Why Straight Guys Have Gay Sex...

Discussion on what it means to be straight acting, whether it's good, bad or indifferent.

Moderators: selective_soldier, furface

Postby dracuscalico » Sat Nov 29, 2008 5:57 am

On one of the other threads, someone posted a link to an article about gayness and genetics. It answers a few questions...

http://www.trueorigin.org/gaygene01.asp
dracuscalico
Veteran Member
 
Posts: 1202
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2008 9:48 pm

Postby nimby » Sat Nov 29, 2008 10:04 am

douglassnow wrote:With respect, that's as silly a notion of infant brain development and gender difference as was ever floated. And what really do theories of femininity have to do with the topic of this thread?

So I'd like to re-state what this topic is about, and what it shows us about conventional theories of the psychology of sexuality: Most of the gay sex in this world is between self-identified straight men rather than "gay" men--by a factor of at least ten. This is an occasion, not for proposing a lot of fatuous theories for why this should be--but, for once, shutting the f*ck up and firmly grasping the concept that in fact nobody has the least idea why it is so.


What? My "notion" of infant brain development and gender difference is silly? Really? I guess the research link from North Dakota State University is unacceptable to you? Globally accepted neurological science is just a joke? How many children have you raised and watched develop into functioning members of society? Theories of femininity have EVERYTHING to do with the topic of this thread, "Why Do Straight Men Have Gay Sex."

You quote some unconventional facts in your response. Where's your data? Your theories? Your answer of, "shutting the f*ck up and grasp the concept that no one has the least idea why it is so," is nowhere near good enough. It might work for you, but not for the average educated person who comes here seeking answers. Maybe you should, "firmly grasp the concept" of analytical discussion. With your cognitive skills, we'd still be back in the stone age.
User avatar
nimby
Veteran Member
 
Posts: 2906
Joined: Thu May 08, 2008 3:35 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

If it acts like a duck and looks like a duck..its a DUCK!

Postby Eugenesz » Sun Nov 30, 2008 2:24 pm

This is ridiculous just see past all this confusion and accept it as it really is. If a "straight man" has sex with a man he's gay.
If you were to turn the table around "gay men" dont have to worry about fighting straight impulses to have sex with a women they just naturally dont. I can accept bisexuality however the difference between true bisexuality and closeted men suffering from disorders and the lack of courage to accept themselves is that a healthy bisexual wouldn't have to put up the entire facade of being socially accepted with a married wife and kids while secretly engaging in covert gay activities.
A true bisexual should have enough confidence, courage and self respect to commit to one man or woman to whomever at the time in their life they find attractive and hopefully love.
I am a gay man and although i can empathize with the difficulty of growing up gay, we must all have the courage and fortitude to accept and express the life we truly want. Gay men all grow up, come out and evolve at different rates of time, but the fact that we have a natural desire to bond with men will never go away, and is a part of us we should respect and have the courage to integrate into our lives. To hide behind false bisexuality and deceitful facades of marriage is a damn shame and completely hurtful and disrepectful to the women and children involved.
Life isnt suppose to be easy but if we endure with courage and integrity cherishing the dreams and desires we believe in, your life will become more than you ever hoped for.
Eugenesz
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 1:43 pm
Location: Cerritos

Postby Ashn Dust » Mon Dec 01, 2008 5:27 am

I was the guy in highschool my straight friends would fool around with, but not tell the others. I thought it was funny and sad. I was young and easily fell in love with one of them.

But, love and sex are not synonymous and it becomes painfully convoluted when it involves curious straights. I know some men are fine with relieving straight curiosity, but sometimes you might want more than sex and that is how I got my fingers burnt. Fun memories.

For me, being gay is more about romance and love than it is sex. That’s why I don't get so hung up over curious men considering themselves straight...anymore.

tldr

Sexuality labeling is f*cking complicated
Just as luck appears in three, so does misfortune. Because you don't want to see it, you don't see it coming. Even if you notice it, you don't say anything. Even if you're told, you don't listen. Then boom, the end comes.
User avatar
Ashn Dust
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2008 1:04 am
Location: Texas

Postby Laiku » Tue Dec 02, 2008 11:18 am

Really or do people only make it complicated?

If a "straight man" has sex with a man he's gay.


