"PERCENTAGES" My Theory of (affirmative) Sexuality

Discussion in 'Relationships, Discrimination, and Jealousy' started by bkbotanic, Feb 23, 2008.

  1. bkbotanic

    bkbotanic New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2008
    Messages:
    7
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    BK
    This topic came up in another thread (un)relating to the pleasures of bottoming:
    http://www.lpsg.org/78479-question-bottoms-what-s-fascination.html

    After Hockeytiger, a "90% Straight, 10% Gay" guy related an especially hot story of getting fucked by another guy, some post-ers questioned the accuracy of his "percentage" scale.
    He rightly was offended.
    I think it's worth taking a look at and discussing the issue.

    Let me begin by copying my response in an attempt to give the discussion the space for it's own specific thread:

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bayonet

    "Perhaps it was presumptuous of me. I have a hard time understanding bisexuality. Whenever I read that a guy enjoys having sex with another guy--even if it only happened once--I automatically assume that he's a closeted homosexual. Maybe that's something I have to work on; maybe it's a prejudice, not sure."


    RE: HockeyTiger's "percentages"

    Hey Bayonet,
    This is My Theory of (affirmative) Sexuality:
    WE all have male and female energy within ourselves.
    WE are born of woman and man after all.
    WE have the ability - which HockeyTiger ever so eloquently and erotically shared with his story - to experience multiple combinations and permutations of these two inner aspects of OUR sexuality.
    This gay-straight concept is neither a continuum nor a reality, but the origin of all the divisiveness in the world WE live in today.

    When two partners acknowledge two aspects of their sexual energy - this is what's CREATIVELY possible:

    M (m) <> (m) M
    M (f) <> (m) M
    M (m) <> (f) M
    M (f) <> (f) M

    M (m) <> (m) F
    M (f) <> (m) F
    M (m) <> (f) F
    M (f) <> (f) F

    F (m) <> (m) F
    F (f) <> (m) F
    F (m) <> (f) F
    F (f) <> (f) F
     
  2. _avg_

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2007
    Messages:
    1,704
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    10
    I don't know why people have to make those things so complicated.

    If you don't want to have sex with the opposite sex, you're gay.
    If you don't want to have sex with the same sex, you're straight.
    If you don't care which sex you have sex with, you're bi.

    The percentages are likewise simple to caluclate: imagine the ideal man and woman, figure you get to pick your partner (and ONLY ONE AT A TIME) 100 times, and the number of times you chose each determines your percentage. Voila!
     
  3. B_dumbcow

    B_dumbcow New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2008
    Messages:
    3,220
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    1
    I was with you until the M (m) <> (m) M bit.
    Can you explain the last section please?
    :smile:
     
  4. _avg_

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2007
    Messages:
    1,704
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    10
    (and if you don't want to have sex with either sex, please log-off the computer and return to your convent....or seek medical attention)
     
  5. ZOS23xy

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2007
    Messages:
    5,073
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    7
    Location:
    directly above the center of the earth
    The percentile was to indicate some sort of preference in the posters and who and what and how (in the roundabout way) would inform you of the kind of content you would be reading if you chose to read what they had written. Thusly, the damn straight guys could avoid Simcha's postings if they chose to do so. Others could read it and think and respond.
     
  6. _avg_

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2007
    Messages:
    1,704
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    10
    The big letter is our outward sex...born Male, Female, physically...while the parenthetical letter is our inner-sex...our sexual tendencies, the "roles" we take.

    It's a needless complication, as I have already explained
     
  7. bkbotanic

    bkbotanic New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2008
    Messages:
    7
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    BK
    It's meant to be a BROADENING of the concept, Caveman.
    What's so complicated about it?
    You obviously understand it enough to explain it to someone who doesn't. Except it's the inner roles we CHOOSE to play with - ever changeable, creative, not beholden to culture, rules, or laws.

    Furthermore you choose to partake of M(m) <>(f)F exclusively.
    Good for you!
    Nothing in what I write precludes you from exercising that right or preference.

    I'm talking about being CREATIVE with oneself and one's sexuality.
    I'm looking to start a discussion here about the possibilities of BROADENING the "world is flat" binary M<>F limitation on what constitutes our culturally sanctioned sexual desires and practices.

    Sure, the 100&#37; designation is a (valid) way for exclusively M<>F guys to stave off the M<>M guys, and that's fine.

    However, this particular thread is meant to be a discussion of DIVERSITY and based upon INCLUSION.

    btw - that cow-bell animated gif it totally fricking irritating,
    as it's precisely meant to be I suppose.
     
  8. _avg_

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2007
    Messages:
    1,704
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    10
    But it's not. It's merely a restatement of it; the results of a punnet square, spilled out on the page.

    Well, my model can be described in only three sentences...

    Additionally, as I understand your model, M (m) means "totally straight"....so how do the M (m) <> (m) M pairings work? At least half of your "creative pairings" are non-sensical.

    I don't see the relevence of this statement.

    Well, unless you "create" a third sex, you can only be straight, gay or bi. (On non-sexual)

    No, what you mean is you want (at least) one poster to acknowledge that third category, bi-sexual. There's probably a more articulate way of doing so....

    You mean, it's an attempt to demonstrate the existence of "bi-sexuals," who are neither straight nor gay but both. Straight, gay or bi...how much more diversity is there to inlcude?

    (please leave out beastiality and necrophilia)

    :biggrin1:
     
  9. cyberczar

    cyberczar New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2007
    Messages:
    743
    Likes Received:
    3
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Atlanta
    Human beings, and sexuality, are too complicated to be lumped into one of two categories.

    Life is not black & white.

    I am a firm believer that no one is 100&#37; straight OR gay, and at the end of the day does it really matter all that much?

    As long as two adults love each other, who gives a shit who they bang?

    Gender isn't black & white either, but few people like to talk about it. What sexuality is someone who's intersexed?

    There are more than two genders in our species, folks. It's just that the other one's aren't very common and are seen as more of a medical oddity than anything else.
     
  10. D_Martin van Burden

    D_Martin van Burden Account Disabled

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2002
    Messages:
    3,365
    Likes Received:
    6
    I didn't think it was complicated.

    He's just saying that men and women approach each other with masculine and feminine drives/behaviors during courtship. Though I'm not entirely sure, he might be suggesting that it's the "inner sex" (gender role behavior) that contact each other first -- whether it's in meeting or in the act -- and that contact sets some paradigms for sexual behavior. Imagine an (m) F -- a take-charge, horny, assertive woman -- riding on top of a more submissive (f) M guy. (At least, that's what the Axe commercials would have you believe.)

    Or, maybe the hypermasculinized gay guys with the leather and the bristle mustaches making a move on each other. Clearly, two (m) M's.
     
  11. bkbotanic

    bkbotanic New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2008
    Messages:
    7
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    BK
    The simple presumption, Avg, is that we're all the SAME (m/f) INSIDE.
    Regardless of whether we have a dick or a pussy.

    It's about going past the SIMPLISTIC view that dick = male, pussy = female.

    By sheer counting of the numbers - your position offers but 3 categories of sexuality - with only ONE CHOICE to be made among them.
    Whereas, if you try on the idea that anatomy does not determine sexuality, there are AT LEAST 4 possible variations for each one of those 3 categories,
    which I hope you will notice I illustrated as well.
    What's being demonstrated here is your arguing for a limited and rigid 3 possible sexual identifications - of which only ONE is permissible for each individual.
    I offer at least 12 in my model:
    A choice of 2 for each individual, 4 for each couple, and double that for 8 whether you do it with a guy AND a girl.

    Choose only ONE - go ahead!!!
    The difference is the creativity that's possible.

    This is so boring.
     
  12. bkbotanic

    bkbotanic New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2008
    Messages:
    7
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    BK
    The misunderstanding I see you are having here is that you are not taking into account the idea that an inner masculine AND female energy is found within both men AND woman.

    M (m) is ANY MALE playing with his masculine energy.
    M (f) is ANY MALE playing with his female energy.

    F (m) is ANY FEMALE playing with her masculine energy.
    F (f) is ANY FEMALE playing with her female energy.

    Maybe you just can't get your head - or your dick - around the idea that you have feminine energy within yourself.
    Or that the woman you are balling has masculine energy within herself.
     
  13. _avg_

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2007
    Messages:
    1,704
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    10
    I didn't read it that way, though surely that's an accruate assessment of real-life sexual relationships.

    Specifically with the cited quote from bayonet, I read the OP as saying a man -- M -- can have sex with a man -- a "culturally sanctioned sexual desires and practices" associated with women, (f) -- and not be a "closeted homosexual."

    Now, I could have read the OP wrong, most certainly, but that just suggests it was overly complicated (or insufficiently articulated).
     
  14. _avg_

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2007
    Messages:
    1,704
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    10
    This is not clear, in the least, and I'd say it's a non-starter: it is self-evident that we are all CERTAINLY NOT "the same inside."

    You mean, that "having a dick makes one have the culturally sanctioned sexual desires and practices of a male, 'inside'"....am I right? I have never argued against that.

    Since an individual does not (except in rare extreme cases) choose their ANATOMY, they do only have "ONE CHOICE" to make: their SEXUALITY.


    I've never argued that anatomy determines sexuality. But sexuality IS DEFINED BY IT'S EXCLUSIVITY. A "heterosexual" is an individual who has sex EXCLUSIVELY with another individual with the opposite anatomy. A "homosexual" is an individual who has sex EXCLUSIVELY with another individual of matching anatomy. A "bisexual" is one whose sexual activities and interests are NOT EXCLUSIVE of any one anatomy.

    What fourth option is there?

    If I may illustrate it for you, too:
    Straight = 100%/0%
    Gay = 0%/100%
    Bi = ANY OTHER RATIO


    Please do suggest a 4th "sexual identification."



    Hey, you offered a "theory." If it is to hold any water, it's got to stand up to peer review and critical analysis.
     
  15. _avg_

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2007
    Messages:
    1,704
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    10
    No need for insults. But you will need to better define your terms.

    WTF is "masculine/feminine energy" for starters?
    Are "sexual energies" passed on physically, or are they learned roles?
    How would you describe your "M (m) <> (m) M" pairing?
    Why even mention bayonet's "either straight or gay" dichotomy if all you meant was DeeBlackthorne's "masculine/feminine approach or drives"?
     
  16. bkbotanic

    bkbotanic New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2008
    Messages:
    7
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    BK
    If you disagree with that, then of course there is but only one masculine energy and identity exclusively permissible for those with a dick; one feminine energy and identity exclusively permissible for those with a pussy.

    The EXCLUSIVE SINGLE ONE CHOICE sexual identities you are advocating are INCLUDED in my overall PROPOSITION.
    I'm PROPOSING we ALL share a common sexual energy of BOTH masculine AND feminine characteristics and nuances.
    And that the freedom and creativity comes from playing with, intermingling, switching back and forth between those energies:

    Play with your male and her female
    Play with your female and her female
    Play with your male and her male
    Play with your female and her male.

    And if you happen to like guys as well, there are four more possibilities to play and experiment with.

    Your narrow position on the matter allows for only one of the above:
    "Play with your male and her female"
    Dude, after a while that makes for a really boring fuck.
    When you and your girlfriend or wife haven't had (good) sex for two years - maybe you'll look back and say - that guy might've been onto something. Lemme try that out.
     
  17. bkbotanic

    bkbotanic New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2008
    Messages:
    7
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    BK
    Maybe you might look into the principles of Tantric Sexuality.
    Or Carl Jung.
    There are thousands of years of history to the Eastern principle that we have both male and female (sexual) energy within ourselves.
    Basically because we are all born of both man and woman.

    Jung agreed, but his Euro-Christian sensibilities could only morally allow for men to project their female energy onto women, and women to project their male energy onto men.

    This is the 21C.
    We can claim the right and moral and erotic freedom to play with and embody BOTH our sexual energies at WILL.
     
  18. _avg_

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2007
    Messages:
    1,704
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    10
    Quite the contrary; if we WERE all the same, there would be no differences among people, sexually. Clearly, there are.


    My model does not exclude this idea. The purpose of our posts, remember, was to demonstrate to bayonet how people self-identify as "bisexual." I proposed some clearly defined criteria, as opposed to this nebulous "sexual energy" idea (which I can still accomodate, nonetheless), which I think is just a much simpler method of understanding bisexuality.


    No, it doesn't. A male acting feminine and fucking a female acting masculine is still a heterosexual. Why call it anything else?


    You've totally got me wrong, "dude."
     
  19. ZOS23xy

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2007
    Messages:
    5,073
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    7
    Location:
    directly above the center of the earth
    I know a lumpy chubby man who is not all that interested in sex, but likes to watch it.

    Where does he fit in?

    I knew a man who was kind of slow, liked to hang out at the gay bar and talk. He liked men, liked talking to men, but a question of "having sex" reduced him to giggles.

    His category?

    I am not a big fan of demographics, because it tends to reduce people to the black and white.
     
  20. _avg_

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2007
    Messages:
    1,704
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    10
    I'm not ignorant of the concept but as a component of your "theory" it is ill-defined. A better explanation might help someone like bayonet (who you were originally addressing) understand bisexuality.

    So then it is your position that our sexuality is not learned? That it is innate, inherited form our parents? So, in other words, we don't choose our sexuality, we are born with it? Are you saying we're all born "bisexual" and we all just repress one part of it to greater or lesser extent? [These are clarifying questions, mind you]
     
Draft saved Draft deleted