Do Straight Men Let Another Man Give Them Blowjobs?
- Thread starter smooth923
- Start date
But what if I'm right and the individual wants to be viewed as straight because somewhere deep inside they still think homosexuality or bisexuality is shameful?
I do not think it is helpful to enable that.
Here's a way of looking at it.
People like challenges. The conquest of something unattainable is an ego stroke beyond measure. They want what they can't have. And the sense of taboo is like a moth driven to the flame. It is part of our nature to look at something dangerous as potentially exciting. The Risk-Reward is huge risk, so they imagine huge reward.
It is part of the reason reverse psychology works. When you say "You can't", people rebel and say "Yes I can". Since they except a "No" from you, it isn't as much rejection as it is meeting expectation. Internal thought process: If I expect a straight man to say "No", then he isn't rejecting me, he's rejecting homosexuality.
And it isn't restricted to gay men with straight men, but straight women have been doing to gay men for a long time.
Women used to try regularly to try and "turn me straight". I was regularly hit on by women for the reason that I "obviously never had sex with a good woman". They want to make me a conquest.
And, when you think about it, it is a compliment. It means that you are exuding a strong sense of masculinity and your self-assured heterosexuality shows confidence in yourself. That shines through and makes you more attractive, even if you don't want it.
So, I stopped looking at it as an attack on my sexual identity, and started enjoying.
We (the anonymous posters) don't know if the person believes that bisexuality or homosexuality is shameful, unless they tell us. If you assume that, then you stop hearing what the person is saying. I personally find it better to just accept the person's words and described actions at face value than to assume the reverse.
Even if you are right on some cases, what about the number of times you aren't and they are being honest with their feelings. In other words, even a broken clock is right twice a day.
That simply is not your call. I would half believe it if it was from someone bisexual saying that but alas it never is. It's someone that is 100% straight saying that.
Last edited by a moderator:
Those cultural assumptions affect us even when we are not consciously aware of it.
This is why sociologists never rely on self-reporting. Instead of asking "Are you racist?" they ask specific questions about attitudes regarding certain races and use those responses to try and figure how racist a given population is.
When you ask a group of people "Are you atheist?" a certain irreverence of people answer yes. When you ask people if they believe in God, a much larger percentage answer no.
Self identification is not very accurate because our view of ourselves is biased and influenced by cultural attitudes.
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2010
- Posts
- 4,452
- Media
- 72
- Likes
- 8,277
- Points
- 393
- Location
- Ontario (Canada)
- Verification
- View
- Sexuality
- 100% Straight, 0% Gay
- Gender
- Male
I see what you're saying but it gets to a point where it is no longer flattering and is just annoying. I've had plenty of compliments Form guys on here that were gay and that's find as long as they aren't too much like @drambone2001 comments on lots of my pictures and he knows that I'm not interested in guys and his complements are completely fine. He's a perfect example of a person that respects boundaries.
For the guys that see it as some challenge the "no means yes mentality" not nessisarily a good or safe one to have.
Sure they do. I have friends that have told me so, and I've messed around with other straight guys. But it's usually in their teens. As they grow they get conscious about it, or just feel that they've already satisfied their curiosity.
Not sure if it's fetish or fantasy, I think they look for straight men so there won't be an attraction and it will be a once in a while occurence that happens on their terms. A gay guy might constantly pester one for can time while a straight guy probably wouldn't especially a married straight guy. Or perhaps one of them is divorced and is looking for a way to get off.
What sexual orientation questionnaire do you use? And what have you done to authenticate it's accuracy?
And again why is it your role to invalidate their self-identification?
Tiger Woods refers to himself as cabalasian. Is it my role to dismiss that and tell him he's black?
Last edited by a moderator:
Hatt, basically every day you walk into The Large Penis Club with your cock hanging out and the place is full of gay/bi men who are interested in cock. Why would you find their attention annoying?
Like a hot chick in a bikini walking by construction workers daily and listening to their awful absolutely awful whistles and catcalls. But isnt there another parallel street she can walk down with no construction workers? Yep.
Brisler
Legendary Member
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2012
- Posts
- 2,650
- Media
- 1
- Likes
- 1,433
- Points
- 448
- Location
- Copenhagen (Capital Region, Denmark)
- Sexuality
- 100% Straight, 0% Gay
- Gender
- Male
I was just about to say. Hatt, why do you have pictures public for all to see on this site? I don't, and I almost never receive any sexual offers from other members.