Nope, he could be a bisexual. And it depends on your definition of sex, but I want to keep it as simple as possible without lying or half thruths.
Theoretically, a straight man can have sex with another man, e.g. if he is the one who gives a blow job or who gets fucked. However, a straight man wouldn't enjoy it, if he does than he's probably not straight. The same if he's the one who fucks, than he probably isn't straight. The only other reason I could think of that would make a straight man fu** another man would be "reducing heat" or some version or full rape. However, that is pure theory, just based on thougfhts not on evidence.

But if he enjoys it, in a "normal" way, than the guy is definetly not straight. Of course to know such things, someone has to be honest to everybody (including himself) of course. If he even lies to himself, well... I think you get the point.
Laiku
Newbie
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 11:00 am

Postby dracuscalico » Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:49 pm

The odd question is though, is there any difference between a straight man performing anal penetration on a woman or a man when it's the same type of orifice?

Or having oral sex performed on him by a larger woman or a man if they both have the same size mouths?

And if he gets it, in the dark THINKING he's with a woman but it's a Tranny passing as one,(a la Jerry Springer) THEN what does it make him if he enjoyed it?

Does it make a man gay if he enjoys the physical feeling of penetration from a woman with a strap on, even though he is not fantasizing about men?

Which makes a man more gay? What physical sexual acts were performed with his body? Or which mental sexual acts are performed by his brain?
dracuscalico
Veteran Member
 
Posts: 1202
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2008 9:48 pm

Postby Pazuzu P. Sasquatch » Tue Dec 02, 2008 7:03 pm

dracuscalico wrote:The odd question is though, is there any difference between a straight man performing anal penetration on a woman or a man when it's the same type of orifice?


Yes, in the first instance he's screwing a woman, and in the second he's screwing a man.

dracuscalico wrote:Or having oral sex performed on him by a larger woman or a man if they both have the same size mouths?


Yes, in the first instance he's being blown by a woman, and in the second he's being blown by a man.

dracuscalico wrote:And if he gets it in the dark THINKING he's with a woman but it's a Tranny passing as one THEN what does it make him if he enjoyed it?


Someone who for all practical purposes just had sex with a woman.

dracuscalico wrote:Does it make a man gay if he enjoys the physical feeling of penetration from a woman with a strap on, even though he is not fantasizing about men?


No, it makes him a straight man who likes anal attention from women.

Boiling sexuality down to orifices alone is just silly, Drac. You know better. :?
When I was driving once, I saw this painted on a bridge: "I don't want the world. I just want your half."
Pazuzu P. Sasquatch
Veteran Member
 
Posts: 615
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2008 10:58 am
Location: Troy, Ohio

Postby dracuscalico » Tue Dec 02, 2008 7:15 pm

ZuZuuuuuuuuuuuuu! It's great to have you back! :P

(you know you're the habanero amongst jalapenos, no one here has your kinda bite!...except for times when you've been.....uh....mellowed out.... 8)
dracuscalico
Veteran Member
 
Posts: 1202
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2008 9:48 pm

Postby Pazuzu P. Sasquatch » Tue Dec 02, 2008 7:20 pm

Been busier than a horny bisexual at an orgy. Just thought I'd pop in and say "Howdy!"

:wink:
When I was driving once, I saw this painted on a bridge: "I don't want the world. I just want your half."
Pazuzu P. Sasquatch
Veteran Member
 
Posts: 615
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2008 10:58 am
Location: Troy, Ohio

Postby dracuscalico » Tue Dec 02, 2008 7:22 pm

Hope you had a great Holiday, and that you still make time for us once in awhile... :D
dracuscalico
Veteran Member
 
Posts: 1202
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2008 9:48 pm

Postby Pazuzu P. Sasquatch » Tue Dec 02, 2008 7:34 pm

Did and will, baby! :D
When I was driving once, I saw this painted on a bridge: "I don't want the world. I just want your half."
Pazuzu P. Sasquatch
Veteran Member
 
Posts: 615
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2008 10:58 am
Location: Troy, Ohio

Postby dracuscalico » Tue Dec 02, 2008 8:39 pm

Now...back to this strap on example:

When a guy is getting penetrated by a woman with a strap on, if it is not just a specially designed anal stimulator but an actual lifelike replica of a man's d - ck, this straight guy is taking anatomical mand - ck up the butt and loving it.

If his ass is trained to like d - ck on a woman it's just a small step further to get a Transexual with a boob job who hasn't had the plumbing altered yet and still get f - cked up the butt by a REAL d - ck on a "woman".

And another step down the slippery slope to get f - cked up the butt by a man in drag with no breasts at all...(imagine chi chi la rue doing you)...

And another step down the slippery slope to get f - cked by a slender efeminate sissyboy with a big dick.

And another step to get f - cked by a masculine guy with a big d - ck...

Guys who let women strap on one and are loving, it are potentially headed down the slipppery slope.....
dracuscalico
Veteran Member
 
Posts: 1202
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2008 9:48 pm

Postby masculinity » Wed Dec 03, 2008 3:25 am

Laiku wrote:Really or do people only make it complicated?

If a "straight man" has sex with a man he's gay.


Nope, he could be a bisexual. And it depends on your definition of sex, but I want to keep it as simple as possible without lying or half thruths.
Theoretically, a straight man can have sex with another man, e.g. if he is the one who gives a blow job or who gets fucked. However, a straight man wouldn't enjoy it, if he does than he's probably not straight. The same if he's the one who fucks, than he probably isn't straight. The only other reason I could think of that would make a straight man fu** another man would be "reducing heat" or some version or full rape. However, that is pure theory, just based on thougfhts not on evidence.

But if he enjoys it, in a "normal" way, than the guy is definetly not straight. Of course to know such things, someone has to be honest to everybody (including himself) of course. If he even lies to himself, well... I think you get the point.


These are definitions that some people in power, at a particular time in modern history at a particular place in the world (somewhere in the West), invented... but why should someone who doesn't relate with these definitions have to take them on... Straight men hate these definitions, but they just don't have a say in it because they are just disempowered to talk about intimacy needs with other men.

These definitions haver serious flaws and gaps, which not only me, but several scholars and experts have pointed out time and again; A majority of straight men indulged in sex with other men (or initmate bonds with sex; and here sex doesn't necessarily mean anal/ oral sex, even mutual masturbation is sex), before these stupid definitions were forced on them. Don't you think there must be something wrong about these definitions if so many people gave up their sexual need for men, after such a classification was invented? I mean people who have trouble coming to terms with their sexuality are not bothered about their feelings per se, but how your oppressive classifications force them into misfit identities... if it was accepted as a 'non-gay' or straight thing, men would never have given it up. So many men today have sex with other men on the sly, but do not accept this, not because they're unable to accept their sexuality, but because they know that accepting it will mean that you and your society will force their invalid defintions, identities and spaces on them, which they just do not relate with. And then you have the guts to call these people as being people who can't come to terms with their sexuality, and find fault with them, rather than your own definitions. I mean, if so many people have problems, then any sane society would first look into its systems, concepts, values, and classifications, and not just summarily brush off this mass fear as their own fault.
I mean, the only reason these oppressive definitions have any validity is because the Forces of Heterosexualization (including those who define themselves as gays and fit into this identity/ space) are in power in the West.
Gays are a different species altogether from men (and women). They're not "men who like men," they are "third gender who like men."

http://youth-masculinity.blogspot.com
masculinity
Member
 
Posts: 267
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 1:44 pm
Location: India

Postby Laiku » Wed Dec 03, 2008 10:48 am

What is so invalid and opressive about that?

Who were those people in power?

And how can a man who has sex withanother man for pleasure, because that one is a man, be straight?

Explain. An speak clearly this time.

And to be honest I heard what you said before and it still sounds like fear to my ears.

Oh and by the way, what are these invalid definitions you think about?
Laiku
Newbie
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 11:00 am

Postby masculinity » Mon Dec 08, 2008 8:41 am

Laiku wrote:What is so invalid and opressive about that?

1. To understand the oppression, you have to go back in time, when receptive anal/oral sex was isolated into the third sex (half-male/half female. unmanly; queer) category, making these acts extremely stigmatized for men. A sexual interest in men per se, was never stigmatised/ isolated, and acts like mutual masturbation, being the penetrator, enjoying the bodies of men, being emotionally and socially intimate with men, were not isolated as queer, and was supposed to be a universal male thing. The society created extreme hostility against these acts within the men's spaces, and those who were discovered to have indulged in these acts were promptly dishonoured as 'third sex', losing their manhood. Masculine gendered males would just disown their interest in receptive anal/oral sex from men, if they had those needs.

