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 matinee » Wed Sep 24, 2008 4:53 pm

I'll say this to masculinity

START YOUR OWN BLOODY BOARD AND STOP REPEATING THE SAME CRAP IN EVERY BLOODY POST!!!!!!!!!!
User avatar
matinee
Member
 
Posts: 162
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 1:31 am
Location: Edmonton, Calgary, Poland

Postby Pazuzu P. Sasquatch » Wed Sep 24, 2008 5:00 pm

Amen.
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

No objection to masculinity's recent posts

Postby dracuscalico » Wed Sep 24, 2008 9:34 pm

Even though I am through dealing with him, I have to say, objectively, that THIS TIME masculinity was on topic and addressed our examples without adding a lot of extra stuff. I do recognize the difference, however slight it may seem.

This topic, of ALL topics on this board, aligns with his point of view on things, as ways that societies define men as gay or straight is what he is all about.

As long as he keeps his responses short and sweet, and stays on topic, without being judgemental, or advising people unless they ask for it, it doesn't seem like there would be a problem as long as the Imperialistic bandwidth hogging behaviors from the past don't reemerge...
dracuscalico
Veteran Member
 
Posts: 1202
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2008 9:48 pm

Re: No objection to masculinity's recent posts

Postby Pazuzu P. Sasquatch » Thu Sep 25, 2008 6:43 am

dracuscalico wrote: Even though I am through dealing with him, I have to say, objectively, that THIS TIME masculinity was on topic and addressed our examples without adding a lot of extra stuff....


I'll take your word for it, drac. I wouldn't read any more of his bullshit with a loaded gun to my head.

dracuscalico wrote: This topic, of ALL topics on this board, aligns with his point of view on things, as ways that societies define men as gay or straight is what he is all about.


This belies the larger point, which is this: I KNOW what his views are. I do not share them. I have given him his fair hearing, as have others on this board, and I have dismissed what he has to say, as have others on this board. I see no point in continuing to indulge his endless repitition of the same garbage. Nor do I believe he won't fly into another tirade or six at the earliest opportunity. I think it's in his blood, along with possibly some psychotropic meds (tho apparently not enough).

dracuscalico wrote: As long as he keeps his responses short and sweet, and stays on topic, without being judgemental, or advising people unless they ask for it, it doesn't seem like there would be a problem as long as the Imperialistic bandwidth hogging behaviors from the past don't reemerge...


You want to indulge his narcissism? That's your privilege. I'm sick of his crap, and to be truthful, I'm kinda over this topic in general. . . . If you or douglass want to PM me and joust some more, that's cool. But I'm removing my notification request on this thread.

Peace.
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 » Mon Sep 29, 2008 11:40 am

Pazuzu P. Sasquatch wrote:By "gay," I mean "sexually attracted to other men." When I mean "effeminate," that's the word I use.

It's pretty simple, really. . . .

And I'm sure that many "straight" guys who suck dick DO employ the kind of logic you're describing. I think it borders on flake-itude though, and pretty obviously so. (It's also the mentality that gives rise to the Larry Craigs of this world.) Nobody has to agree with me if they don't want to, but that's what I think.

Oh, and while I'm posting --

Dear masculinity: Please take your retarded bullshit elsewhere. I resent having to waste my time scrolling past your posts in search of opinions not written by idiots. Thanks.

Pazuzu, its not your fault... the thing is that your entire identity stands on a shaky ground that cannot stand questioning... and so running away, and crying foul is the only thing you can do to save your position.
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 Sep 29, 2008 11:49 am

douglassnow wrote:
Pazuzu P. Sasquatch wrote:
dracuscalico wrote:[Probably the opinion that matters the most is the one held by the person himself as to where he thinks(feels) he fits on the continuum compared to everyone else.


Therefore, if I decide to define myself as a cat, facilities open to the public are obliged to provide me with a litter box? :shock:

Don't think so. You say toe-may-toe. I say "Um. You're gay, dude."

Words can be squishy, granted. But sometimes ya just gotta stomp on the fuckers.

(Oh, and I think anyone with all the info would say that the construction worker was the gayer of the two.)


