time and availability. So, let's see, carry the one, divide by two...

42. The answer is 42. Douglas Adams told me so. Therefore, 43 partners is "too many". However, we still haven't defined Z, the time period by which we'll measure X or Y...

I usually like Dan's column, but this sounds like crap. Gay men are more out of control than straight men? Women act as a buffer? Sounds like a right wing homophobe.

two.

the answer is two.

if the question is how many sex partners is too many, the answer is two.

use your brain, instead of some other organ for thought.

Both males and females get hard and wet when sexually aroused. Men produce precum along with an erection; women have clitoral erections along with vaginal lubrication.

How many partners are too many? So subjective as to be unanswerable. More than what the person passing judgement thinks is a good number? Anything higher than one? I (female) have enjoyed over 200 sex partners in almost sixty lust-driven years. In retrospect, probably enough but more would be nice.

What do we define as sex? Phallocentric thinking tells us that penile penetration is required for it to be "real sex." Feminist sexologists heartily disagree. I would venture to say that sex happens when a person is aroused (hard and wet) and the activity might result in orgasm if continued for some period of time. That covers everything from masturbation to penile penetration, cunnilingus, fellation, phone sex, cybersex, mutual masturbation, reading or viewing porn, intense fantasies, foot licking . . . need I continue?

Gay men did not fuck themselves to death in the '70's. AIDS is caused by a virus, not sex. How disgusting!

This is just one more example of Dan Savage's internalized homophobia and his misogyny masquerading as expertise. Why does anybody give him any credibility? Just because he appeals to people bigotries? He's a jackass. If you want some real information on the subject, you can start with looking toward the Community-Academic Consortium for Research on Alternative Sexcualities, the Center for Sex and Culture, and Janet Hardy's and Dossie Easton's seminal (oardon the pun) work, The Ethical Slut.

I've been studying and practicing polyamory for 13 years, and here's what I learned on this question.

First we need to (sorry) define "partner". If we're talking occasional f***buddies with no obligation or ongoing commitment of any kind, then have at it - the more the merrier. But if we're talking about intimate, honestly-open, long-term committed relationships, then that's a very different matter. Then it comes down to how much time and emotional energy is available to properly nurture and maintain all of those ongoing relationships. This is especially true in times of adversity, i.e. major illness, loss of a job, death in the family, etc. Life crises sap energy needed to juggle relationships successfully.

People who are new to open relationships can sometimes get carried away with their newfound freedom and establish too many relationship in too short a period of time. I call this "The Kid in the Candy Store Syndrome." All that variety and access is great at first, but sooner or later something causes drama and the "kid" is suddenly faced with competing priorities for their time and attention, of which they don't have enough to make everyone happy.

I've learned that new relationships need time and steady focus to become well-established. Beginning more than one in a short period of time greatly magnifies the risks and reduces the likelihood of establishing and maintaining healthy and happy multiple relationships.