Tiger is asking people to not treat him as only one thing, which is a common frustration among multiracial people.
Your analogy works against you. I am acknowledging that they are more than one thing. In your analogy, the "straight" people you are talking about would be equivalent to Tiger Woods asking people to treat him as though he were Asian and only Asian. If he said this in an environment in which people are known to feel ashamed of being part black, then we would immediately suspect that some kind of racial shame was driving his insistence that we only acknowledge his Asian heritage.
Yes, there are a list of reasons, but this is another, that goes beyond the "challenge" theory. "If I hit on a straight guy, I don't have to worry about anything actually happening." The reason can be the fun of the chase, or it could be that he gets to be flirty, and engage that part of his sexuality, but never really be confronted by it, and what it means. That is... closet curious/bi/gay guy only hits on straight guys, so that nothing happens, and thus, he's not really curious/bi/gay, because he's never "acted" on it (disregarding the hitting on, "playfulness".)
The analogy may work against me to you but it doesn't to me. You're inserting extraneous variables into it. In my analogy Tiger Woods is identifying himself as a race that he has created based on all the races he feels he is. Why should I not accept that? How does it hurt me or society to reject that? Clearly it would bother him to reject it. If someone says they are straight. Should we reject that? Based on what (where is that questionnaire again)? What is the cost and the risk to society to reject that?
Everyone on is on their own personal journey to their most authentic self. Attempting to divert them onto a path you feel they should be on is wrong and will only end up creating misery for that person. They will find their own way.
It doesn't matter how much two men might like women, their sexualities are still unique to themselves.
No two people like the exact same foods. It doesn't exist. We may both love pizza and Chinese food, but that's eat. And our taste in pizza and Chinese could be very different.
We like to label people sometimes so can we feel superior to them.
Why should you accept that in this case?
Because there is still a large social stigma against being anything other than completely heterosexual.
If we lived in a society without that, then bisexual men could identify themselves as heterosexual, or llamas for all I care.
There have been several discussions, which have debated the concepts of straight, gay and bi. I have read through most of them and participated at times. And I have learned a lot from what the mental gymnastic of these discussions bring to the surface.
Looking back over the thread, there have been a number of participants who have come and gone. As the topic recycles, new folks file in, read the comments, participate, and then leave having learned something. I would say this is a very healthy process and something the LPSG format does a good job of supporting, especially on subjects of a unique sexual nature.
I don’t agree with those who define human activities or human reasoning in absolute terms. Defining human desires and behaviors as absolutes creates a false model. In geometry there is an absolute definition of a square or a circle. One can’t be the other. However, when absolutes are applied to human behaviors they work on false definitions, often become labels, which then can become the equivalent of name-calling. The result is that some individuals will attempt to live up to their labels while others will be diminished because of them. In either circumstance the individual becomes secondary to the label.
Hatt_101 serves a valid position in this discussion. I don’t often agree with him, but the great value of this discussion is for others to debate his logic and come to understand the value of a self directed, self defining, straight, gay or bisexual individual. I don’t agree with Hatt_101’s position, but he articulates it well. His readers are challenged to agree with him or defend their own alternate view. This may seem frustrating but it’s a healthy challenge.
Looking back over the thread, there have been a number of participants who have come and gone. As the topic recycles, new folks file in, read the comments, participate, and then leave having learned something. I would say this is a very healthy process and something the LPSG format does a good job of supporting, especially on subjects of a unique sexual nature.
I don’t agree with those who define human activities or human reasoning in absolute terms. Defining human desires and behaviors as absolutes creates a false model. In geometry there is an absolute definition of a square or a circle. One can’t be the other. However, when absolutes are applied to human behaviors they work on false definitions, often become labels, which then can become the equivalent of name-calling. The result is that some individuals will attempt to live up to their labels while others will be diminished because of them. In either circumstance the individual becomes secondary to the label.
Hatt_101 serves a valid position in this discussion. I don’t often agree with him, but the great value of this discussion is for others to debate his logic and come to understand the value of a self directed, self defining, straight, gay or bisexual individual. I don’t agree with Hatt_101’s position, but he articulates it well. His readers are challenged to agree with him or defend their own alternate view. This may seem frustrating but it’s a healthy challenge.
Similar threads