Your analogy (of "straight" to "cat") is not valid. Our construction worker--let's say he's one of the 10% of all self-identified "straight" men who only have sex with other men--is not proposing anything so illogical as the change of species you attribute to him. He probably doesn't know (or know that he knows) any gay men. You, if you are gay, might well call him gay, and tell him that the definition of "gay" is a man who has sex with other men. And, if he is a reasonable construction worker, he will agree--if that's all you mean by it. But what are the chances that that's all you mean by it? The reason he calls himself, and thinks of himself, as "straight" is that his only non-straight characteristic, in his own honest evaluation of himself, is having sex with other "straight" men. What he has always thought "gay" meant was something--well, weak, nasty and effeminate. Are you sure that's not what you mean when you say "gay"?

Btw... do you think the following guy who has sex only with women is a 'straight'?

If you can answer that, you'd find how misplaced the entire western classification of gay and straight is:

Image
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 fratpad » Mon Sep 29, 2008 5:41 pm

I can call myself African American, Native American, or an alien from outer space, but the truth is, I'm a white human male. Words have definitions for reasons: it contributes to structure and communication. While it would be nice sometimes to make up my own words and spread them around, thus creating my own language, I doubt anyone would take me seriously.

So, while I can claim that I'm predominantly homosexual, masculine, and that I like an occasional fling with a woman, that doesn't make me strictly straight. It makes me bisexual. Just as, if I was predominantly heterosexual, masculine, and liked an occasional fling with a male, that would also make me bisexual.

Words have definitions. The definition of gay in the context of this conversation is: men who have sex with men. Bisexual is: men who have sex with men and women. Heterosexual: men who have sex with women. (We could also get into a discussion about women who like women, which, by the logic above, if the word gay were applied to them, would automatically make them masculinized, regardless of whether that's true. Has anyone seen Ellen's wife?) In defining the word gay, masculine and feminine has nothing to do with it. They are their own words, with their own definitions.
fratpad
 

Postby masculinity » Tue Sep 30, 2008 6:03 am

fratpad wrote:I can call myself African American, Native American, or an alien from outer space, but the truth is, I'm a white human male. Words have definitions for reasons: it contributes to structure and communication. While it would be nice sometimes to make up my own words and spread them around, thus creating my own language, I doubt anyone would take me seriously.

So, while I can claim that I'm predominantly homosexual, masculine, and that I like an occasional fling with a woman, that doesn't make me strictly straight. It makes me bisexual. Just as, if I was predominantly heterosexual, masculine, and liked an occasional fling with a male, that would also make me bisexual.

Words have definitions. The definition of gay in the context of this conversation is: men who have sex with men. Bisexual is: men who have sex with men and women. Heterosexual: men who have sex with women. (We could also get into a discussion about women who like women, which, by the logic above, if the word gay were applied to them, would automatically make them masculinized, regardless of whether that's true. Has anyone seen Ellen's wife?) In defining the word gay, masculine and feminine has nothing to do with it. They are their own words, with their own definitions.


Answering this post here will be very much within the rules of this forum, however, somepeople might misinterpret it as 'hijacking' the issue, so I am answering this question at my thread on this page:

http://straightacting.net/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=189336#189336
Last edited by masculinity on Tue Sep 30, 2008 6:22 am, edited 1 time 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 masculinity » Tue Sep 30, 2008 6:07 am

fratpad wrote:I can call myself African American, Native American, or an alien from outer space, but the truth is, I'm a white human male. Words have definitions for reasons: it contributes to structure and communication. While it would be nice sometimes to make up my own words and spread them around, thus creating my own language, I doubt anyone would take me seriously.

So, while I can claim that I'm predominantly homosexual, masculine, and that I like an occasional fling with a woman, that doesn't make me strictly straight. It makes me bisexual. Just as, if I was predominantly heterosexual, masculine, and liked an occasional fling with a male, that would also make me bisexual.

Words have definitions. The definition of gay in the context of this conversation is: men who have sex with men. Bisexual is: men who have sex with men and women. Heterosexual: men who have sex with women. (We could also get into a discussion about women who like women, which, by the logic above, if the word gay were applied to them, would automatically make them masculinized, regardless of whether that's true. Has anyone seen Ellen's wife?) In defining the word gay, masculine and feminine has nothing to do with it. They are their own words, with their own definitions.

Btw, if you had answered my question posted two posts before, where I have asked if a feminine gendered heterosexual male will be considered straight, you'd get the answer to your question automatically.

You will realise how baseless and full double standards the Western definition and classification of sexuality are.

If straight really means heterosexual, why are feminine gendered males clubbed together with gays under LGBT and not with straights?

