Gay act? No! What's the difference?

[BIGBULL29]

My life is devoted to learning, maxcok.:smile: If that's an intellectual, so be it, but I'm still very, very humble (except in the bedroom:biggrin1.

 

[HungThickProf]

I irritate, I guess. It wasn’t an intention [ well, not after calling “doc” on his deciding who “gets it” or not]. I like DrDante well enough and had no need to pick a quarrel.

We mostly agree yet unintentionally my posts exasperate. A guy sucking a guy’s dick is a gay act and humping his girl is a straight act. What can I say; I thought I said it.



If I really “just don’t get something” it won’t be the first time.

My writing style and examples failed. Maxcok and Discoby, I’ve thought we largely agreed. I reached for hypotheticals – like concentrates of life experiences – to make distinctions between gay acts and the people who engage in them if they deny being gay, and to find some purpose.

I failed.

Words are great; they require meaning. Applying words to what takes place in someone’s head is messy – not irrelevant – for if they attempt to deceive, those who deceive differ from those who don’t. To my mind being a deceiver [well, one who makes the effort] says more of a man than being gay. Maybe it is really a bad thing as some will say of being gay; but I am less interested in that judgment and more in understanding the motive.

I have a belief: dissembling, fibbing, outright lying, each is itself revealing. Dishonestly rarely succeed as intended; it’s invariably apparent and calls attention to itself; it makes us contemplate motive.

Those of us like me, who are comfortable calling ourselves gay, get to make a different decision. Will we commit to someone who can not commit entirely because they will not accept themselves? I would not. But what if we are not looking for commitment? My lover of many years to whom I committed – he passed away – was as openly gay as I. I can’t imagine how we’d have carried it off were we pretending to be straight buddies.

Now, as a lone man, if I want to have sex without commitment, my greatest need as I see it includes discerning my chances, assessing trust as to any claim of being HIV negative, weighing personal values about being with someone who is cheating, avoiding a nutcase who might be dangerous – not to mention being skeptical about any cute young thing who is coming on to an old fart – does he expect to get paid?

In my personal case - I won’t speak for you - a purportedly “straight” guy who is not married but just wants to get serviced by a “fag” because guys are better at cock sucking than girls has terrific appeal. OK so I’m weird. I know. But it’s fun; I really like being the cock sucking fag to a “straight” guy.

I’ve committed in the past, believe in commitment, but just don’t expect it for me, not at this late date. These days, I love promoting the idea I’m a world class cock sucker with great talent. I’ve got to be acting out some “low esteem” issues. I accept it about me. If both of us are disease free; even if a guy does dissemble and deludes himself with the idea he is really straight, or especially if his behavior is otherwise so very straight, if we are both really enjoying it, then that’s what it is.

And, here at last is my point, my honest acceptance of self coupled with an effort to understand – successfully or not – the points of view and personalities of guys I like [there are guys like this] makes it work.

So that’s my story and I’m sticking to it.

I will go ahead and say that peace is definitely made. I recently quit smoking, so I'm quick to snap. That's no excuse, so I'll go ahead and apologize for my snappiness. As pointed out by another poster, it was really to say "A guy masturbating to X images is then performing a Y act, and why?" Maxcok and others actually understood that, and it was appreciated.

I do hope that you don't have low self-esteem. You should appreciate and love every part of you; even your flaws. No one can ever love you like you can. :smile: And with that being said, I trust that you'll never settle for less- with anything.

What bothers me about men identifying themselves as straight when they secretly engage in homosexual activities, is the fact that it sets the rest of us back. They may take shame in who they are, but not all of us do. These men with their double-lives feed into the idea that it's not acceptable to be honest about who you are. And it makes it so hard to move forward. If we don't want labels to exist, we must accept and bring comfort to each label before they're retired.

Example: Idaho had a Republican Senator who constantly voted against gay-marriage, and yet he gets caught trying to hook-up in an airport restroom soliciting an undercover cop for gay sex. He retired after that incident.

 

[Irish]

One could homoeroticize straight porn as well (gangbangs, big dicks, etc).

DP's and double vag/anal in straight porn are extremely homoerotic, but most male actors and the men who enjoy watching these scenes all claim to be a 100% straight.

And most men don't watch exclusively lesbian porn (contrary to what they tell you).

Not sure if someone answered this question yet or not, but "projection" explains this tendency for viewers.

 

[798686]

Read the OP Wallaboi.

The question being asked is

Looking at images of children and getting off to them = paedophilia always.

Looking at images of men and getting of to them = not always gay, apparently.

Why is this the case? Why should we see one thing one way and see a similar thing differently. What is it that makes these two situations different enough that we make totally different kinds of logical deduction about them.

No one is saying gay=paedophile. So forget that OK.

I agree with the above, Hil - and would even go so far as to say that a guy looking at images of men and getting off to them is always a gay act.

But...Dante also seems to be asking why two blokes jacking off together (in each other's company) but not necessarily looking at images of guys, is not also gay? (I don't think it always is - tho homoerotic, kinda).

 

[HungThickProf]

I agree with the above, Hil - and would even go so far as to say that a guy looking at images of men and getting off to them is always a gay act.

But...Dante also seems to be asking why two blokes jacking off together (in each other's company) but not necessarily looking at images of guys, is not also gay? (I don't think it always is - tho homoerotic, kinda).

I was saying with, or more like two. As I've stated before- in that situation, there's no video- it's just them- one admiring the other. As I stated with the child. Remember, the response used by the neighbor is "It's okay, I don't touch, I just like to look."