In those times, almost all men had sex with other men.

The modern concept of sexual orientation isolated all kinds of sexual interest from the men's spaces into the originally third sex space, and renamed the latter as 'homosexual' space. The men's spaces, which were now heterosexualized, was renamed as 'heterosexual' by these newly created 'homosexuals'. This meant that for the majority of masculine gendered males, sexual attraction towards other men itself became extremely stigmatized, when earlier only receptive sex was stigmatized. This amounted to making all these acts and feelings previously available to men, now inaccessible to them. It drove men in a corner, and deprived them of an entire range of sexual feelings and intimacies. As a result, only a small minority of people (2%-5%) acknowledge their sexual need in other men... and the incidence of same-sex bonds in the straight community becomes very low, with almost no opportunity available for this in the straight space, as it is now designated as a heterosexual space.

You should see how men cruelly kill their sexual need for men, and divert that energy towards women... What for?

2. Would you support labelling of HIV positive people as such, in a country where hostility against HIV positive people is high? Will it not amount to their oppression to forcefully mark all people living with HIV, and to segregate them into one ghetto?

Isn't it a fact that there is intense hostility against man to man sexual relations in the mainstream West, especially in straight men's spaces? Now, in this situation, if you invent a system, that labels such desires in the men's community and isolates people so labelled into a ghetto, as 'different', will it not stigmatise them immensely, even if we assume for the time being that such a system of classification is technically right (which it isn't)? That is what the system of 'sexual orientation' does.

What is the need to classify people as those who have sex with men and those who don't, in a society that severely stigmatises man to man sexuality? Especially, when there is no history of such a classification, and neither is this classification and segregation found in nature. Will it do justice to man to man sexual need? Will the identities so created reflect the right sexuality of people? Who is this system of isolation serving? Does it help the cause of sexual relations between men? Apparently not, if we consider that almost all straight men have given it up altogether.

It takes away men's only spaces that they were left with, the hidden spaces within men's spaces where they could form strong sexual bonds with other men.

And the strong unmanliness, third sex or transgenderism associated with 'homosexual' identity makes it immensely disadvantageous for masculine males.

The concept of 'sexual orientation' only serves to give unfair power to a particular class of males who like males, who by no means represent all males who like males, nor all kinds of male sexual need for males (although they claim to, since straight men can't own up their sexuality for men). Who are these males who benefit from being segregated from the men's spaces. What is different about them? Who are the males who just don't want to be segregated from the rest of the men? What binds them with other men so much that they are willing to give up their sexual needs in order to stay with them?

3. The concept of Sexual orientation is based on some very wrong assumptions, like:

- Most men are born heterosexual, and only a few males are born with sexual feelings for men.

- Masculinity and Femininity are merely social constructs and have no biological basis.

Laiku wrote:Who were those people in power?

People who benefit from this oppression of men, from breaking masculine males from other men, from discouraging same-sex sexuality amongst men... who are they? We call them, Vested Interest Groups, which in modern west, is converted into Forces of Heterosexualization, that includes:

(a) males who are able to divert their emotional sexual need exclusively towards women comfortably and gain immense social power because of it,

(b) Gays (i.e. males who have sufficient femininity to be comfortable with the essentially third sex LGBT space), and

(c) Aggressive women (masculine gendered females), who enjoy to dominate men, both sexually and socially.

Laiku wrote:And how can a man who has sex with another man for pleasure, because that one is a man, be straight?

1. Because, 'straight' is a word coined by gays for those who did not identify themselves as 'gay', and who displayed both real and fake sexual interest in women to avoid being isolated as 'gay', and especially, disowned a sexual interest in men.

The forces of Heterosexualisation invented the 'homosexuality' theory and started to isolate men from the men's spaces. Just because it was validated by the society, doesn't mean that it represents an actual divide, and that those who stayed on as straights had no interest in men.

Straight men did not label themselves as straight or heterosexual, and even today, they don't use the word for themselves, unless it is to distinguish themselves from the gays.

Straight men choose the straight identity not because of its stated definition as 'heterosexual', but by its hidden but real definition that means 'masculine'.

Straight men are not empowered to talk about these issues, and this allows the Forces of Heterosexualization to manipulate them as they want... to force whatever definitions they want on them, straight men just end up adjusting to them... mostly by sacrificing their real needs.

2. Because, ALL MEN HAVE A SEXUAL NEED FOR MEN, which includes men defined as straight. Which means that the Western definition of 'straight' = 'heterosexual' is wrong, and is a definition given by the 'gays', a category that itself has been artificially created by the FOH.

Because, straight actually means, 'normal', 'regular' act/ trait, which gays associated with 'heterosexuality', and hence the wrong definition. Because, the 'normal', 'regular' guys have been disempowered, pressurised and conditioned to disown their sexual need for men. They just don't have the social space to acknowledge or fulfill that need. A situation perpetuated and enforced by exactly the same kind of enforcement as your question sugggests, "You are no more straight if you have sex with other men", and the logic being that is how we gays have defined things.

3. If Queers can be exclusively heterosexual (have you heard the word queer heterosexual), why can't straights be at least partially interested in men? Why not even exclusively?

Queer heterosexuals is an identity that amply demonstrates that the western classification of people on the basis of sexual orientation is invalid.

The term contradicts itself, but still represents the reality.

Laiku wrote:Explain. An speak clearly this time.

I try my best.


Laiku wrote:And to be honest I heard what you said before and it still sounds like fear to my ears.

a) I wish instead of judging me with pre-conceived notions, you would attempt to discuss the points I have raised. If there is a loophole in my theory, point it out. Tell me where I'm wrong.

b) Who creates this fear? Why? Is it natural for men to be fearful of this? If some force is deliberately creating this fear, shouldn't we understand the mechanisms of this fear. Clearly, just by making another group for 'men who like men' doesn't reduce this fear.

Furthermore, why are some men fearful of accepting their sexuality for men, while others just fit into it like duck takes to water?

Shouldn't a highly developed society like the West be able to convincingly answer these questions and be free of these fears?

Laiku wrote:Oh and by the way, what are these invalid definitions you think about?

'Sexual Orientation', 'Homosexuality', 'homosexuals', 'heterosexuality', 'heterosexuals', 'gay', bisexuality, bisexual, queer, LGBT...
Gays are a different species altogether from men (and women). They're not "men who like men," they are "third gender who like men."

http://youth-masculinity.blogspot.com
masculinity
Member
 
Posts: 267
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 1:44 pm
Location: India

Postby masculinity » Mon Dec 08, 2008 12:03 pm

Laiku wrote:And to be honest I heard what you said before and it still sounds like fear to my ears.

Let's put it this way...

I'll accept to be defined in terms of my sexual needs and desires, even in terms of the sex of my partner, as long as:

1. There are no hidden baggages of effeminacy attached with the sexual label that I'm given. Which means that it should be totally free of femininity or third gender, not only in letter, but also in spirit.

This should mean that my manhood should never come into question by accepting this sexual label. I should never be made to feel less of a man to be identified by such label. It should only be about my sexual preferences. No hidden baggages or connotations.

2. My sexuality for men is clearly demarcated from the queer sexuality for men. Just like men's sexuality for women is demarcated from the queer sexuality for women.

3. The social space that I'm allotted should have nothing at all to do with the traditional third sex space. I am a masculine gendered male, and my social space should be based on the traditional men's space..

4. My identity should not be clubbed with the third gender under a bigger identity...... even if they remain separate otherwise... that is to say, I can't accept a 'homosexual' definition, which clubs masculine and feminine males under different heads, but under a broad 'homosexual' category... I should belong in the men's overall group, not with the third sex.

5. My identity should not segregate me from other mainstream, regular, normal men... My basic and most essential identity should be (based on my gender identity) a man, as distinct from queers and from women.

Therefore, the basic division of the society should not be as 'homosexual' and 'heterosexual', but as 'men', 'women' and 'Queers'. Within the 'men' group, I can accept a further classification on the basis of sexual preferences. Not the other way round.

In other words, my sexual identity should be my secondary identity, not my primary, and there should be no other difference between me and a man who is exclusively into women, other than that our sexual preferences are different.

6. There should not be any explicit or implicit pressures on men to behave a certain way sexually, or to take on a particular sexual identity. Because, as long as there are such pressures, the whole concept of identities based on 'sexual orientation' remains pointless, as it will not tell the true picture of overall gender and sexuality of men.

7. There should not be any more social power or manhood attached with men who like women, than with men who like men. There should not be encouragement or promotion of one kind of sexual orientation over another by the state or the society and its various institutions, including science, media, law, education, entertainment, etc.

8. There should not be any kind of stigma, whether religious or social or legal or medical or psychological attached with a man's sexual preferences for men. It should be accepted as as natural and normal as a man's sexuality for women.

9. There should also be no explicit or implicit punishments, including social or legal or religious punishments for man's sexual need for men. There should be no ridicule of men who like men and no derogatory words used for them.

10. The sexual identity given to me does not marginalise me in the fringes of the society, away from the mainstream.

If the society can assure me all that, only then has it any right to put a sexuality tag on me... otherwise, I'd like to have my sexual feelings private and hidden, so that they don't make life in the mainstream a burden for me... so that I'm not pushed to the (gay) margins in order to survive... so that I can decide when to be open about my sexual feelings and when not to be, depending upon the situation, in order to live with dignity in the mainstream... so that, I can keep my masculine gender and not be assumed to be queer because of my sexual feelings for men... Because, my ability to hide my sexual feelings are my and any other straight guys' only protection against social hostilities, pressures and mispropaganda.

(I understand that gays don't have the above issues that I and other straight men have, because they already feel different from those mainstream, regular, men. And that gays welcome this segregation from the mainstream men's spaces, not scared of it.)
Gays are a different species altogether from men (and women). They're not "men who like men," they are "third gender who like men."

http://youth-masculinity.blogspot.com
masculinity
Member
 
Posts: 267
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 1:44 pm
Location: India

Postby masculinity » Tue Dec 09, 2008 12:42 am

The traditional definition of Straight, even in the pre-'sexual orientation' west, is a man who penetrates (although masculinity remains the hidden essence of manhood/ straighthood), while Gay or Queer is one who is penetrated as an identity (here again, femininity remains the essence of gay, and only effeminate males chose receptive anal/oral sex as an identity).

It is the same in Contemporary Non-western societies.
Gays are a different species altogether from men (and women). They're not "men who like men," they are "third gender who like men."

http://youth-masculinity.blogspot.com
masculinity
Member
 
Posts: 267
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 1:44 pm
Location: India

Postby olywaguy » Tue Dec 09, 2008 2:31 am

The only reason so-called straight guys have sex with other guys is because they are bored and their girl friends won't suck them off or do anything else they consider gross.
Carlos

"I just want to suck his tongue out of his mouth !"--JPaul


http://www.askcarlos.com/
http://carlos-the-critic.blogspot.com/
User avatar
olywaguy
Moderator
 
Posts: 1672
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 1:08 pm
Location: Tupelo, Mississippi

Postby solitaryman1969 » Wed Dec 10, 2008 10:03 am

Ok, where are these so called "straight guys", and why are they having more gay sex than me? :lol:

It's bad enough I get no action for real gay men, to add so called straight guys...well I don't think my ego could handle anymore rejections. :lol:
"Time is priceless, yet it costs us nothing. You can do anything you want with it, except own it. You can spend it, but you can't keep it. And once you've lost it, there is no getting it back. It's just gone."
User avatar
solitaryman1969
Member
 
Posts: 233
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 1:40 pm
Location: T.O. Canada

Postby olywaguy » Wed Dec 10, 2008 10:23 am

solitaryman1969 wrote:Ok, where are these so called "straight guys", and why are they having more gay sex than me? :lol:

It's bad enough I get no action for real gay men, to add so called straight guys...well I don't think my ego could handle anymore rejections. :lol:


Maybe you should pass yourself as a straight guy and that way get more action. :P
Carlos

"I just want to suck his tongue out of his mouth !"--JPaul


http://www.askcarlos.com/
http://carlos-the-critic.blogspot.com/
User avatar
olywaguy
Moderator
 
Posts: 1672
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 1:08 pm
Location: Tupelo, Mississippi

Postby masculinity » Fri Dec 12, 2008 12:40 am

olywaguy wrote:The only reason so-called straight guys have sex with other guys is because they are bored and their girl friends won't suck them off or do anything else they consider gross.


