Gay act? No! What's the difference?

[Countryguy63]

I now understand how these threads get spun into some parallel universe- people take a topic and talk it into spirals until it eventually leads no where. Jeez.

Exuse me Mr. Fancy Pants, some of us answered your question directly :tongue:

In my opinion, I say "yes" he is involved in a pedo act, and "yes" guys jacking with or to another male(s) are involved in a gay act, and are themselves at the least bisexual (level not specified)

 

[DiscoBoy]

DiscoBoy, you claim that masturbating with a male one has no sexual interest in doesn't make any sense. I disagree; it makes sense to me and to the many man (who are interested in each other) who do it.

That's contradictory. Either they're interested in each other, or not. If they are, my point sticks. If they're not, why are they together?

The fact that it does not make sense to you (that is to say, you can't see the reason for doing it) doesn't mean that other people can't. That is the very problem with things "making sense". What makes sense to you may not make sense to me, but it may be difficult to explain why.

What doesn't make sense to me is why people would put themselves in a sexually-charged situation with individuals whom they are not sexually attracted to.

And, as I said, the porn present implies that the interest is not in sexual gratification because of proximity to another male masturbating, but sexual gratification in masturbating to porn and emotional gratification to masturbating with a friend.

There's still a homoerotic aspect to that, I think.

Also, I understand that not everyone feels precisely as I feel, but I believe that very few people can say honestly that they have never and will never be sexually attracted to the same gender. As such, people are attracted to personality, or perhaps something, to some degree if they identify themselves as heterosexual but have engaged in homosexual acts.

I've no qualms with people identifying as heterosexual despite having engaged in homosexual acts in their past. Functionally, they are heterosexual. I find women attractive to an extent, not enough for it to be entirely sexual, but the possibility in the future of engaging in some sort of sexual act with a woman is certainly a possibility. If, and when that does occur, I don't think it'll change how I identify. I'll still be functionally homosexual, but I will acknowledge that I partook in a heterosexual act. I'll still be gay, but I won't be trying to mask the things I've done.

 

[deleted3782]

The Cult of the Wanking Straight Guys is a strong one on this site...and it will be defended by a lot of people here to the end. Its something that I had interest in earlier in life...but grew out of it over time (I think? :tongue. In my mind, several good points have been brought up as far as the context of the guys wanking (are they watching each other or the straight porn) and the importance of labels (though I still dislike being labeled).

Another point that has been brought up interests me is the aspect of intimacy (or what has been called "bonding") that is shared between guys doing the deed together. Jacking off is personal and to an extent leaves a guy vulnerable. When guys share that intimacy and vulnerability...there can be a nonsexual bonding (I saw you spooge...and you saw me). Are guys that were in each others presence when they spooged gay or even homoerotic? Maybe not if the result of the experience was sharing an opportunity to letting walls come down.

I do think there can be non-homosexual aspects to some situations of mutual masturbation that involve personal proximity and intimacy that cannot be compared to the impersonality of internet pornography (in contrast to the scenario of a guy wanking off to pics of a guy on the internet...which might be a homosexual act). Maybe its a level of intimacy akin to crying in front of another guy...or spilling his guts...both are examples too of letting your walls down with another guy and bonding.

 

[Triasco]

That's contradictory. Either they're interested in each other, or not. If they are, my point sticks. If they're not, why are they together?

That was a typo. I meant "who AREN'T interested in each other", but my fingers occassionally skip keys when typing.

Also, I would argue your point about the homoerotic aspect, but I doubt I could explain as well as exwhyzee has.

 

[Chase1600]

Did you not see the part where I said "To or with"? So if you have two guys sitting in front of one another jerking off watching one another, or a guy jerking off to nude pictures of men or videos of guys jerking off and posing. Does that help anything?

Doc, I think you are needing words to have meaning like we mistakenly think numbers have meaning.

A guy masturbating to another guy is doing something gay in my book. It isn’t gay/bisexual. It’s gay. If he masturbates getting off on women tomorrow, he’s doing something straight and it seems to me maybe the dude’s bisexual.

But I did say he’s doing something; I didn’t say he is, and as to being bi, I said maybe. The issue is this: although a word can have a precise meaning; it is only precise until it gets applied to something real. Numbers are the same way. We think “6” means something pretty specific, don’t we? But what is six? Is it six apples, a six inch dick? A six inch dick isn’t “6” if you measure in centimeters.

So what about the guy masturbating to an image of a minor. I feel your pain, dude, you want an exact and specific meaning. In the US, possession of sexually oriented pictures of minors is a specific crime; its name is pedophilia, and the person who possesses such a thing is labeled a pedophile. Curioustitan makes a point. Maybe in his country it isn’t. That’s because what makes it so, or not, is law.

To my mind someone masturbating to a photo of a child is doing something pedophilic just like a dude masturbating to a picture of a dude is doing something gay. I leave it to circumstances and context to decide if either is doing what they are doing because of what they are.

An aside: when kids, especially boys, engage in homosexual acts it probably is not homosexuality. This is something lots of heterosexual boys do. And then they get lucky with a girl and never look back. They do it; they like it; they forget it. Go figure.

 

[BIGBULL29]

We all have such different sexualities, and the viewpoints expressed thusfar really attest to that.

We try to define each other, which causes conflict. Let people be who the are, even if they are in denial.:biggrin1:

Also, the societal taboo of male homosexuality will always keep those 100% straighters from admitting any same-sex attraction. But we all know that straight porn is full of homoerotic undertones, or "overtones"/

 

[maxcok]

In my opinion Pedophilia is an illness, a psychologic thing. It's not the illegality that defines it, although it does has a lot to do with it in today's environment, but it's the fact that pedophiles can live a normal life, have everything most people want, but always make the wrong mistake again by touching/raping innocent children. And this opinion isn't out of the blue, I've seen it happen and I really believe it's a disease.

Just so there's no question or room for misinterpretation here, in my mind pedophilia is inherently, universally immoral, evil, and appalling. Whether or not it's a "disease" I think depends somewhat on context and cultural norms and definitions. These sorts of definitions have a tendency to shift over time and across cultures. Is sexual contact between an 18 year old and a 16 year old immoral? Is it a disease? In some states young people are still being prosecuted under such statutes. Where are the lines exactly? There are cultures in the world where what we in modern Western society consider pedophilia is commonly tolerated and considered normal. In some of those same cultures homosexual activity of any kind is considered criminal, insane and dealt with very harsh punishments, up to and including death. Hence, why I questioned you even bringing legality or morality into the discussion as a basis for your argument. Apparently you missed my point entirely, and also missed the point of Dante's analogy.

Homosexuality and bisexuality and heterosexuality I don't see as a disease. Homosexuality or all of those other sexualities describes the feelings some people can have for each other, by choice, you choose your partner. Pedophiles choose their victims, children who don't dare to refuse or can't fight back because of the abussive power a pedophile uses, psychologic or physically or both.

Continuing on that side road . . . I think you're distracted by the emotion and legal issues tagentially touched on by Dante's pedophilia analogy and focusing on all sorts of details irrelevant to the discussion. I understand why he used the analogy - to clearly and rather dramatically demonstrate how people draw a clear line on certain taboo behaviors, yet are willling to rationalize themselves all around other less taboo behaviors. Again, you miss the point. The relative 'normalcy', 'legality', or taboo vs. common acceptance of a particular behavior is not the issue here at all, which I tried to demonstrate and dismiss by comparing similar legal, moral questions that arise related to homosexual behavior. Apparently my question backfired. At any rate, you can call it "gay", "homosexual", "homoerotic" or whatever; it's all just a matter of semantics. It's still M/M sexual activity, whether there's a pussy on the screen or in the room, whether it's "just masturbation" or something else. The question I put to you, plainly and simply was whether two men jacking off together was "homoerotic".

And jerking off is seen as homoerotic by gays. really, look around on here and the ones who make a fuss about it are gay people.
So many straight guys who have children now, are married, have loads of gf's in the past, had jerk off buds or jerked off once with friends.
We guys can put on a porn on tele, get horny and wank off. In such circumstances you don't mind another guy in the room doing the same because it's just a wank. Nothing more, nothing less.

So at what point exactly does it become something more? What if they're focusing their attention on the big dicks on the screen and not the girls? What if they 'accidentally' rub their thighs together? What if they're aroused by looking at each other's dicks? What they're aroused by having another guy watch them jack off? What if they switch hands and jerk each other off? What if they kiss? What if one licks the other's dick as a "bonding experience", or because "I just always wanted to do that. It doesn't mean anything"? What if it goes further than that? Can you tell me exactly at what point it ceases to be a simple "bonding experience" and becomes something more or something else? It's a slippery slope ain't it?

You described one very specific scenario that involves two buds (detachedly?) jacking off to porn together. There are many, many variations on the theme of guys jacking off together that don't fit that idealized scenario. I asked you before, what if they've total strangers? What if there's no porn involved?

The people who make the biggest "fuss about it" are 'straight' (or 'str8' ) guys who are questioned about engaging in M/M sexual play while at the same time adamantly insisting (and rationalizing) that they are 100% heterosexual. At any rate, I can't improve on Disco's simple equation or what a few others have said in the same vein, so I'll just leave it at this:

Wanking in a room with other men is: a) erotic; and b) involving people of the same gender, which means it's c) homoerotic.

Homosexuality is still considered a psych disorder by the AMA, well actually more the APA...

The American Psychological Association declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder in 1973. I remember clearly, because I had a big public fight with one of my Psych professors at the time in front of a class full of other students. I wonder where you got this idea, darlin?

American Psychiatric Association Position Statement​

American Medical Association's Ethics of Homosexuality​

[Your link dint work for me Disco. Hope you don't mind.] :wink:​

 

[Pendlum]

Do you think having 'wank buddies' is less common today than in the past? I don't exactly keep up with this, but I've noticed that older members tend to say they've had wank buddies in the past, than younger members say they have them now. Like I said, I don't keep up with this, just something I think I've noticed from various threads I've read, I could be completely wrong. But anyway, I was thinking about how the internet has made porn much easier to obtain than in the past. So one reason you might masturbate with a friend is simply because your friend has the porn. Just a thought, not really trying to go any further than this. Plus it is kind of moot in present times since getting porn is easy.

 

[maxcok]

to further my defense... i'm skipping between numerous threads and trying to keep up with those scrabble and word association fuckers... as well as P.M'ing a really hot member of LPSG....whilst trying to price online tickets to Ireland to hook up with said member....give me a break....i don't have a vagina....i cannot multitask!!!!

My internet was being a bitch, so I apologize if this comes a little late to the argument. . . .
What makes sense to you may not make sense to me, but it may be difficult to explain why. . . .
Also, I understand that not everyone feels precisely as I feel,

Doc, I think you are needing words to have meaning like we mistakenly think numbers have meaning. . . .
The issue is this: although a word can have a precise meaning; it is only precise until it gets applied to something real. Numbers are the same way. We think “6” means something pretty specific, don’t we? But what is six? Is it six apples, a six inch dick? A six inch dick isn’t “6” if you measure in centimeters.

So what about the guy masturbating to an image of a minor. . . .

What in gay hell is everyone talking about? I don't have a child-molesting neighbor. It was all hypothetical. People really don't pay attention to what they read. It was all an example. I'm not speaking to anyone about masturbating with children. Ew.

Pardon me, but what the hell are you talking about?

I now understand how these threads get spun into some parallel universe- people take a topic and talk it into spirals until it eventually leads no where. Jeez.

I feel your pain, Dante, I do.

And congratulations. You sucked me into one of "those" threads, this time unintentionally I hope. :wink:

 

[HungThickProf]

I feel your pain, Dante, I do.

And congratulations. You sucked me into one of "those" threads, this time unintentionally I hope. :wink:

lmao !!!!

*evil grins and rubs hands* it was all part of my master plan.
*sinister laugh*:wink:

 

[Indelicate]

" ...or with someone who is not of legal age."

Pedophilia is illegal. Homosexuality or Bisexuality is not. Unless you extract this phrase from your example it is a distraction from the real question you are asking.

Based on Kinsey's studies, It is estimated that 12.5% of all men are 100% straight, and 12.5% are 100% gay. The remaining 75% fall somewhere between the two, probably depending greatly on perspective, genetics, and environment in pre-adult years, as well as other factors which may or may not be within our control.

Whether people admit their proclivities or not, is a psychological issue, not a sexual one. The sexual preference and attraction is there, including factors which are secondary and/or peripheral to gender.

When a person proclaims to himself or others is due to what is between his/her ears, not between the legs. Acceptance of a person as a Man, a human, before considering that he is a Gay Man is how we need to approach it. This process for our society is difficult, but such prejudices are learned behaviors, not genetic.

The best means for us to achieve this direction is to consider my signature line below. vvvv Just my two cents... Indy

 

[Indelicate]

Homosexuality and Biology

I found this an interesting article on the subject.

 

[petite]

For some men, I think it is the expression of a deeper sexual interest in other men. They're probably bisexual or gay.

However, I think it's fairly common for people to have an interest in just a single type of sexual act and that doesn't fundamentally change your orientation. There was a whole thread about gay men who are curious about pussy that sounded exactly like the myriad threads straight guys make about being curious about sucking a dick. Neither group is interested in relationships or falling in love or romance. Do I think those gay men are straight because they're curious about pussy? No, I doubt they are. I think they just have a curiosity or a singular interest in one sexual act with the opposite sex. I'm sure for some straight men it's the same when they wonder what sucking a dick is like. An obsession with penises seems to affect both straight and gay men, and mutual masturbation might be as far as that interest goes for some straight men.

Exwhyzee's explanation about the difference between jacking off with a friend and how it could be non-sexual and different to jacking off to photos was quite insightful. I think he's on to something, too.

 

[D_Jared Padalicki]

Just so there's no question or room for misinterpretation here, ..........

I think you are missing my point. You also forget that I live somewhere else where the viewpoints on pedophilia are different than in the different cultures you summed up. So yes, in other cultures those things do happen, and from my viewpoint I still believe it's wrong and an illness that can't be cured. And yes that is immoral, evil, and appalling, I never said it wasn't, never!
If you can't see it from my viewpoint, then you are missing the point.

As homoerotic. You see guys wanking off as the guys on here doing c2c on cam. Well for me that is another interpretation of wanking. because I don't use lpsg-standards for basing an opinion on guys having a wank together. I base my facts on daily life and I have buddies that wanked off with others while watching a porn. For me there is nothing homoerotic about that, it's just a wank.
The guys on lpsg are already mostly messed up guys (including me), they just want to hear that jerking off and getting arroused by another male member isn't gay. In daily life where friends can have a wank watching porn this isn't an issue.

 

[maxcok]

. . . However, I think it's fairly common for people to have an interest in just a single type of sexual act and that doesn't fundamentally change your orientation. . . .

Exwhyzee's explanation about the difference between jacking off with a friend and how it could be non-sexual and different to jacking off to photos was quite insightful. I think he's on to something, too.

I don't think Dante (or anyone else with sense) thinks jacking with another guy "fundamentally" changes one's orientation. However, in the case of guys who adamantly insist they are 100% straight, they might want to consider loosening their self-imposed labels.

I too thought XYZ's points were very interesting and thought provoking, and I agree there can be an element of bonding and shared vulnerability in these experiences to varying degrees, perhaps even a shared spiritual exchange, if the participants are that evolved and sexually/spiritually integrated. However, I think that in order for that shared vulnerability to occur, there has to be a letting down of that '100% straight' identity guard. Where I disagree with you both is that two people of either gender or any orientation masturbating together can be a non-sexual experience. Addressed below:

. . . Jacking off is personal and to an extent leaves a guy vulnerable. When guys share that intimacy and vulnerability...there can be a nonsexual bonding (I saw you spooge...and you saw me). Are guys that were in each others presence when they spooged gay or even homoerotic? Maybe not if the result of the experience was sharing an opportunity to letting walls come down. . .

Knowing what I know of men and their sexual impulses, which is a good bit, I think it's an uncommon scenario where this sort of shared masturbation experience is not primarily sexual in nature. More often than not, it's just guys being horned up and wanting to get off, probably more so seeing another guy horned up. At least a part of the reason it "leaves a guy vulnerable" is that by 'taking matters in hand' he's exposing his most personal private raw solo sexual nature. If he really does it without inhibitions the way he would if he were alone, it can be a very intimate and revealing act. Even if it's "just masturbation and doesn't mean anything", it's still undoubtedly sexual play and sexual release. Even in those rarest of rare instances where the bonding experience might somehow transcend the sexual energy, it still remains a shared sexual experience between two males. How can you then say that it's non-sexual and does not carry at least some element of homoeroticism?

To kick this back to the OP and refocus on the essence of his original question: Dante was not asking to parse the orientation of the participants per se, but asking if the act itself could be considered anything other than gay/bisexual, i.e. homoerotic:

. . . "is masturbating to or with another guy a gay/bisexual act?" . . . how is a man masturbating with or to another man not a gay/bisexual act?

[emphasis added]

 

[maxcok]

I think you are missing my point. You also forget that I live somewhere else where the viewpoints on pedophilia are different than in the different cultures you summed up. So yes, in other cultures those things do happen, and from my viewpoint I still believe it's wrong and an illness that can't be cured. And yes that is immoral, evil, and appalling, I never said it wasn't, never!
If you can't see it from my viewpoint, then you are missing the point.

I know where you live, Pieter. I never said or implied you said anything other than what you said. This is getting ridiculous. The discussion of pedophilia as anything other than the comparative analogy that Dante presented is irrelevant and moot. Let's move on.

As homoerotic. You see guys wanking off as the guys on here doing c2c on cam. Well for me that is another interpretation of wanking. because I don't use lpsg-standards for basing an opinion on guys having a wank together. I base my facts on daily life and I have buddies that wanked off with others while watching a porn. For me there is nothing homoerotic about that, it's just a wank.
The guys on lpsg are already mostly messed up guys (including me), they just want to hear that jerking off and getting arroused by another male member isn't gay. In daily life where friends can have a wank watching porn this isn't an issue.

I've actually never participated in c2c, so your assumption is entirely off base and incorrect. FWIW, I've barely ever watched anybody wank in chat either. I find it incredibly boring. I notice you didn't answer my question about the point on that "slippery slope" where "just wanking to porn" crosses the line to "something more".
No matter, there are a million scenarios you could create if you want, but they all still come back to the same thing. Two or more guys jacking off together is an inherently sexual activity, therefore inherently homoerotic, at least on some level.

For a variation on Dante's analogy; suppose you were masturbating with a child watching, no contact. That would be inappropriate, because it is clearly and specifially an inappropriate sexual interaction with a child. Anyone with any sense would recognize that. Now suppose you were jacking off with another adult male watching, no contact. Forget whether it's moral or appropriate, the previous example was just an analogy to make it obvious. Don't get sidetracked! Okay, what remains is a clear and specific sexual interaction between the two males, i.e. homoerotic. I don't care what the context, whether they're wanking to porn or not doesn't matter. If they're aware of each other, can see each other, and can interact with each other, it's sexual and homoerotic. I will accept that you won't agree with that, so let's just agree to disagree and move on.

 

[Industrialsize]

Homosexuality is still considered a psych disorder by the AMA, well actually more the APA...

On this point you are absolutely wrong........NEITHER the AMA nor the APA consider being gay to be any kind of disorder.

 

[maxcok]

Erm . . . . already covered. In depth.

The American Psychological Association declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder in 1973. I remember clearly, because I had a big public fight with one of my Psych professors at the time in front of a class full of other students. I wonder where you got this idea, darlin?

American Psychiatric Association Position Statement​

American Medical Association's Ethics of Homosexuality​

 

[HungThickProf]

I know where you live, Pieter. I never said or implied you said anything other than what you said. This is getting ridiculous. The discussion of pedophilia as anything other than the comparative analogy that Dante presented is irrelevant and moot. Let's move on.



For a variation on Dante's analogy; suppose you were masturbating with a child watching, no contact. That would be inappropriate, because it is clearly and specifially an inappropriate sexual interaction with a child. Anyone with any sense would recognize that. Now suppose you were jacking off with another adult male watching, no contact. Forget whether it's moral or appropriate, the previous example was just an analogy to make it obvious. Don't get sidetracked! Okay, what remains is a clear and specific sexual interaction between the two males, i.e. homoerotic. I don't care what the context, whether they're wanking to porn or not doesn't matter. If they're aware of each other, can see each other, and can interact with each other, it's sexual and homoerotic. I will accept that you won't agree with that, so let's just agree to disagree and move on.

Max totally gets it... A+, Max.

And to CountryGuy63, Disco, and that really sweet, handsome mod(Industrialsized) who answered way earlier in the thread- bravo to you all

No matter how you see it, a sexual act is a sexual act. A truly 100% heterosexual male would not go to a male strip bar and get a lap-dance from a 19 year old bodybuilder studying to civil engineer, named Matt. It's just not happening. Why? Because he likes tits and pussy, so he's going to carry ass to the place where sweet little Amber just graduated high school got a boob job a few months ago, and can pick up a dollar with her labia.

 

[deleted3782]

For a variation on Dante's analogy; suppose you were masturbating with a child watching, no contact. That would be inappropriate, because it is clearly and specifially an inappropriate sexual interaction with a child. Anyone with any sense would recognize that. Now suppose you were jacking off with another adult male watching, no contact. Forget whether it's moral or appropriate, the previous example was just an analogy to make it obvious. Don't get sidetracked! Okay, what remains is a clear and specific sexual interaction between the two males, i.e. homoerotic. I don't care what the context, whether they're wanking to porn or not doesn't matter. If they're aware of each other, can see each other, and can interact with each other, it's sexual and homoerotic. I will accept that you won't agree with that, so let's just agree to disagree and move on.

There can also be an element of exhibitionism and voyeurism in the act of co-wanking as well. I'm not an expert in ex and voy...but do you have to see your subject in a sexual light to interact with them? Sometimes it can just be exciting to do what's taboo, or to be seen, or to see what you shouldn't be seeing.

No matter how you see it, a sexual act is a sexual act. A truly 100% heterosexual male would not go to a male strip bar and get a lap-dance from a 19 year old bodybuilder studying to civil engineer, named Matt. It's just not happening. Why? Because he likes tits and pussy, so he's going to carry ass to the place where sweet little Amber just graduated high school got a boob job a few months ago, and can pick up a dollar with her labia.

I remember in prep school, after lights-out my roommate and I were talking about the weekend he spent with his girlfriend and my best friend (who I had a huge crush on) and his girlfriend. My roomie was in the top bunk...I was in the lower. He was describing a Saturday night skinny-dip the four of them had. I asked a line of questions that essentially led him to describing my buddy's dick (I'd never seen him naked)...and unbeknownst to my bunk-mate, I was wanking off to the visuals he was giving me (was Tom bigger than Joe? was he thicker than Tony? etc). I remember it was damned good wank too...I slept very well that night. So there you have two guys, one wanking...but I was not in the least interested in my roomie or his eroticism, nor even exhibitionism or voyeurism. Instead I was interacting with another guy and focusing on my own personal agenda of learning about by best buddy's cock. It definitely matched Dante's original question "how is a man masturbating with or to another man not a gay/bisexual act?" but we were not into each other in the least.

I know this scenario might not be in the true spirit of Dante's question...but at the very least it illustrates how I see sexuality in a scale of grays that are fluid and contextual...and can't be pigeon-holed and are often best left unlabeled.