IF STRAIGHT REALLY MEANS HETEROSEXUAL WHY ARE FEMININE GENDERED HETEROSEXUAL MALES CLUBBED TOGETHER WITH GAYS UNDER LGBT, AND NOT WITH STRAIGHTS?]
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 Sep 30, 2008 6:20 am

matinee wrote:I'll say this to masculinity

START YOUR OWN BLOODY BOARD AND STOP REPEATING THE SAME CRAP IN EVERY BLOODY POST!!!!!!!!!!

With due respect, I think you are missing the point of the entire thread. Can't you see that Nimby is trying to make you guys see what I've been saying all along. He's saying it better than me, in a way that you guys should understand.

Only, you're choosing to close your eyes to it, because it suits you, and its your space, you control this space as gays.

The point that Nimby has clearly shown through this example is that if straight men too have sex with men (or want to have sex with men), and gays too have sex with men, then how can the 'desire to have sex with men' be a distinguishing point between straights and gays.

STRAIGHT GUYS HAVE SEX WITH MEN, BECAUSE SEXUAL NEED FOR MEN IS A UNIVERSAL MALE TRAIT... AND THUS YOU CANNOT DIVIDE THE MALE POPULATION ON THIS BASIS.
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 nimby » Tue Sep 30, 2008 10:55 am

Thanks for the kind words Masculinity. I can't speak for anyone else here on this thread, I just speak about me and how I feel. If others can't understand me, thats ok. There was a time not too long ago that people couldn't understand homosexuals either.

I was a very young child (10 or so) when I had my first physical experience (yes with another male my age) and it felt weird in the first experience way, but nothing else. I didn't even know what gay sex was then. But we still remained good life long friends. But soon after I learded, in a rather shocking way, that gays were bad and not to be tolerated. Almost 25 years ago today, while I was in highschool, I went into class and noticed that four of my friends weren't there. But the police were. Turns out that the previous night, my friends murdered a gay in local park. Thats how I learned what a gay was. From the cops. Nice upperclass neighbourhood, too.

Fratpad wrote that that he is basically gay with the occasional straight fling. And that's great. I am just the opposite. But as I mentioned earlier, things are changing in our society and the lines between gay and straight are becomming more fuzzy. And to me thats a good thing. I hope for a day when whom you sleep with with, or the person you fall in love with is a non issue to everyone. I think the world will be a better place for it. But in the mean time I watch. And I analyse. I like to know why this shift is happening. But I have learned one thing...

"If you repress, you will obcess."

So I stopped repressing. I used to be a staunch homophobe because that is how I was raised. But as I matured into aduldhood I learned to think for my self. I've changed my philosophies on many things in life, and the biggest one was in homosexuality. I was lacking male closeness growing up, (father passed away at a very young age and absolutely no other male in my family) and was never able to be close to a male. It got to the point that I was scared to even converse with another male because I didn't know how. I didn't fit in. Eventually I took the plunge. A friend from work invited me over to his place for a beer and what not, and the what not was not what I had in mind!!! Scared the hell out of me. But I felt it. Masculinity. And it felt good. Even the touching-or JUST the touching. Humans don't touch enough. The energy thats get transferred through just a touch, or a rub on the back, or a hug between one man to another is so special. And there and then I learned what was missing in my life. So now I'm trying to fix me. Just for me and no one else.

And I know I'm not alone. There are literally thousands of guys out there just like me who need fixin', whether they realize it or not. It takes time but they will realize it. Then all you "gay" guys will have your pickins' of all the straight guys you want. IF you're up to the challenge.
User avatar
nimby
Veteran Member
 
Posts: 2908
Joined: Thu May 08, 2008 3:35 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

Postby fratpad » Tue Sep 30, 2008 10:10 pm

Masculinity, I've seen that picture of you that you posted above. Come on, admit it, it is you, isn't? But you really aren't a very attractive feminine gendered person, are you? So, I hate to say it again, but I'll have to pass.
fratpad
 

Postby masculinity » Wed Oct 01, 2008 12:39 am

fratpad wrote:Masculinity, I've seen that picture of you that you posted above. Come on, admit it, it is you, isn't? But you really aren't a very attractive feminine gendered person, are you? So, I hate to say it again, but I'll have to pass.

Well ok, i'm a queen... so what... that is no reason for you to pass... why not be a man and discuss things out and face whatever comes.
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 fratpad » Wed Oct 01, 2008 6:32 pm

Come on now. I was only kidding with you.
fratpad
 

Postby dracuscalico » Wed Oct 01, 2008 7:09 pm

fratpad wrote:Come on now. I was only kidding with you.


Don't backpeddle now! You're the first one to crack through his facade... More ! More! More!
Last edited by dracuscalico on Fri Oct 03, 2008 9:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
dracuscalico
Veteran Member
 
Posts: 1202
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2008 9:48 pm

Postby DerWanderer » Wed Oct 01, 2008 11:54 pm

Alright. I'll jump in...

If we define "straight" to imply heterosexual relations, and "gay" to imply homosexual relations, then...

Straight guys having gay sex is a self-contradicting statement.

Now I might chalk up that first time...one time experience to simple exploration. Quite frankly there is still enough stigma associated with gay relationships in the North America, particularly amongst younger age groups, that people who might not even be sure...don't even get a fair shake when it comes to forming their own opinions...family dynamics play into that too. I've known more than a few guys who have grown up in households that label gays and bisexuals as unforgivable and utterly intolerable deviates. Trying to sort out things in THAT sort of environment is bound to be difficult at best...People are the most impressionable in their youth...

Ok. So lets go more mainstream. The so-called "straight" guy who continually engages in homosexual intercourse... Guess what, by "modern" norms shaped by the fabric of 21st century Western European culture...is not straight. Perhaps bisexual, perhaps omnisexual...but certainly not heterosexual.

Now why? Maybe because certain societies have become so hung up on labels that some people just can't bring themselves to either look past them completely and not give a darn what anyone else thinks, or because they're just fooling themselves as to to facts of the situation...

Obviously this gets more difficult when thinking about transgendered folks, and my two cents on that is that it's the labels game again, but in that case, the labels so may want to toss around don't actually fit the situation. That comes down to how one chooses to define sexuality. Is it simply a matter of the gonads, or does the psyche come into play? Is the latter enough to override the former, or vice versa? To only consider the first is perhaps the simplest from a purely biological perspective, but we also know, whether certain...factions...chose to accept it or not, that the bigger picture is far more complex. Anyone familiar with human physiology and a bit of molecular genetics knows that nothing is quite so simple as a simple yes or no.
DerWanderer
Member
 
Posts: 153
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2004 1:03 am
Location: Michigan

Postby masculinity » Thu Oct 02, 2008 7:02 am

DerWanderer wrote:If we define "straight" to imply heterosexual relations, and "gay" to imply homosexual relations, then... Straight guys having gay sex is a self-contradicting statement.

But, DerWanderer, we are challenging the very definitions set by Modern West as arbitrary, oppressive and invalid. That is to say, they won't work unless and until the society is heavily and continuously tampered with.

And in any case, who created the straight identity -- the gays did... and gays themselves are a creation of an unnatural social system created through the heterosexualisation of men's spaces.

Even today, straights don't really think of them as heterosexuals or straights but only as men. The 'straight' or 'heterosexual' things comes only when dealing with the 'gays' and its meant to differentiate themselves from the highly hated 'gay' identity. And you know the primary reason for this hatred -- its not social stigma, its the stigma attached to it because of its obious third gender status.

You might want to read this article:
http://men-masculinity.newsvine.com/_news/2008/10/01/1937908-the-conspiracy-against-men

DerWanderer wrote:Now I might chalk up that first time...one time experience to simple exploration.

If we are to believe the western straight identity, then guys are not supposed to like even holding hands with each other... why would a straight guy even want to try sex once with another guy, when he so much hates, as much as to touch his hands.

Haven't you seen straight guys puking at the very thought of kissing another guy on the TV and in the movies?

And, its also a practical fact... in our societies with so much at stake with regards to our very basic identities, men fight their instincts to have sex with another guy to the extent possible. You can simply assume that if we leave gays out, the actual interest a man has in another man is 1000 times bigger than what he is willing to show. So, if a man has sex once, it more often than not means that he has a strong sexual interest in men. Otherwise, he would have fought this instinct by easily getting a girl. Girls are available a dime a dozen in an open society like the US.

DerWanderer wrote:Quite frankly there is still enough stigma associated with gay relationships in the North America, particularly amongst younger age groups, that people who might not even be sure...don't even get a fair shake when it comes to forming their own opinions...family dynamics play into that too. I've known more than a few guys who have grown up in households that label gays and bisexuals as unforgivable and utterly intolerable deviates. Trying to sort out things in THAT sort of environment is bound to be difficult at best...People are the most impressionable in their youth...

Social and religious stigmas do come in the way of straight men accepting their sexuality for men, however, it is nothing when compared to the pressures generated by the concept of sexual orientation, which seeks to isolate them from men's spaces into a third sex space together with the feminine gendered males.
I can give hundreds of case studies and other evidences to rest my case.

The point I'm trying to make is, straight men's sexual need for another man, in general (about 20% are exceptions) is much greater than that of the gay. The gay is primarily interested in getting anally inserted by the man... the emotional aspect is almost negligent... from my wide experience on the issue, I know that straight men harbour a much deeper and stronger/ committed need for another man -- the kind they never have for women... and gays can never have for a man.

DerWanderer wrote:Ok. So lets go more mainstream. The so-called "straight" guy who continually engages in homosexual intercourse... Guess what, by "modern" norms shaped by the fabric of 21st century Western European culture...is not straight. Perhaps bisexual, perhaps omnisexual...but certainly not heterosexual.


I don't think discussing anything within the western paradigm of homosexual and heterosexual will lead us anywhere. We have to start from scratch and then prove that these definitions are valid. you should not assume from the outset that they are valid and use terms like 'homosexual' for sexual bonds between men.

In any case, forget about 'homosexual' relationships... most straight men(i.e. masculine gendered males) have a strong sexual need for other men, which they are conditioned and pressurised to cut off right from their adolescence. Gays don't go much through that pressure because of their femininity, and by leaving the straight identity when they grow up leave the pressures of manhood totally behind. That escape is not available to the straight man.

So, he may not indulge in sex at all with men, and I have hundreds of such cases, but the major part of his sexual need may still be towards men. He may have mutilated that need, and may have developed a social distaste against any sexual/ romantic bonds with men... however that doesn't mean that he is really heterosexual (that doesnt mean that he is heterosexual or bisexual either0 ... even when he, like so many other straight men, forces himself to have sex with women or pretends to be in love with them, or hangs on to whatever sexual interest in women he may have, and build his entire life upon it, rather than on his sexual interst in men, which is actually much stronger, if allowed its natural potential.

In other words, the sexuality of western straight male is socially created by the heterosexual society, by creating mechanisms that create extreme pressures on him to be heterosexual. And the concept of 'sexual orientation' is the strongest such pressure, which works by threatening to isolate him together with the feminine gendered, into a space which is completely alien for him. You can't put men who have sex with men and third sex who have sex with men in one space.

DerWanderer wrote:Now why? Maybe because certain societies have become so hung up on labels that some people just can't bring themselves to either look past them completely and not give a darn what anyone else thinks, or because they're just fooling themselves as to to facts of the situation...

I have nothing against labels, if they are honest and reflect the truth. But if you're going to call me brown and you're also going to call a black man brown and then club us together as one race, then I'm going to have a problem, because I'm different. It is when labels are politicised and only serve to perpetuate lies and power positions of certain groups that problems occur.

DerWanderer wrote:Obviously this gets more difficult when thinking about transgendered folks, and my two cents on that is that it's the labels game again, but in that case, the labels so may want to toss around don't actually fit the situation.

I'm sorry, I didn't follow that at all.
But I can tell you that with the transgendered folks, its not just the label game. Their issues of gender identity and labels are real unlike those of the gays. The identity which today is defined in terms of sexuality (homosexuality) actually once belonged to them as third sex. They have been deprived of their distinct identity to serve the anti-man forces who want to use their space to serve as a banishment zone for men who own up their sexuality for men.


DerWanderer wrote:That comes down to how one chooses to define sexuality. Is it simply a matter of the gonads, or does the psyche come into play? Is the latter enough to override the former, or vice versa?

You are right about the entire concept of sexuality and 'sexual orientation' being highly ambiguous. But that's because it is based upon double standards and lies... and since it suits the Forces of Heterosexualisation who control the society, there is no room to challenge this ambiguity. This ambiguity helps these anti-man forces to have their cake and eat it too -- and the above example of the queer heterosexual is just one example.

It suits the gays too, but then what we need to see is who exactly are these gays? If straight men too like men and so do gays, then their difference has to be something else. And that something else is 'gender', and you have to just look at non-Western societies to know that truth.

