Playinpitt
Legendary Member
OI. I don't know why I am going to waste my electrons on this.. but for some misguided, probably masochistic reason, I want to weigh in on this thread.
An old friend of mine studied human sexuality (well, really, just sexuality as some of her studies covered animal behavior as well). Real, honest, graduate school, doctorate type stuff, it's her career.
As a young, dumb, cocksucker, I shared with her my frustrations that I'd hook-up with these hot, amazing guys and they'd always come back for sex, but none were progressing into relationships, which I wanted. As she was in the field of the mind and behavior it's an occupational hazard that she often "analyzes" her friends' behavior by default.
At first she though I was just picking slutty men, more interested in sex than LTRs.. This was college after all. But as we chatted, she hit on a new theory and explained to me the following:
Analytically there are three aspects to Human sexuality:
Behavioral (who you fuck)
Orientational (Who you feel yourself drawn to fuck)
and
Identificational (who you tell yourself and the world that you fuck)
These aspects are often at variance and even conflict. And her theory was this:
She suspected I was being drawn to and playing with men who were B: Bi, O: Bi or Straight and I: Straight. SO I was likely never going to find a guy in that pool that would be comfortable changing his I: to Bi or Gay; and so relationships were out of the question.
This is how you can have folks like Ted Haggard who is at least Functionally Bi behaviorally, Identifies to the world as straight and could realistically be Orientationally Gay. And it explains how some of the biggest conservative homophobes are often closet-cases. They know how it is to love the cock, but in their world view they've done the hard work of keeping their Behavior Straight, (at least mostly) so they can claim that title of "straight".
Which touches on the conflict between alwaysguessing and nwnccpl over how a man letting one man suck him no longer qualifies as Straight and a man that loves the cock can fuck 100s of women and still be gay. Kelly explained that there is an inherent cultural bias towards heterosexuality. Consciously or not, it is held as the standard and other orientations are viewed as deviations from it. Many folks view that any deviation from strict heterosexuality invalidates you for the title, even if it is one in 1000s. Logically, this doesn't make sense, but it is how a lot of society views it. Just like some folks count you as a virgin as long as you haven't had genital penetrative sex. while other's view even masturbatory play as removing that valued title from you.
Tied into this is her pet theory that there is a 4th aspect or at least sub-aspect of sexuality: Orientation for relationships. Who you want to fuck and form a pair bond with. There are many people that want to fuck more types of people than those they want to fuck and date. Like chubby chasers that like to fuck BBWs or BBGs but still date and marry the skinny trophy wife.
So it is possible to be straight and let a guy blow you. In fact I know guys who are only attracted to women, Identify as straight and for at least a brief time had only had gay sex. (the one didn't even know that the hooker he picked up to get his first and only BJ before his wedding, was a trans). The other guy is a good looking guy; but he is such an ASS around and to women that so far none have let him get beyond heavy petting, before storming off. So a few years back he adjusted to letting guys blow him as an alternative to jerking off.
go figure.
Another time, I'll bore y'all with her other theory that Gay-Bi-Straight categories are stupid and don't cut it for describing orientational sexuality. That some folks are attracted to Masculine attributes (in men, women or both). Some are attracted only to breasts (irrespective of the genitals below those breasts) Some are attracted to androgyny, some to feminine traits (on men, women or both).
It occurs to me, that this theory would be useful to explain the 100% straight LPSGers that just love them some big dicks.
To answer the OP's question, given the above info..
Setting aside that some folks are going to view ANY overt offer of sex as rude...
NO, it is not rude to offer a single man you believe to be straight a BJ.
YES, it is rude to offer ANY man in a relationship a BJ as you are basically stating that you believe he has the morals of a cheater (unless in an open relationship, obviously).
and to alwaysguessing's point:
YES, it is rude to offer sex to someone who has previously turned you down. Whether they turned you down because you are the wrong gender or not, isn't the point. Maybe they would let another guy blow them and they just aren't comfortable with YOU. Maybe they like redheads not blondes.. it doesn't matter, they told you NO, TO pursue it, is rude.
All that said (and I said a LOT) It doesn't mean people won't do it and that sometimes people don't change their minds... I know I've been guilty of it in the past. Sometimes you get blinded by the shiny toy you want and get out of line.
An old friend of mine studied human sexuality (well, really, just sexuality as some of her studies covered animal behavior as well). Real, honest, graduate school, doctorate type stuff, it's her career.
As a young, dumb, cocksucker, I shared with her my frustrations that I'd hook-up with these hot, amazing guys and they'd always come back for sex, but none were progressing into relationships, which I wanted. As she was in the field of the mind and behavior it's an occupational hazard that she often "analyzes" her friends' behavior by default.
At first she though I was just picking slutty men, more interested in sex than LTRs.. This was college after all. But as we chatted, she hit on a new theory and explained to me the following:
Analytically there are three aspects to Human sexuality:
Behavioral (who you fuck)
Orientational (Who you feel yourself drawn to fuck)
and
Identificational (who you tell yourself and the world that you fuck)
These aspects are often at variance and even conflict. And her theory was this:
She suspected I was being drawn to and playing with men who were B: Bi, O: Bi or Straight and I: Straight. SO I was likely never going to find a guy in that pool that would be comfortable changing his I: to Bi or Gay; and so relationships were out of the question.
This is how you can have folks like Ted Haggard who is at least Functionally Bi behaviorally, Identifies to the world as straight and could realistically be Orientationally Gay. And it explains how some of the biggest conservative homophobes are often closet-cases. They know how it is to love the cock, but in their world view they've done the hard work of keeping their Behavior Straight, (at least mostly) so they can claim that title of "straight".
Which touches on the conflict between alwaysguessing and nwnccpl over how a man letting one man suck him no longer qualifies as Straight and a man that loves the cock can fuck 100s of women and still be gay. Kelly explained that there is an inherent cultural bias towards heterosexuality. Consciously or not, it is held as the standard and other orientations are viewed as deviations from it. Many folks view that any deviation from strict heterosexuality invalidates you for the title, even if it is one in 1000s. Logically, this doesn't make sense, but it is how a lot of society views it. Just like some folks count you as a virgin as long as you haven't had genital penetrative sex. while other's view even masturbatory play as removing that valued title from you.
Tied into this is her pet theory that there is a 4th aspect or at least sub-aspect of sexuality: Orientation for relationships. Who you want to fuck and form a pair bond with. There are many people that want to fuck more types of people than those they want to fuck and date. Like chubby chasers that like to fuck BBWs or BBGs but still date and marry the skinny trophy wife.
So it is possible to be straight and let a guy blow you. In fact I know guys who are only attracted to women, Identify as straight and for at least a brief time had only had gay sex. (the one didn't even know that the hooker he picked up to get his first and only BJ before his wedding, was a trans). The other guy is a good looking guy; but he is such an ASS around and to women that so far none have let him get beyond heavy petting, before storming off. So a few years back he adjusted to letting guys blow him as an alternative to jerking off.
go figure.
Another time, I'll bore y'all with her other theory that Gay-Bi-Straight categories are stupid and don't cut it for describing orientational sexuality. That some folks are attracted to Masculine attributes (in men, women or both). Some are attracted only to breasts (irrespective of the genitals below those breasts) Some are attracted to androgyny, some to feminine traits (on men, women or both).
It occurs to me, that this theory would be useful to explain the 100% straight LPSGers that just love them some big dicks.
To answer the OP's question, given the above info..
Setting aside that some folks are going to view ANY overt offer of sex as rude...
NO, it is not rude to offer a single man you believe to be straight a BJ.
YES, it is rude to offer ANY man in a relationship a BJ as you are basically stating that you believe he has the morals of a cheater (unless in an open relationship, obviously).
and to alwaysguessing's point:
YES, it is rude to offer sex to someone who has previously turned you down. Whether they turned you down because you are the wrong gender or not, isn't the point. Maybe they would let another guy blow them and they just aren't comfortable with YOU. Maybe they like redheads not blondes.. it doesn't matter, they told you NO, TO pursue it, is rude.
All that said (and I said a LOT) It doesn't mean people won't do it and that sometimes people don't change their minds... I know I've been guilty of it in the past. Sometimes you get blinded by the shiny toy you want and get out of line.