Fair enough... so the straight guys are not quite repulsive to male eroticism, at least... then why are Western men supposed to be so repulsed with holding another guy's hands, or to be physically intmate with him. And if they can hold someone's cock, then why are they averse to a kiss from a guy...

Unless, all this repulsion thing is a fake... expected and imposed by the society on straight men... Which means that they are under immense pressure to prove they don't have a sexual need for men... and under these circumstances... how can you be so sure that they don't have a sexual need for men. If they did not have a strong sexual need for men, what was the need for such immense pressures to keep them off man to man intimacy?
Gays are a different species altogether from men (and women). They're not "men who like men," they are "third gender who like men."

http://youth-masculinity.blogspot.com
masculinity
Member
 
Posts: 267
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 1:44 pm
Location: India

Postby masculinity » Fri Dec 12, 2008 12:46 am

Laiku wrote:What is so invalid and opressive about that?

Who were those people in power?

And how can a man who has sex withanother man for pleasure, because that one is a man, be straight?

Explain. An speak clearly this time.

And to be honest I heard what you said before and it still sounds like fear to my ears.

Oh and by the way, what are these invalid definitions you think about?


STRAIGHT means 'normal' in any context... and straight is used not only in the case of 'sexual identity' but in many different contexts, and everywhere its meaning is 'normal.

Now its just so that the Western society and Gays specifically have defined the 'normal', 'regular' guy as 'heterosexual'. Does this mean that they are really heterosexual, at least exclusively heterosexual -- all or even a majority of them? Considering, that there is such immense pressure on 'normal', 'regular' guys to be heterosexual and to prove a repulsion towards male eroticism or intimacy with men, how can you be sure that the straight heterosexuality is not a mask put on to keep their 'normal', 'regular' status. In a world, where sex with women means social power, status and manhood, and a place in men's spaces, and a man is under immense pressure to prove his heterosexuality in order to be counted as 'normal' and 'regular', is it too 'wierd' to suspect that a lot of this heterosexuality may be fake? Especially, when there are strong evidences from non-Western societies -- and now, even from the Western world.

You have to understand that the non-gays have such immense need to define themselves in a manner away from teh gays --- because of the ancient hatred of queers --- that they would give up anything that the society associates with the queers.

Therefore, when the queers started to be defined as 'men who like men', the (straight) men gave up sexual desire for men altogether, at least, publicly. Earlier, when queer was defined as effeminate males who had receptive anal/ oral sex, Men had given up 'passive' sex altogether, at least publicly and would disown any interest in being penetrated. But they had no shame or qualms in accepting to penetrate a man or a queer.
Gays are a different species altogether from men (and women). They're not "men who like men," they are "third gender who like men."

http://youth-masculinity.blogspot.com
masculinity
Member
 
Posts: 267
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 1:44 pm
Location: India

Postby masculinity » Fri Dec 12, 2008 10:38 am

Last edited by masculinity on Fri Dec 12, 2008 11:51 am, edited 2 times in total.
Gays are a different species altogether from men (and women). They're not "men who like men," they are "third gender who like men."

http://youth-masculinity.blogspot.com
masculinity
Member
 
Posts: 267
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 1:44 pm
Location: India

Postby Pazuzu P. Sasquatch » Fri Dec 12, 2008 10:46 am

Z-z-z-z-z-z. . . .
When I was driving once, I saw this painted on a bridge: "I don't want the world. I just want your half."
Pazuzu P. Sasquatch
Veteran Member
 
Posts: 615
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2008 10:58 am
Location: Troy, Ohio

Postby masculinity » Fri Dec 12, 2008 12:08 pm

Pazuzu P. Sasquatch wrote:Z-z-z-z-z-z. . . .

Wake up to the truth...
Gays are a different species altogether from men (and women). They're not "men who like men," they are "third gender who like men."

http://youth-masculinity.blogspot.com
masculinity
Member
 
Posts: 267
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 1:44 pm
Location: India

PreviousNext

Return to Straight Acting Men

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

cron