I used to counsel a gay male in India (He was actually gay, since he was straight acting and not really masculine. He had a strong tinge of femininity, even though he lived like a man and even went to the gym). When I told him initially that all straight men have a strong sexuality for men, he did not agree. He kept seeing people in the Western manner of, if you have sex with a man you're gay, and in his mind he equated that with femininity.

But then he had two strong longterm relationships with straight men. Actually, when he came to me, he was already dealing with a six year old relationship with a straight man... and he never once thought of the straight man as gay. Only because he was masculine and had real 'straight' airs, and never really acknowledged his sexual need for him. This gay genuinely thought that the other guy had a live-in intensely sexual relationship with him, just to pass his time.

But then he had an even more intense relationship with another straight guy, who even after six years is not willing to accept his sexual interest in men (although he accepts that he loves that gay guy, but says he's the only one). And now, the gay has started to realise that straights too may have intense liking for men.
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 solat » Fri Oct 03, 2008 4:18 pm

masculinity wrote:Btw... do you think the following guy who has sex only with women is a 'straight'?

If you can answer that, you'd find how misplaced the entire western classification of gay and straight is:

Image


English: it's the slut of the language world. The language of free-borrowing of words, ideas, patterns of thought that has gathered pace incrementally over the centuries.

The ability to describe any subject, state, or individuality is a great tool.

How would you describe in one word a middle-aged hairy man who has a liking for leather?
Or a hairless college guy who is constantly horny?
The image you provided to explain Western inflexibility: That individual can easily be classified. They could even do it themselves. All it requires is that the word/concept be used enough for it to be taken on board.

How would you describe C=1, M=1, Y=0, K=42? The english language has the ability to classify millions of shades of grey while others can only describe black or white. And in most cultures, if it isn't black or white, it doesn't exist.
User avatar
solat
Moderator
 
Posts: 410
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 5:03 am
Location: New Zealand

Postby masculinity » Sat Oct 04, 2008 11:30 am

solat wrote:
masculinity wrote:Btw... do you think the following guy who has sex only with women is a 'straight'?

If you can answer that, you'd find how misplaced the entire western classification of gay and straight is:

Image


English: it's the slut of the language world. The language of free-borrowing of words, ideas, patterns of thought that has gathered pace incrementally over the centuries.

The ability to describe any subject, state, or individuality is a great tool.

How would you describe in one word a middle-aged hairy man who has a liking for leather?
Or a hairless college guy who is constantly horny?
The image you provided to explain Western inflexibility: That individual can easily be classified. They could even do it themselves. All it requires is that the word/concept be used enough for it to be taken on board.

How would you describe C=1, M=1, Y=0, K=42? The english language has the ability to classify millions of shades of grey while others can only describe black or white. And in most cultures, if it isn't black or white, it doesn't exist.


I would beg to differ.

Its not just a matter of calling yourself whatever you want. Social classifications have to follow some rules. They can't be just based upon the whims and fancies of those who control the society.

Otherwise, those who have already occupied the allocation of unnatural 'gay-straight' spaces and fit well into it, will see to it, that while double standards are accepted by popular opinion (because straight men who like men just don't have a social space to voice themselves, with such enormous pressures working on them), and that those straights who do want to call themselves straights while still love men, are denied this freedom of choosing how to label themselves.

Btw, these labels are not so casual... they represent the allocation of important social spaces, and which social space belongs to you. Your very basic sense of identity.

If the Western society is divided between Straight and LGBT.

And if effeminate males who like women are classified on the LGBT side as queer heterosexuals, then should not the masculine males who like men be put on the straight side?

If not, why?
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 nimby » Sat Oct 04, 2008 12:24 pm

UGH! Please !?!

No offense, but why does everything have to be a battle with you?

You are in India, with a totally different set of values and/or norms in your culture. Someone here has also assumed that you are a muslem, but I doubt that. You are probably Hindu, right ? Very different than Western culture. Have you ever been to North America?

Be like me, just listen and learn. I'm new to this stuff too, so mostly I just listen and learn. When I have something I'd like to share, I do quickly, and that's it. Don't preach. Please? Most enjoy your information, just not the presentation.

Namaste
User avatar
nimby
Veteran Member
 
Posts: 2908
Joined: Thu May 08, 2008 3:35 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

Postby Pazuzu P. Sasquatch » Sat Oct 04, 2008 12:48 pm

masculinity wrote: Crap, crap, whiny self-imposed victimhood, crap, sh*t, inarticulate anger, garbage, bullshit, circular reasoning, insults, paranoia, crap, incoherence, horseshit, incoherent horseshit, crap, pointless repitition, crap, sh*t. . . .