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

I agree with the above, Hil - and would even go so far as to say that a guy looking at images of men and getting off to them is always a gay act.

But...Dante also seems to be asking why two blokes jacking off together (in each other's company) but not necessarily looking at images of guys, is not also gay? (I don't think it always is - tho homoerotic, kinda).

Logically speaking it's the same thing. Looking at images or just looking at the guy next to you who's jacking off in your company. Both are more than merely homoerotic, since homoeroticism isn't restricted to men being aroused by the sexuality of men since anyone can be arroused by male sexuality regardless of their sex or sexuality.

So when a man is sexually stimulated by a homoerotic stimuli, this is a homosexual response to the homoerotic stimuli, because for a man to be sexually aroused even only fleetingly by another man is an example of sexual arrousal of a homosexual nature.

Now on thee other hand, if the sexual stimulation comes purely from the experience of jacking off in front of another man and knowing that the other man is stimulated by your performing for him, and you derive no sexual stimulation in turn by watching him jackoff in front of you then your exhibitionism is of a homoerotic nature and so is the sexual stimulation you derive from it.

 

[Empathizer]

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

Sorry if this is a repeat, but not since at latest the 1980s for the latter, and the AMA never had an opinion about it.

 

[Irish]

I feel like the question DrDante asked in the original post is not the question he thinks people have answered, nor is it the question he seems to be claiming to have asked.

This is wonderfully put, hilaire.

Logically speaking it's the same thing. Looking at images or just looking at the guy next to you who's jacking off in your company. Both are more than merely homoerotic, since homoeroticism isn't restricted to men being aroused by the sexuality of men since anyone can be arroused by male sexuality regardless of their sex or sexuality.

So when a man is sexually stimulated by a homoerotic stimuli, this is a homosexual response to the homoerotic stimuli, because for a man to be sexually aroused even only fleetingly by another man is an example of sexual arrousal of a homosexual nature.

Now on thee other hand, if the sexual stimulation comes purely from the experience of jacking off in front of another man and knowing that the other man is stimulated by your performing for him, and you derive no sexual stimulation in turn by watching him jackoff in front of you then your exhibitionism is of a homoerotic nature and so is the sexual stimulation you derive from it.

I agree with your assessment, and I think there is a fairly large difference between masturbating with another man and to another man. The OP seems to disregard this. Either way is still pretty gay, though.

 

[HungThickProf]

I feel like the question DrDante asked in the original post is not the question he thinks people have answered, nor is it the question he seems to be claiming to have asked.

Others have understood my question. Again, Person X is masturbating to either images of or person Y. Is this a Z act? That's been the question I've been asking the entire time. Seriously, I'm a realist-I've known guys to be in the same room and jerk off to a porn where one didn't see the other...But when the guys are looking at each other, different story. That's the only claim that I have. Maybe I wasn't in very clear in the original post, and I apologize if I wasn't. I thought the "It's okay, I like to look, but don't touch" part was a bit helpful. I guess not.

 

[tgirlsrgreat]

So I had this discussion with a friend of mine today to get his thoughts on the matter, and he really couldn't give me an answer- it was just too hard for him.

This morning while I was making breakfast, I was thinking about all of the different people I've met on this site; them being married, single, parents, or not. What they enjoy, and what they seek in sexual partners. What I enjoy and what I seek in sexual partners. When you look through the "Relationships, Discrimination, and Jealousy" forum, you see a lot of threads devoted to homosexuality, bisexuality, and whether someone is or isn't...I'm hoping that this thread doesn't turn out to be the same way, but it just may. I'm looking forward to the opinions.

So while I was making breakfast, I thought of a debate that's been had before- "is masturbating to or with another guy a gay/bisexual act?" I know my answer on the matter, but for this, it doesn't matter. If you believe that it's not a gay/bisexual act, I have a question for you... If you needed to borrow a cup of sugar from your friendly next door neighbor- you knocked and the door just opened. You can clearly hear sounds coming from the living room. You walk into the living room, and you see him masturbating to images or with someone who is not of legal age. You of course panic, and he yells to you "it's okay- I don't touch, I just look!" Is your neighbor guilty of performing act of pedophilia? And if you believe so- how is a man masturbating with or to another man not a gay/bisexual act?

I look forward to hearing your views.

yes it is a gay act, even though many young boys jackoff together. and yes most certainly with an underage person it is a criminal act. i don't see any gray area at all on either of these.

 

[798686]

I agree with your assessment, and I think there is a fairly large difference between masturbating with another man and to another man. Either way is still pretty gay, though.

Yup. I'm still not sure as to how gay wanking with another man is. To many it would be, but for all? I dunno.

I'm not convinced in such a situation that the turn on is always 'looking at the other bloke' (although it often is). As Hil suggests...with some people, it maybe the thrill of performing in front of someone, rather than being excited by what they're packing.

 

[BIGBULL29]

Yup. I'm still not sure as to how gay wanking with another man is. To many it would be, but for all? I dunno.

I'm not convinced in such a situation that the turn on is always 'looking at the other bloke' (although it often is). As Hil suggests...with some people, it maybe the thrill of performing in front of someone, rather than being excited by what they're packing.

Yes, sexuality if very complicated and people's drive for doing one sexual act may be completely different than someone else's. So what appears to be very homoerotic may not be (but probably is:biggrin1. Though I must say that I find straight gangbangs so homoerotic that I can't even imagine how one could utter the words "It's all straight". But then again...:biggrin1: