Do Straight Men Let Another Man Give Them Blowjobs?

[deleted15807]

the whole premise of using the scale is assigning behavior. the scale itself signs varying levels of hetero or homosexuality to people and you were the one that brought up the scale so if you weren't assigning a level of sexuality why did you bring up the scale in the first place?

The scale is used to help understand the a broad spectrum of behavior that doesn't assign orientation which is what you do. Did you miss the last link I posted of you doing that? Of course you did.

You routinely ignore inconvenient expert research. You dis Kinsey as being 60+ yr old data and then ignore Fritzwho did more recent research on sexual thoughts, behavior and orientation.

I don't think you even bother being correct or proving your facts or thinking with links. My suspicion is because either you're not competent enough or simply because there is no supporting documentation out there. You rely on "common sense" is that the term? Good luck passing a test in Human Sexuality 101 using that as your knowledge base.

So an act may not make a person gay fine but a straight man who is actually straight will not try these things at all that's the point and if he did try them or had a curiosity about them he is not straight hes bi curious that's where the term comes from.

And here you are contradicting yourself in the same paragraph. It takes special skill to do that.

Bi-curious is a phenomenon in which people of a heterosexual or homosexual identity who, while showing some curiosity for a relationship or sexual activity with a person of the sex they do not favor, distinguish themselves from the bisexual label.

Bi-curious​

 

[Hatt_101]

I never denied labeling people. like snakebyte said labels help.

i never contradicted my self i was going along with what you stated in the first place. your the only one not smart enough to see that. the only reason i used that scale is because you initially posted a link to the scale it self. and in so you are labeling people within the scale how do you not see that.

you were the one that said that sexual action doesnt dictate orientation. i when along with your idea and even in you idea it may not dictate orientation like brisler said in his post in is an indicator.

when a person is straight it is safe to say they are only interested in the opposite sex. if you actually payed attention to what you were saying you would see that you are the one that contradicted themselves by posting the scale in the first place

 

[Snakebyte]

It's a good idea to keep the conversation within a certain context. Saying we need labels to survive while discussing sexuality is rather nonsensical and off-topic. We're not talking about recognizing snakes or tigers and sharks as threatening to human life.

Further you then say but things are in fact black and white which in discussing sexuality is rather absurd given all the research on sexuality we know just as attempting to classify people as black or white. And based on what? Some people need black or white because they don't have the intelligence to look at something a different way.

Like race there isn't a single feature that one can assign that makes you white or makes you black or brown. And there isn't a single feature of sexuality that makes you straight, bi or gay. In spite of the proud know nothings in this thread that use a behavior to assign a label.

What you're essentially trying to say is 'accept the label we assign you and be proud of it'. If I am wrong in that assessment please correct me.

Honestly, all you did is putting words in my mouth and taking everything out of context.

Talking about research, please explain this:
Sexual orientation and the size of the anterior commissure in the human brain

or this:
PET and MRI show differences in cerebral asymmetry and functional connectivity between homo- and heterosexual subjects


Coming back to the kinsey study. According to him 4% of men are exclusively gay for all of their life. Furthermore 37% of all men had homosexual physical contact until orgasm at least once. That still leaves us with 63% exclusively heterosexual men.


Well, imho fuck those studies. There are people interested in the same sex, there are people interested in the other sex and there are people interested in both. So we gave it a name and call them gay, straight and bi. Shame on us...

Ya and bi-curious if it makes you happy.

 

[chadstallion]

i enjoy the company of bi curious str8 men.

 

[deleted15807]

So we gave it a name and call them gay, straight and bi. Shame on us...

Shame on you indeed. Now who is calling who what that is the issue. If someone wants a label let them give it not you is the point.

Have you scanned their brain to determine the "truth" based on the study? Oh yeah fuck the studies.

Thing is labels in general are not a bad thing.

If it's a self-imposed label then fine if it's one Snakebyte has assigned then it is a bad thing based on scant evidence and knowledge.

I never denied labeling people. like snakebyte said labels help.

And still no link (no surprise) that directly says A=B that supports your labeling criteria.

 

[Hatt_101]

Sargon Now you're making no sense. As the old saying goes call it as you see it in this case spoken word, when someone says they are straight I do not assume there is anything other than what comes along with that.

The scale you posted again has clearly set labels and numbers incase people cannot read what was written in each catagory. Since you love the scale so much there read your own link because every thing is clearly displayed on it.

I don't see what you don't understand about something you yourself posted

 

[BIGBULL29]

i enjoy the company of bi curious str8 men.

So many of them, too! You have a lot to choose from these days.:biggrin1:

Straight men watch porn just for the pussy. I don't even know why the big dicks are there. After all, porn is made by women for men, right?

I wonder why lesbian porn still doesn't sell like big dick porn? I'm clueless.

 

[Houtom]

I remember when I read this thread for fun, now I just look at the pictures. . . .

 

[Snakebyte]

Shame on you indeed. Now who is calling who what that is the issue. If someone wants a label let them give it not you is the point.

Have you scanned their brain to determine the "truth" based on the study? Oh yeah fuck the studies.



If it's a self-imposed label then fine if it's one Snakebyte has assigned then it is a bad thing based on scant evidence and knowledge.



And still no link (no surprise) that directly says A=B that supports your labeling criteria.

Sorry but I seriously start to think you are a troll.
First of all you talk about research. But when I present clinical studies ,which were published in reputable magazines, that you don't like, it's not good enough. While you take Kinsey as a study. Kinsey! Are you serious?

To think you can label yourself is plain stupid. To say I do the labeling is even more stupid. Those are labels deeply rooted in society. Like it or not, the world out there gives a fuck about your opinion when it comes to that.

And since you seem to have no knowledge, labeling actually is an old instinct from back in the days when the world out there was dangerous. It was a natural function to decide what or who is dangerous. You need proof for that? Read any of the billions of psychology books.

 

[Neller]

You routinely ignore inconvenient expert research. You dis Kinsey as being 60+ yr old data and then ignore Fritzwho did more recent research on sexual thoughts, behavior and orientation.

The link you give for the Klein Grid even says that what is found in his study isn't necessarily correct. His different dimensions can be reduced to a single factor. It seems like you saw that chart and said that's how things are without even reading the "shortcomings" section just below it which is based off of even more recent studies. So why are you ignoring even more recent research than what you're linking? This is a quote straight from your own link: "Thus, it is not clear what exactly the scale may be measuring as depending on which aspect is taken into consideration, sexual orientation may or not be revealed", so I don't know how you can expect us non-experts to take anything away from it.

 

[deleted15807]

...when I present clinical studies ,which were published in reputable magazines, that you don't like, it's not good enough.

You "present" a study and write "Talking about research, please explain this:", a study about the brain and orientation? What exactly do you want me to comment on? Whatever point you were trying to make you didn't make it.
Talking about research, please explain this:

Probability of pancreatic cancer following diabetes: a population-based study

You need to make your point and then use it as your support. "Talking about...." is no thesis or subject.

Those are labels deeply rooted in society.

And that makes it right? Since when does something 'deeply rooted' not need to be examined and exposed for the damage it does? You mentioned black or white in an earlier post which is the most absurd label of all. I give you The One Drop Rule. I suppose you may even find grounds to support that. There are many eloquent posts in this thread by many others on the harm of labels and clearly you've chosen to not acknowledge the flaws in them.

The link you give for the Klein Grid even says that what is found in his study isn't necessarily correct. His different dimensions can be reduced to a single factor. It seems like you saw that chart and said that's how things are without even reading the "shortcomings" section just below it which is based off of even more recent studies. So why are you ignoring even more recent research than what you're linking? This is a quote straight from your own link: "Thus, it is not clear what exactly the scale may be measuring as depending on which aspect is taken into consideration, sexual orientation may or not be revealed", so I don't know how you can expect us non-experts to take anything away from it.

"Without reading the shortcomings"? If you're looking for a flawless critic-proof research study good luck. And if you're counting on Wikipedia even more good luck as it states : Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required.

Additionally Alfred Kinsey, Masters and Johnsons, and other famed researchers have their detractors as well. It's very easy to use Google to find them. Does it make them wrong? No it just means some have taken exception for whatever reason. But that is how science works, the relentless pursuit for the right answer not counting on ideas and concepts "deeply rooted in society".

 

[deleted871301]

Just as much as gay men let women give them blowjobs...

 

[BIGBULL29]

Some men don't give a flying fig who's sucking their peter. Gender doesn't always play a role. It's not gay, straight, or bi, or tri.

Sargon: your opponents want to see male sexuality in very white and black terms. Your brain refuses to see an emotion as such because you're thinking logically about human sexuality. Your opponents are also allowing the taboo of male homosexuality to somewhat subconsciously dictate their thinking.

It kills me to see how some "straight" males on LPSG downplay the taboo of male homosexuality in our culture. Why argue with false premises?

 

[Snakebyte]

You "present" a study and write "Talking about research, please explain this:", a study about the brain and orientation? What exactly do you want me to comment on? Whatever point you were trying to make you didn't make it.
Talking about research, please explain this:

Probability of pancreatic cancer following diabetes: a population-based study

You need to make your point and then use it as your support. "Talking about...." is no thesis or subject.





