In the news, there's been a lot of stories about male child movies stars in the 80s who would go to gay sex parties with producers and directors to further their careers. Yes, it's disgusting but it did happen.
Is a straight man who hooks up with another man really straight?
- Thread starter xmarksbreakdownx
- Start date
Crimsonlurker
Admired Member
So that justifies going after straight people or sexual labels period? I feel for those people but does that really mean we as human beings should metaphorically throw the baby out with a the bath water because a few people got brow beat into situations that didn't make them happy? Attacking the very use, definition and general meaning of labels entirely so that logically all labels have to be questioned? Ignoring sexual acts by all people completely while leaving the window wide open for people to be accused of things they never actually did? Literally changing the framework for which human beings communicate simply because other people are still either homophobic or bisexualphobic?
Don't you think it would be a much better, logical, efficient and emotionally saving move to keep going towards self acceptance, understanding and equality rather than fight fire with a solar flare? Which would literally be opening the door for even more discrimination, alienation and isolation.
Seriously, without labels how exactly could anyone define gay, bi or lesbian discrimination? Warm feelings? Last time i checked courtrooms weren't all that ecstatic about baked cakes while in session.
You know whats even more disgusting? The fact that you're saying...male child movie stars in the 80s would go to gay sex parties to further their careers. This whole entire thing makes me want to not only vomit but set fire to certain individuals. Understand me when i say...i'm not stupid. I know exactly what you mean and why you said it exactly in the way you've said it. It makes me angry. Very very angry. So angry in fact i'm currently doing everything in more power to keep my composure.
I'm not willing to go into detail of why what you just said is even more disgusting. I highly doubt i could control my rage at that point. As well as somehow not get banned for calling you out on it. I'll just say this. Not only do i not what to live in your world but i would like nothing better than for your world to not exist. Now please understand me when i say that. I am currently extremely angry and most of me doesn't mean your world as in your existence. My penchant for giving the benefit of doubt is whats keeping me from that. With that said. The world you currently live in with regard to your posts before the one up top is one i don't want to live in. It's your last post that makes me want to obliterate the world you live in and salt the resulting empty space with bear traps and rat poison.
ok. Think i've said enough at this point.
If someone asked me what I was I would say straight, because just saying Bisexual is far more inaccurate than calling myself straight. It's inaccurate because I'm mostly attracted to women and romantically so, while with men it just a sexual thing. Bi is inaccurate because I'm not turned on by dick In an of itself, nor do I want to suck them or have one in me. It's inaccurate because my attraction to males is random, focused on specific types, fickle. It's more about an attraction to the concept of masculinity and getting off on exerting my sexual dominance over a man's masculinity because they submit to my own. An act of a man in a sense, making himself vunerable to me.
This is why I like the percentage system on LPSG, it allows people to fairly accurately display what their deal is. 90% straight 10% gay works perfectly for me, and if terminology like this was accepted out in the real world today I'd be happy to say this than just say straight...since yes, I do recognize that it's also slightly inaccurate for me just call myself straight, but bi is even further off.
Like others have expressed here though, I don't get why it matters so much. I never understood why humans have to go and ruin something like sex by trying to make everyone's experiences fit in certain perfect little categories. You simply can't force everyone into a box, life is far too diverse, so just give it up it won't ever happen. Our energies are better spent enjoying sex rather than worrying so much about how exactly one should classify themselves.
This is why I like the percentage system on LPSG, it allows people to fairly accurately display what their deal is. 90% straight 10% gay works perfectly for me, and if terminology like this was accepted out in the real world today I'd be happy to say this than just say straight...since yes, I do recognize that it's also slightly inaccurate for me just call myself straight, but bi is even further off.
Like others have expressed here though, I don't get why it matters so much. I never understood why humans have to go and ruin something like sex by trying to make everyone's experiences fit in certain perfect little categories. You simply can't force everyone into a box, life is far too diverse, so just give it up it won't ever happen. Our energies are better spent enjoying sex rather than worrying so much about how exactly one should classify themselves.
Last edited:
Excellent post. Beautiful honesty.
It just goes to show you how complicated human sexuality is...and how different we are all wired. We all have a unique sexuality, even we have share common traits in our sexualities.
Me - I'm similar as I do. I have no interest in interacting with another dick.I like to compare and feel masculinity with other men. I like to dominate and feel I have the biggest dick among my bros. It's just good ole' sexual fantasy.
Wrestling would be the only physical contact I could possibly get aroused from (maybe some groping in an aggressive way).
Its so much more than straight, bi, gay. Labels push people apart and create problems. Its more about how one individual relates to another at that time that place and those circumstances. Labels are for boxes of cereal not people.
Precisely. However I do indeed fuck dudes (though only once so far), so physical contact with a dick is bound to happen hah. I do like a bit of frottage when I'm in the dude fucking kind of mood lol...but anyway I digress.
That's fine. I still adore your post.
I am like you, though, too. I'd rather fuck a dude up the ass than suck his dick. But it's not something I think about that much.
I thought about a dude I'd like to fuck up the ass not long ago. It's just that I want to dominate (you seem to get that).
I'm not really sure why you are getting so worked up and personally invested. This is just a discussion.
You keep referring to my world as if it's on another planet. My world is the real world, I don't make the rules. I am not responsible for the ills of the world either so don't take it out on me. It's actually what is happening out there.
Your world seems to be some version of the Truman show where everything is naively pure and perfect.
Crimsonlurker
Admired Member
I'm not worked up. I'm angry. Theres a difference. Being worked up would mean very slightly by the use of the language that i don't have reason to be. No. I have reason. You just tried to justify child molestation in a round about way by implying that child actors went to gay sex parties. Which literally translates into "they wanted it and knew what they doing". Which is the regular justification for many a sick individual.
Couple that with your previous stance that people should be able to get away with doing any sexual act they desire without any consequence and you have justification and a defense against jail/prison time for those sick people. It would seem that the general reason why men don't want to labeled based on their sexual actions is simply so a judge can't locked them up for it.
Tell me i'm wrong. Address this topic respectfully and maybe i won't think that but as far as i can tell thats the only reason many of you guys don't want sexual labels to follow your actions. Seriously, tell me i'm wrong. Tell me that that wasn't the reason you brought up a way to justify what has happened and is happening to male child stars in hollywood.
Yes, i'm angry. Not worked up. Angry. I'm also very very disgusted. Keep in mind. I didn't bring up child molestation. You did. And why pray tell would you do such a thing in a thread where people don't want to take personal responsibility for their sexual actions? Right, being curious about the opposite sex among consenting adults is one thing. Once more, why would you bring up the topic where there aren't adults involved? Yes, like i said. Not worked up. Angry. And disgusted.
I'm not condoning child molestation. I simply picked a recent well known example. If you think it's a bad example, then fine.
The point is sexual acts do not of themselves determine sexual orientation.
The reason why this is doing your head in is because you can't seem to grasp the concept that sexual orientation is a mental thing in which there is greater subtely than being 100% heterosexual, 100% homosexual and being equally attracted to both.
It is my call that the main focus of this thread has been to define what constitutes the form, function, and content of a straight sexual profile. Its purpose has not been to defend social labeling or how labels might be used in our social structure. That should be a separate discussion.
It is easy for these two issues to become confused. Labeling is great when used to organize something like a structure of knowledge (think types of trees), but it when used as a basis for insult (pejorative) it becomes a negative and has only the meaning that the user gives to it. It is an insult rather than an organization of knowledge.
So back to the thread topic. The key is to define straight and:
Form: What kinds of relationships between straight men constitute a hookup and how can they be evaluated as to their sexual implications.
Function: What kinds of behaviors exist between men and how can they be evaluated as to their sexual implications?
Content: What physical elements can be shared between men and how can they be evaluated as to their sexual implication?
It is easy for these two issues to become confused. Labeling is great when used to organize something like a structure of knowledge (think types of trees), but it when used as a basis for insult (pejorative) it becomes a negative and has only the meaning that the user gives to it. It is an insult rather than an organization of knowledge.
So back to the thread topic. The key is to define straight and:
Form: What kinds of relationships between straight men constitute a hookup and how can they be evaluated as to their sexual implications.
Function: What kinds of behaviors exist between men and how can they be evaluated as to their sexual implications?
Content: What physical elements can be shared between men and how can they be evaluated as to their sexual implication?
Crimsonlurker
Admired Member
It isn't doing my head in. No. Far from it. It is consistently pissing me off. The very nature of your statement below...
The point is sexual acts do not of themselves determine sexual orientation.- You
...means you would be ok with a child molester not having to be labeled as such after they've committed sexual acts. Once more, i did not bring this topic up. You did. And i personally will never be ok with it. Not now and not ever. By that same faulty logic a proven rapist shouldn't and wouldn't be called/labeled as the rapist they are. Same as a man having sex with other men. Same with a woman having sex with other women.
Lets be clear though. It isn't the topic that makes me sick to my stomach. No, it was your random out of no where post about child actors that did it. You brought that topic in for reasons only you can know for certain. I will say this though, based on our interactions i'm currently coming up with an idea of why you brought it up and it's disgusting. Through and through.
Now more toward the actual non-vomit inducing discussion. Heterosexuality is a description of what someone does first and then it has it's social connotations to it. Same goes for homosexuality and bisexuality. They are first and foremost a way to generally let others know what your preferences are. Which is similar to telling someone you're a gamer, golfer or a leg man. All the things that come afterward are social attachments. Attachments that aren't necessarily true or false.
If a straight male sleeps in the same bed or cuddles with another male it might be seen as strange socially but it doesn't mean he's gay or bi. Same with displays of affection and words regarding intimate interactions (i.e. i love you). None of these things effect a person's sexual status until they have sex with someone. Generally speaking if someone professes to love someone else in the romantic sense then theres is or will be an element of sex involved. It doesn't have to be but it usually is or will be. That is and has been consistent through out humanities time. The odds on that not being the case. As in there is romantic love without also being desires or moments of things in a sexual nature are very very slim.
Theres asexuality of course but that is another thing entirely. As those people don't get any pleasure from and have no desire for sex from anyone for any reason. Which is infinitely different from having sex with someone then trying to say you haven't. In most if not all circles, that would not only be considered a lie but a person who continues with that sort of behavior would then rightfully be called a lier. Since it would be like taking a shit in someone's sneaker then telling everyone else you didn't. The person who you did it too not only knows you're lying but knows you'll continue to.
I'll say it in another way. Saying the below...
The point is sexual acts do not of themselves determine sexual orientation.- You
...is like saying...the point is driving history does not in and of itself determine whether you should have a license or not. And in the context of this topic you would be saying this after a person has already caused a few accidents. No, of course your sexual orientation should describe your actions. The part you and others are missing is that you determine your sexual orientation. If you have sex with other men then you are gay. If you have sex with both men and women then you are bisexual. If you as a man do not have sex with other men and only have sex with women you are straight. It isn't that difficult. It only gets that way when you are either afraid of being labeled as gay or bisexual or have an unhealthy desire to label yourself as straight. Either way you're just lying not only to yourself but everyone around you. And of course the result of that are an entirely different story. One that will only be played out in your life specifically along with the people you specifically come in contact with.
When it comes to this issue, people aren't stupid. They'll know you're both lying and avoiding something. The only think left would be to figure out why. And if you don't live in an area where safety is a top priority...well they'll figure it out.
Clearly, you have a perspective of seeing things a certain way and you feel strongly about that. You have made your point over and over. I comprehend what you are saying. I just disagree with you. That is all.
Let's not waste each others time any further.
Phil Ayesho
Superior Member
We are the choices we make-
But what we fantasize about is also a choice.
Your orientation is determined by what gets you off.
I don't care if a guy only ever has sex with women- if he can't come without imagining himself being fucked in the ass or sucking a cock, then he is not entirely straight.
That people CONCEAL their inner thoughts from one another is an artifact of self interest. If there were no social stigma attached to who you had sex with, then people would not need to hide their actual desires and fantasies.
well more than half of women out there would be unwilling to even date a man who admitted to having had sex with other men. If you are truly bisexual, that's a mighty powerful disincentive to honesty.
More than half of men out there would assume anyone admitting to bisexuality to be a gay man in denial... and this despite the fact that the majority of those very men harbor secret fantasies of sex with men.
They PRETEND that if they don't actually HAVE sex with men, then they are straight. And they do so because there is a social advantage to behaving that way.
The key to greater acceptance of varied and variable orientation is to convince everyone that its has nothing to do with who you actually have sex with- it has to do with who you IMAGINE you're having sex with.
IF that were the criteria.. then men who occasionally think about sex with men would have to admit, if only to themselves, that they are somewhere on the bisexual spectrum.
And they might be more accepting of overt bisexuality when they came across it.
But what we fantasize about is also a choice.
Your orientation is determined by what gets you off.
I don't care if a guy only ever has sex with women- if he can't come without imagining himself being fucked in the ass or sucking a cock, then he is not entirely straight.
That people CONCEAL their inner thoughts from one another is an artifact of self interest. If there were no social stigma attached to who you had sex with, then people would not need to hide their actual desires and fantasies.
well more than half of women out there would be unwilling to even date a man who admitted to having had sex with other men. If you are truly bisexual, that's a mighty powerful disincentive to honesty.
More than half of men out there would assume anyone admitting to bisexuality to be a gay man in denial... and this despite the fact that the majority of those very men harbor secret fantasies of sex with men.
They PRETEND that if they don't actually HAVE sex with men, then they are straight. And they do so because there is a social advantage to behaving that way.
The key to greater acceptance of varied and variable orientation is to convince everyone that its has nothing to do with who you actually have sex with- it has to do with who you IMAGINE you're having sex with.
IF that were the criteria.. then men who occasionally think about sex with men would have to admit, if only to themselves, that they are somewhere on the bisexual spectrum.
And they might be more accepting of overt bisexuality when they came across it.
Crimsonlurker
Admired Member
Disagreement is fine. And i appreciate you implying that this is a waste of time for you but it isn't for me. I am repeating myself specifically because of how important this topic is to a wide range of people. Not just on the implications of child actors in hollywood but with regard to straight, bi and gay people.
See, there has been and i'm guessing will continue to be countless threads created towards getting straight men to cross a line and either admit or become something they are not. Gay and/or bisexual men will not stop in their quest to not only "get" straight men but imply that no one is actually straight. Meaning i'll have to deal with this in one way shape form or another as long as i have an account on this site.
Earlier in the thread someone tried to imply that it was straight men who were obsessed with either being straight or labels in general. Even when it wasn't a straight man who started this whole thing to begin with. And they only did so to try to hide the fact that straight men who aren't homophobic just don't have enough fucks for that. Meaning straight men would be forced to make one of two choices. Either shut up and take it. Letting the lies and bullshit about them be seen as fact without standing up for themselves or stand up for themselves.
This thread has over 500 posts. With various kinds of people commenting in them. Yet, gay and bisexual men still want to be considered straight. Yet, straight men are still being pushed to not only defend themselves but straight women as well. And once again, the only other option is to just let people say whatever they want. Letting clearly gay and bisexual men dictate what straight means for the rest of humanity.
Which i might add is towards the height of irony. You would think the one group of people who should know better than to try to dictate the sexual proclivities and labels of others would be gay an bisexual men. Seeing as how they were specifically targeted by the same kind of rhetoric for decades. Straight, gay and bi does exist. And they all should be respected as such. Across the board. No exceptions. If one does not have to be respected, along with the people who identify with it then none should. Period.
That is why i do not see this topic as being a waste of time. Specifically because of how many people are and would be effected by it. And to be clear this once again isn't even addressing your child actors post. That is a far different discussion.
I think "mostly straight" or "bisexual" work equally well and describe you perfectly. There are people in this thread though who would insist you were straight if you chose to refer to yourself that way (despite regularly having sex with guys for fun).
Generalize much? There are plenty of 100% straight people on this site with the same bizarre "labels are for soup cans" attitude. This particular gay man has always thought the notion of "getting a straight guy" to be an oxymoron cuz if I get him he's not straight.
Crimsonlurker
Admired Member
To be fair i did...kind of generalize there a bit. I mean it was in context but you are correct i'm sure there are straight men out there who feel the same way. So, duly noted.
Similar threads