He's baaa-ack. . . . . Z-z-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 » Sun Oct 05, 2008 1:37 am

nimby wrote:UGH! Please !?!

No offense, but why does everything have to be a battle with you?

You are in India, with a totally different set of values and/or norms in your culture. Someone here has also assumed that you are a muslem, but I doubt that. You are probably Hindu, right ? Very different than Western culture. Have you ever been to North America?

Be like me, just listen and learn. I'm new to this stuff too, so mostly I just listen and learn. When I have something I'd like to share, I do quickly, and that's it. Don't preach. Please? Most enjoy your information, just not the presentation.

Namaste

Well, you may be right...

except that I'm basically in enemy territory, looking for trapped people I could rescue... so what do I do, avoid tangling with the enemy... perhaps that's what I should do.

However, let me reassure you, the differences I have is not on account of cultural differences. They're imposing the division of sexual orientation in my society too -- and I have just as much fight with gays here. In fact, this forum is much more tolerant. They've had me back. I have been totally banned from a gay site in India.

And, I have some American straight friends who totally agree with me, and many others who have just expressed their support. And they know that arguing with gays is not going to help because the heterosexual society has given them that space and resultant power through their definitions (because it suits their conspiracy to tie male sexual bonds with femininity and third sex, and make it a burden for men) and so gays will defend these definitions with their last breath, whether or not they can logically or morally support it. When you've the social powers wiith you, you don't worry about things like double standards -- something that the US imposes around the world.

So, its not that if I were in America, I would see things differently. I just wouldn't have the social space or knowledge to fight 'sexual orientation'.

See, I basically see 'sexual orientation' as an enemy, because it threatens my identity as a mainstream masculine gendered male. And, because I have created the knowledge base to challenge it, I have little patience with gays, who are its backbone.

But, I'll take your advice and not be here on this space anymore (at least for sometime) and people who want to get in touch with me can do so through my thread. I think it would be wrong to create negative vibes for the members of this group.
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 nimby » Mon Oct 06, 2008 12:17 pm

Now I have another theory I'd like to float if I may?

On a few places on this board I have seen discussions about a recent study that shows how a gay man's brain resembles that of a woman, thus they are born gay. End of story. How about this?

Rather than the physical characteristics of the brain (general size and size of left vs. right hemisphere, ect. ) controlling the child's development, maybe it's the development of the child controlling the physical characteristics of the brain?

See article of brain development:
http://www.ag.ndsu.edu/pubs/yf/famsci/fs609w.htm

Also history demonstrates that masculine and feminine traits are rather cyclical in both sexes also, especially women. During the first part of the last century, standards of femimity were changing with the movement of womens' rights, fashion and ideas. Then WWII forced women right out of the home and into the work force in factory jobs (rather too quickly I suggest). Thus the end of the war brought a resurgence of feminity for the next few decades. Then again the women's rights started up again during the late seventies (ala Gloria Steinem et al.).

My point being that, "The hand that rocks the cradle REALLY IS the hand that rules the world." And those fluid characteristics are transferred to the next generation. It may take a few generations for the pendulum to swing back, but it will, and then in the other direction again.

I do believe that it truly is Nature vs. Nurture thing and society will reach a happy medium when the pendulum eventually stops somewhere in the middle. It's all part of the master plan about self discovery and self actualization.

Ok. let the slaps fly... :wink:
User avatar
nimby
Veteran Member
 
Posts: 2908
Joined: Thu May 08, 2008 3:35 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

Postby douglassnow » Sat Nov 29, 2008 3:34 am

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.
douglassnow
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2008 3:13 pm

Postby Laiku » Sat Nov 29, 2008 5:46 am

To come back to the topic of this thread:

If a male human has the sexual desire (and I mean real sexual desire [the one that simply is and that you can't really create], not just curiosity) to have sex with another male human being (both at least adolescent of course) than he is, per definition, NOT straight/heterosexual. Simple as that.

If a self-identifed heterosexual male human being wants to have sex with another male human being, than the self-identification is either wrong or that person may have serious problems.
Laiku
Newbie
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 11:00 am

PreviousNext

Return to Straight Acting Men

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron