Do homosexuals who do not fellate exist?

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

Moderators: selective_soldier, furface

Postby masculinity » Wed Feb 18, 2009 4:52 am

DeckApe wrote:
masculinity wrote:Why should the world follow your crap?


Oh, the irony.


There's no irony because:

a) I'm trying to raise issues here, and give evidences for my point of view and trying to see how others feel about it. I'm pointing out the oppressive nature of the Western society in general and the gay identity in particular.

b) You define your identities and concepts as if they are universal truths and naturally so... and then with the economic, political and technological power of the West, you impose those definitions on us in the garb of globalization (whereas you refuse to learn from us, in return), destroying our age old wisdoms, values and lifestyles, without even giving us the chance to evaluate them...

There is no comparision (or irony) between what I'm doing or what you're culture is doing to us. You're just tasting globalization turned against you... but, frankly, I don't have the power to destroy your definitions like you have to destroy ours and make people like me vulnerable. All I have is the truth... and I'm here on the basis of that truth that I have, and the conviction that I have in that truth... Showing light in the utter darkness that you have created for men... knowing that the anti-man forces will oppose me tooth and nail... but that some men will find this information almost life-saving... it is for them that I toil.
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 furface » Wed Feb 18, 2009 12:24 pm

Purusharth; Did some checking over to your 'fabulous' site. Interesting, very interesting.

According to the public stats for the site it was set up on blogger 05-06 and has had a whopping 13,758 visitors. The discussion forums have 16 members, including you, and a total of 6 posts. Though 5 of those are yours.

According to our forum stats you joined us 09-06 and have posted 905 messages.

It certainly appears you spend considerably more time here than on your own site. How peculiar. Especially since your reception here has been less than enthusiastic. And given your site stats not particularly successful either.

Image
"Do not ascribe malice to that which can be reasonably explained by ignorance ... or incompetence."
Isaac Asimov
User avatar
furface
Site Admin
 
Posts: 1175
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2004 7:35 pm
Location: The Colony, TX

Postby Phoenix6570 » Thu Feb 19, 2009 12:55 am

Well I one for one believe what masculinity says. They're certain parts that I may not completely line up with, but the general concept is solid in my view. I don't see why so many people have an issue with it either. To me its liberating. Instead of following this false lifestyle of what a man is by society you get to be the man you actually are. With no stupid labels or stipulations about who you are.

I've checked out his site and read a bunch of his information. When I compare that with my life and the things around me it lines up! I'm in college right now and I see how societies definition of what a man is really affect people and direct their lives. It definitely had a negative impact on me I believe, and I can see how it really harms one of my good friends.

Even if one doesn't want to accept what Masculinity is saying then I propose a different question. Is our concept of what a man is right? Is it worth following? I feel like no one even questions our preexisting ideas. Just because its what we know doesn't mean we have to accept it. Since they're men who are masculine that are into other masculine men why is there no separate distinction? I don't believe I should be labeled by guy if the only distinction between he and I is that I am attracted to men. Why should my sexuality be my defining point why not the person I really am?
"As long as a person doesn't admit he's defeated, he is not defeated-- he's just a little behind, and isn't through fighting" ~ Darrel Royal
User avatar
Phoenix6570
Veteran Member
 
Posts: 613
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2008 11:33 pm
Location: Chester, New York

Postby Odeh » Thu Feb 19, 2009 8:09 pm

I have to say I agree with about 85% of masculinity's basic concepts too..
I can understand where he is coming from as I have had many friends
from his part of the world...

From an American standpoint,it seems the men from the non-western
third world are more comfortable with each other in the Middle East,Africa
and Asia normal,regular guys can walk down the street holding hands with
each other...

I would say the whole male mainstream culture in those countries is
what we would call bisexual in our culture...

I saw an example of his point that the gay culture in the U.S. is fem based
it was interesting in the New York gay parade they actually had the 'third
gender' people from Asia that he mentioned...I saw actual "hijras" and
"ladyboys" from India and Southeast Asia..they actually had section for them!
Odeh
Member
 
Posts: 94
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 3:11 pm

Postby vbksound » Sat Feb 21, 2009 9:01 pm

In the interest of piling on, I, too support most of what masculinity says. It explains my life alot more than the usual gay point of view. I only come here to read masculinitys' posts, for the most part.
I am a white American Westerner and I will not identify as "gay". I'm not supporting the evil system that segregates and isolates men.
User avatar
vbksound
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 1:21 am
Location: Rockville MD

Postby vbksound » Wed Mar 11, 2009 3:43 pm

I am freindly with 'masculinity' and i often chide him for saying that the present situation in the west is due to a "conspiracy by vested interests". I tell him he sounds like a conspiracy nutcase, but there are times when you wonder... people really do seem bothered by his message, not just his style. The powers that be here have had enough it seems.
I will still tell him , though, that what happens in the gay places like here doesn't really matter much. The "vested interests" of the various gay community outlets can only do so much. The real issue is those in the broader 'straight' community who have conceptualized 'homosexuality' as an identity. First they medicalized it, now we have "gay gene" scientists, etc. They are the ones who put this on us. They are vested interests, even if they believe they are doing good science.
And the future is with straight men, anyway. That's who wer are fighting for.
User avatar
vbksound
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 1:21 am
Location: Rockville MD

semantics

Postby canucklehead » Mon Mar 16, 2009 5:18 am

I'm new here but I have strong opinions about this discussion.

I'm not sure how things are in India but in North America, most people define "gay" as someone who has a sexual attraction to someone of his/her own gender.

Having read your post and some of the responses here, I have to admit, I never thought of the etymology of gay slangs and was not aware that there are men out there who have a preference for other men but don't consider themselves "gay". Personally, I think it's all semantics and you're trying to take yourself out of the "gay" category by justifying it with word origins. Well, sorry to disappoint you.

The modern definitions are as follows:
masculine = a person who outwardly exhibits traits that are commonly associated with being male
feminine = a person who outwardly exhibits traits that are commonly associated with being female
gay = homosexual, a person who is primarily attracted to people of the same gender
straight = heterosexual, a person who is primarily attracted to people of the opposite gender
bisexual = a person who is roughly equally attracted to people of both genders
gender = a term referring to the physiological/biological anatomy of an individual. Someone of the male gender has XY chromosomes and typically has a penis and testicles. Someone of the female gender has two X chromosomes and typically has a vagina, ovaries and produces milk in her mammary glands.

Gay, male and masculine are not mutually exclusive terms. It doesn't matter if you are the "pitcher" or the "catcher"... if you primarily feel a physical attraction to someone of the same gender, you are gay.

The global definition (all of the world) of "masculine or feminine gender" MEANS you are either male (a man) or female (a woman). These terms ARE mutually exclusive, meaning you cannot be a "feminine gendered" man. Identifying yourself as gay does not change this biological definition. This means your statement that "Those who actually identify with the 'gay' identity are first and foremost feminine gendered" is wrong.

Also, as for the slangs having "connotations of being feminine/ and/or desiring receptive anal/ oral sex", I'm not sure where you got this from. For example, the word queer started being used by gay men to identify themselves in the early 1900's and only in reference to gay men who could pass as straight (in contrast to the term "fairy" used for men who were effeminate). As a matter of fact, the term queer didn't become derogatory until the 1940s. Faggot, on the other hand was originally used as a term referring to an old or unpleasant woman. The origin for the use of fruit or pansy when referring to gay men is unclear. None of these terms can be traced back to any association to "desiring receptive anal/ oral sex".

The problem is, gay is often associated with the gay stereotype. Gay pride parades show gay men as being cross-dressing or effeminate or to the other extreme, overly masculine (leather, hairy, bearded, etc.). Unfortunately, the middle-of-the-road, "normal" gay man gets lost in the crowd, because he is (we are) not easily identifiable as being gay.

The word "gay" originally referred to being joyful or carefree. A shift then occurred when it was associated with immorality and being "carefree" became "uninhibited by moral constraints". Gay was a term used primarily to describe heterosexuals until the mid 20th century but eventually, the usage of the term was narrowed to refer to homosexuals. It did NOT originate from any association with an interest in receiving anal or giving oral sex, as you claim.

Either way, it doesn't matter what the terms used to mean. It matters what they mean now. Yes, the term "gay" has negative connotations in the modern English language ("that's so gay!") but you can't be predominantly attracted to your own gender and claim not to be gay just because you don't like what thoughts the term "gay" conjures up. I don't fit the gay stereotype and, because of the connotations, it took me a long time before I could say the words, "I am gay". However, there is no way I'm going to tell people I'm straight because outwardly, people think I'm straight.

Do we change the definition of gay/straight so they refer to feminine/masculine or do we simply enlighten people to the fact that not all gay men fit the gay stereotype and, for that matter, not all straight men fit the straight stereotype. Call it gay or call it homosexual. It doesn't matter and it certainly doesn't change who you are. Until masculine gay men stop being ashamed of the word "gay", it will continue to be used in association with the stereotype.


masculinity wrote:There are two parts to being gay:

1. Feminine male
2. Receptive anal/ oral sex

All the slangs and pre-gay homosexual terms for 'gays', like Queer, faggot, fruit, pansy, etc. have these connotations of being feminine/ and/or desiring receptive anal/ oral sex.

The basic essence, which is originally what the third sex identity (which is now the 'gay' identity, gender being defined in terms of 'Sexuality) is all about, since the ancient times -- is male femininity.

Those who actually identify with the 'gay' identity are first and foremost feminine gendered.

But, because of gender and sexual politics, male femininity started to be seen in terms of receptive anal and oral sex in the middle ages. And, so, receiving anal and oral sex is another part of being 'gay'.

If you're neither effeminate, nor have an active, predominant interest in receiving anal/ giving oral sex, then you're not 'Gay'. Thus, if you like men and male eroticism and not effeminate (then you will not be into exclusive receptive anal/ oral sex), then you're not gay. You're straight.

Although, receiving anal sex in itself is not feminine, but since it has been tied to social femininity, and has the consequences of being imposed with the feminine male gender, men who are essentially masculine will feel a lot of discomfort openly accepting and enjoying receptive anal sex.

And, under these circumstances, those who are 'exclusively' into receiving anal/ oral sex, or define themselves as 'bottoms' are most likely to be people who are feminine gendered/ gays.
Last edited by canucklehead on Mon Mar 16, 2009 7:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
canucklehead
Newbie
 
Posts: 31
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2009 4:37 am
Location: Vancouver, BC Canada

Postby canucklehead » Mon Mar 16, 2009 6:48 am

I disagree that gay culture in the US (or North America) is fem based. Yes, the stereotype exists and most people expect gay men to "act" effeminate. However, the reason for this is because the masculine gay men are not as visible and often, find the stereotype distasteful and thus disassociate themselves from gay pride.

It's funny though. I've talked to a few masculine gay men who "nelly it up" for pride because that's the only way they can let people know they're actually gay. Without the obviously gay people, it would be so easy to forget that we exist. However, they're the ones who also reinforce the stereotype. So damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Odeh wrote:I saw an example of his point that the gay culture in the U.S. is fem based
it was interesting in the New York gay parade they actually had the 'third
gender' people from Asia that he mentioned...I saw actual "hijras" and
"ladyboys" from India and Southeast Asia..they actually had section for them!
User avatar
canucklehead
Newbie
 
Posts: 31
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2009 4:37 am
Location: Vancouver, BC Canada

Postby canucklehead » Mon Mar 16, 2009 7:07 am

masculinity wrote:That's the queen inside you speaking. The problem is that queens get to 'own' men's sexual desire for men.

Your definition of 'gay' has been proved wrong in other cultures around the world. And there are numerous documented evidences.


I'm curious to see some evidence. Perhaps I'm not understanding your point because if a man has a sexual desire for men, doesn't that mean he's gay, whether or not he's the one penetrating or being penetrated? Is this just a difference in understanding of the definition?

masculinity wrote:Your definition has been made inapplicable in your own culture of a few decades ago, and there are documented evidences.

If we look beyond formal definitions, in your own contemporary culture, there are numerous examples in actual life that counter your definition of 'gay' and there are numerous evidences of this.


Again, can you explain? How has the western definition of "gay" been made inapplicable in western society?

masculinity wrote:Only the effeminate males who like men believe in these definitions. Why should the world follow your crap?


This I would have to 100% disagree with. Until I ventured into this forum, I have never heard anyone define "gay" as specifically as you do (effeminite, interested in receiving anal sex, wanting to give oral sex, etc.). None of my gay friends do. None of my straight friends do. None of my male friends do. None of my female friends do. Not a single person I know does. As a matter of fact, if I tried to use your definition, people would give me the oddest looks. To everyone I know, gay = homosexual; someone who has a sexual attraction to persons of the same sex. If someone defined it the way you do, they would be considered in denial. "I have sex with men, but I'm not gay because I'm the top! Really, I'm not gay because that's how I choose to define things."
User avatar
canucklehead
Newbie
 
Posts: 31
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2009 4:37 am
Location: Vancouver, BC Canada

Postby Odeh » Mon Mar 16, 2009 9:32 pm

I think it is a difference of cultural perceptions..in the Western world..ANY
type of male intimacy is called gay..in the West...any male expression of
intimacy is regulated to the gay space...men are segregated from each other
here like women are from men in the East...

In the "third world" mainstream men often hold hands walking down the street...mainstream guys flirt with each other..lay heads on laps...in other words men are
permitted to be intimate with each other...the only time in the West where
you see men holding hands are in gay related situations...

Or at sports games team players are intimate with each other when they win

Also, an observation was stated to me that Americans are a non-contact
culture in general...they want their body space..
Odeh
Member
 
Posts: 94
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 3:11 pm

Postby Odeh » Mon Mar 16, 2009 9:47 pm

I think in a society that permits male intimacy sexual orientation becomes
a non-issue...for example in a society where men can hold and touch each
other in general and hold hands in public...how would one know if they are
"dating"?...if everybody can hold hands and dance together?

The concept of "gay" in a concept that arose out of the identity politic
movement in America in the late '60s...It is a product of a society that
generally does not permit male intimacy and frowns on effeminate males...

In ancient Rome and Greece..there was no such thing as "gay" but many
men were with men..

The concept of "gender" is culturally specific also..here it is 2 in non-western society it is at least 3..
Odeh
Member
 
Posts: 94
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 3:11 pm

Postby canucklehead » Tue Mar 17, 2009 5:25 pm

Interesting. It would be nice if it wasn't such a taboo here in North America. I'd like to blame that one on the religious right in the US that influences all of North America.

One thing though. Males expressing intimacy towards each other in the way that women are able to do (holding hands, kissing on the lips, etc.) would be nice. However, in these other cultures, I would assume that's as far as things go, right? I mean, if one of the guys started getting physical with the other, I'd assume it would be crossing the line, right?

The question I have isn't whether two guys who show affection or intimacy are considered gay. It's whether they have sex with each other - that's the question. To me, it wouldn't matter if you are giving or receiving oral sex or penetrating or being penetrated.

Odeh wrote:I think it is a difference of cultural perceptions..in the Western world..ANY
type of male intimacy is called gay..in the West...any male expression of
intimacy is regulated to the gay space...men are segregated from each other
here like women are from men in the East...

In the "third world" mainstream men often hold hands walking down the street...mainstream guys flirt with each other..lay heads on laps...in other words men are
permitted to be intimate with each other...the only time in the West where
you see men holding hands are in gay related situations...

Or at sports games team players are intimate with each other when they win

Also, an observation was stated to me that Americans are a non-contact
culture in general...they want their body space..
User avatar
canucklehead
Newbie
 
Posts: 31
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2009 4:37 am
Location: Vancouver, BC Canada

Postby Odeh » Tue Mar 17, 2009 7:19 pm

Some men might have sex in private or they may not...if they do..it doesn't label them outside the mainstream masculine society as they
are not the "third gender"...things are not neatly labeled or binary as they
are in the West..here you are classified either this or that..especially the U.S.


I know of someone who was stationed in West Africa..in our culture he
would be labeled "bi"...he said the mainstream male culture was intimate
and the men would sleep very close to each other..it often lead into sex
but he said they would get up in the morning and go out and pick up
women..

Mainstream masculine guys in those cultures don't freak out if another guy has a crush on him..


In the Middle East..only the passive partner is considered "gay" or fem
since he is the passive one..

Now when this guy came back to the U.S. he felt isolated the closest thing
in the U.S. he could find that would match his experiences in West Africa
were with gay black guys...
Odeh
Member
 
Posts: 94
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 3:11 pm

Re: Do homosexuals who do not fellate exist?

Postby Anima/Ex/Rex » Tue Jun 15, 2010 8:08 pm

lmao Nope, it's a prerequisite for gay men, face facts fellas :lol: hell I have sucked a dick or 2...literally that many....just 2 lol I dont like giving head or getting it if it cant be done right by the other guy, and Id prefer to be in a relationship if I do give head, besides for obvious safe sex practices, I feel like it makes me appear 'submissive/weak' and I bow to NOBODY....Besides, I'm just not a dick sucker, and it does absolutely sh*t for me EXCEPT when I have a BF, I only wanna suck him and that's only if he sucks me off......but I won't lie, b/c I've been told my technique is the s**t ....whatev, all I know is it's no more weird to suck than it is to be sucked....it's just a matter of perspective, but I know if I'm sucking, I better be sucked too!! Or well be some fighting dudes lol :evil:
Anima/Ex/Rex
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2010 2:44 pm

Re: Do homosexuals who do not fellate exist?

Postby butch » Fri Jun 18, 2010 4:53 pm

My preference is sucking dick... was never really into the anal thing though I gravitated to being a top and quite enjoyed it in my older age. In this day and age, fellatio is a much safer option. And, if you like being the "sucker" as opposed to the "suckee" you will find many, many straight guys available if you have the courage to ask them in private. Worked for me. I should ad, most have no idea I'm gay... even the gay ones so I'm one of those hard to spot gay guys mentioned in an earlier post and I don't care for gay bars at all.
"You know it's going to be bad, but you just can't prepare yourself" ... Homer Simpson
Website: http://ButchBoard.com
Image
I'm ready... are you?
User avatar
butch
Veteran Member
 
Posts: 569
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 10:15 pm
Location: Vancouver, Canada

Re: Do homosexuals who do not fellate exist?

Postby nimby » Sat Jun 19, 2010 8:37 pm

I don't understand why any homosexuals wouldn't. Very enjoyable. No hang ups on who's the dom or the sub, just shear sensual, manly, pleasure. I even know a few "straight" guys who engoy it immensly. LOL!!
"Why do we have asteroids in the hemisphere and hemmorroids in the a$$ ? "
User avatar
nimby
Veteran Member
 
Posts: 2908
Joined: Thu May 08, 2008 3:35 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

Re: Do homosexuals who do not fellate exist?

Postby DeckApe » Sun Jun 20, 2010 10:57 am

I'm sure that homosexuals who do not fellate exist...

...and the catty, bitchy part of my brain replies, "if you call that existence."

I'm sure that homosexuals that don't fellate exist; I'm just not one of them. :o
DeckApe
Veteran Member
 
Posts: 1675
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 5:52 pm
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: Do homosexuals who do not fellate exist?

Postby olywaguy » Sun Jun 20, 2010 2:42 pm

There are a number of guys who are glad to go down on a guy without expecting for you to do the same (at least, so it seems, in Craigslist).

So, you can enjoy the pleasure of fellatio without having to reciprocate.

However, the one thing I really don't understand, are guys who don't want to kiss. Now, that's a problem for me. Kissing is very important to me.
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: 1674
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 1:08 pm
Location: Tupelo, Mississippi

Previous

Return to Straight Acting Men

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

cron