And that makes it right? Since when does something 'deeply rooted' not need to be examined and exposed for the damage it does? You mentioned black or white in an earlier post which is the most absurd label of all. I give you The One Drop Rule. I suppose you may even find grounds to support that. There are many eloquent posts in this thread by many others on the harm of labels and clearly you've chosen to not acknowledge the flaws in them.



"Without reading the shortcomings"? If you're looking for a flawless critic-proof research study good luck. And if you're counting on Wikipedia even more good luck as it states : Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required.

Additionally Alfred Kinsey, Masters and Johnsons, and other famed researchers have their detractors as well. It's very easy to use Google to find them. Does it make them wrong? No it just means some have taken exception for whatever reason. But that is how science works, the relentless pursuit for the right answer not counting on ideas and concepts "deeply rooted in society".

Sorry for having such a high opinion of you that I actually thought you can draw conclusions yourself. Guess I was wrong.

Well in the study you are presenting, they tested 2122 subjects that were diagnosed with diabetes at least 9-10 years (depends on how much time it took to publish the results after the tests) prior to the test.
This selection of subjects means that the test was an ex-post-facto design since both dependent and independet variable are not influencable by the tester. Both variables are binary.
The test group consists only of subjects diagnosed with diabetes. There is no control group though. The results are compared to average rates amongst the population. In order to eliminate confounding factors they also did a different approach by focusing BMI and smoking behaviour. Besides the fact that this design can not provide a causality due to the lack of an experimental design there are no significant correlations to be found which would indicate a connection between diabetes and pancreatic cancer. But since the number of subjects that suffer from pancreatic cancer is pretty low a study with a bigger pool of subjects could reveal such connection.

In this context this study is interesting:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23763391
It says that bi men suffer from diabetes more often than gay men.

Glad I could help.

 

[Neller]

"Without reading the shortcomings"? If you're looking for a flawless critic-proof research study good luck. And if you're counting on Wikipedia even more good luck as it states : Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required.

Additionally Alfred Kinsey, Masters and Johnsons, and other famed researchers have their detractors as well. It's very easy to use Google to find them. Does it make them wrong? No it just means some have taken exception for whatever reason. But that is how science works, the relentless pursuit for the right answer not counting on ideas and concepts "deeply rooted in society".

Sorry, I didn't make it clear what I was asking. You asked us to look at the Klein Grid as showing how complicated sexuality and orientation can be as it was newer than Kinsey and more current. But the Weinrich study in that link used the same Klein data and found it wasn't nearly as complicated as the Grid implied. The Weinrich study is newer than the Klein one so shouldn't that take precedence? Why is the Klein viewpoint better than the Weinrich one?

 

[MMT22]

just A Question For The Straight Men......will Totally Straight Men Allow Another Man To Perform Oral Sex On Them?

Maybe and maybe not.....it all depends on the guys involved. If the straight guy is comfortable with the other guy (best friends) it could possibly happen. The straight guy would have to trust the other will keep his mouth shut after the fact. What two buddies do together is their business.

 

[622675]

I agree with MMT22 ^^^^^^ Would call it a missionary bow job.

====

There are at least three different discussions (often interchangeably) taking place through out this thread. First there are a number of attempts to establish definitions for straight, gay, bisexual and other terms. A second conversation often overshadows the first and generally attempts to describe different elements of human mental and social nature.

Finally there are numerous and differing attempts to lump definitions and human life experiences into one-word labels. Then by some unknown means these two or three syllable expressions are intended to convey the same meaning to everyone who hears, reads, or uses them. What we end up with are words like Us and Them, Good and Bad, or Smart and Stupid. Polarizing expressions with little or no meaning.

I agree with Hatt 101 and Snakebyte that labels are handy tools to have. For example most mathematical equations require that variables have precise qualities. And they make communication fast and interesting for a group of equally informed people. But the negative (and dangerous) thing about labels is they often become their own reality. People forget (or never knew) what they were intended to mean.

Please don’t use this example to deviate into a religious discussion; but it is a good example of terminology (and custom) becoming its own reality. There are nearly 200 occasions in the King James Bible where “good”is symbolized or associated by the right hand and “bad/wrong/evil” is associated with the left hand. This right and left hand association for good and evil worked fine for a population who regularly used hands to differentiate a concept. They wouldn’t have got much out of being told that two things were 180 degrees apart as it was an unknown concept. And it doesn’t help that the Latin word for being left handed is sinister. Regrettably, teachers and preachers spent the first part of the 20th century missing the point and telling left-handed children that God didn’t like the left hand. Therefore everyone should use his or her right hand as dominant. This thinking is still alive and well in much of the Islamic world. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIbyhxHJ3yc&feature=related

The take-away-point is that labels and guns are safe only in the hands of those who know how to use them. Take any word or concept you like, clearly define it, and then use it in your logic. But make sure your audience knows it is your word and it should not have meaning other than what you give it. Finally, my label is Levi101. You can put me in to general categories that fit your view of reality, but I am the only one who gets to label (define) me.

 

[Snakebyte]

Maybe and maybe not.....it all depends on the guys involved. If the straight guy is comfortable with the other guy (best friends) it could possibly happen. The straight guy would have to trust the other will keep his mouth shut after the fact. What two buddies do together is their business.

Actually I disagree. You make it look like it is a bad thing and no one can ever tell. Basically you are saying that straight guys are involved in homosexual behaviour as long as no one ever will know? At least that is how it sounds to me. That would be a pretty low opinion of straight men.

 

[deleted15807]

Sargon: your opponents want to see male sexuality in very white and black terms. Your brain refuses to see an emotion as such because you're thinking logically about human sexuality. Your opponents are also allowing the taboo of male homosexuality to somewhat subconsciously dictate their thinking.

It kills me to see how some "straight" males on LPSG downplay the taboo of male homosexuality in our culture. Why argue with false premises?

Yep. It's been pretty clear these are 1 or 0 kind of thinking, intellectually lazy and a good dose of fear/taboo thrown in. And the 1/0 or zero-tolerance kind of thinking has to do with the fragility of being straight. The zero-tolerance rule means that if a man makes one “wrong” move—kisses another man in a moment of drunken fun, say—he is immediately assumed to be gay or bi. Hence you see the 'let me introduce you to bisexualiy' dude line of thinking. Because 'you are not me'. We need to lay down the label and own it for ourselves and cast out those unworthy of the title.

Women have a certain amount of freedom to play with their sexuality (mostly because society has a hard time believing in lesbian sex at all). Male sexuality, on the other hand, is understood as unidirectional. Once young men realize they are gay, they become A Gay Person. We don’t hear about gay men discovering an interest in women later in life, and we rarely believe men when they say they are bisexual—the common, if erroneous, wisdom is that any man who says he is bi is really just gay and hasn’t admitted it yet.

The result of all this is that men are not allowed “complex” sexualities; once the presumption of straightness has been shattered, a dude is automatically gay. And you see that in a number of posts by the 'you're bi' crowd but not ready to say "gay".

Sorry for having such a high opinion of you that I actually thought you can draw conclusions yourself.

You have yet to make a thesis, establish a point other than how you love labels and you use a brain study as support?

Though noted you had no comment on the dangers of labeling which is actually not surprising at all.

Sorry, I didn't make it clear what I was asking. You asked us to look at the Klein Grid as showing how complicated sexuality and orientation can be as it was newer than Kinsey and more current. But the Weinrich study in that link used the same Klein data and found it wasn't nearly as complicated as the Grid implied. The Weinrich study is newer than the Klein one so shouldn't that take precedence? Why is the Klein viewpoint better than the Weinrich one?

There will never be "one tool" that can evaluate human behavior rather we rely on a variety of tools and methods to reach a most likely conclusion. I could present a lot more tools however if all are criticised as being inaccurate or unreliable than "common sense" as some here have pinned for then we know we have individuals not really seeking a greater understanding of human behavior.

You can put me in to general categories that fit your view of reality, but I am the only one who gets to label (define) me.

And that is the point. The individual has the right to make that label not society.

The Right to Self-Identify

Though this must be said about labeling:

“Categorical labeling is a tool that humans use to resolve the impossible complexity of the environments we grapple to perceive. Like so many human faculties, it’s adaptive and miraculous, but it also contributes to some of the deepest problems that face our species,” writes New York University business and psychology professor Adam Alter on psychologytoday.com.

Labeling encourages closed-mindedness, stereotypes, and the impersonal notion that essentially every person can fit under a specific category.

Perhaps the biggest problem with labeling is what it promotes. Instead of viewing everyone as equal or relatable in some sense, it showcases differences, something society has done enough without our help. The immediate effects of labeling throw words like “acceptance” out the window and welcome “judgment” instead.​

 

[Snakebyte]

Yep. It's been pretty clear these are 1 or 0 kind of thinking, intellectually lazy and a good dose of fear/taboo thrown in.

That is actually the most stupid thing I've read in a while.
How can straight, bi, gay be 1 or 0 :tongue:

The thing is, as soon as someone does not agree with a certain type of people, which obviously includes you, you come with the knockout argument fear or taboo. If you actually would have payed any attention what I wrote you'd recognize that this is utter crap.

You really want to have a thesis? Didn't know we did science here but OK.. Since there are differences in the brain exclusively gay and exclusively straight men are kind of different. So both seem to exist. Don't you think? Since they exist we might as well put a name on it.

You call us intellectually lazy but fail to think on your own.

It is totally obvious that you don't get what we are saying at all since you always put words in our mouths we never said.