Serious Questions for the straight guys..

[Pendlum]

Well, some people are selfish lovers (probably a lot), so being in a MMF means you have to share, while being in a MFF means they have to share you, which is much more hot from a psychological standpoint.

Also about the too close thing. If the balls do not touch, it's not gay. :tongue:

 

[ruffboy]

The reason for the perceived prejudice of against MMF as opposed to FFM is obvious. When you watch you subconsciously feel what it is like. The straight guy watching two women have sex gets to feel what it is like to be the woman with her face in the other womans crotch, which is very arousing to him. Any guy on guy contact is off-putting. There are more straight people that gay so FFM would be more popular.

Plus, -a lot of straight guys are put off by anal sex of any kind.

actually, i've never had the sensation of 'i'm the other woman' in a lesbian scene, i enjoy two women enjoying each other.

am i the only one getting tired of broad stereotypes being used ALL the time to define why any one of us choose to do anything?? not a dig at you Strate btw, just an overall question....guess i'm 'in a mood' right now...

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

Value judgements apart it is just as natural for a straight guy to feel repulsed by man-on-man action as it is for a gay guy to be attracted by it. It is not a CHOICE anybody makes.

That natural repulsion It is undoubtedly the underlying drive behind the persection of homosexuals through the ages and in unenlightened societies today. The difference in our society is that no negative value is (should be) inferred by this feeling of "repulsion". AND most straight people even slightly broadminded (read "liberal") soon find that the repulsion wears off, -through desensitisation.

Flame if you must but its a fact of nature.

The reason for the perceived prejudice of against MMF as opposed to FFM is obvious. When you watch you subconsciously feel what it is like. The straight guy watching two women have sex gets to feel what it is like to be the woman with her face in the other womans crotch, which is very arousing to him. Any guy on guy contact is off-putting. There are more straight people that gay so FFM would be more popular.

Plus, -a lot of straight guys are put off by anal sex of any kind.

Flame ? Seriously, if I was flaming someone you'd know about it. I was referring to Nekoman's seeming trend in dubiously homophobic posts, you can call that flaming if you want, I'm not that bothered.


This innate repulsion of yours is purely cultural, there are numerous cultures in which this repulsion does not exist. You make too many presumptions i.e. about things like "our society", who's society are you talking about ? And what constitutes unenlightened culture in your opinion ? Plenty of traditional cultures have no problem with homosexuality at all, in fact permissiveness of sexual heterogeneity is unconfined to technologically advanced societies.

Oh and there are plenty of gay people who aren't that crazy about butt sex either.

 

[Lex]

When I thought I was straight, I never understood lesbian scenes in straight porn. I figured, hell, if the girls like each other, they probably don't want dick. I always hit fast forward. It was wasted VHS tape as far as I was concerned.

And, as someone who has done MFM, MMF, MFMF, MMM, MMMM, MMMMM (and more) over the course of my life, I can say that being a guy and being in a three or moresome with guys is infinitely LESS work than when girls are included (because you can be both penetrator and/or penetratee with the usual oral and tactile stuff on top to boot).

I do know straight men who find all anal sex to be gay (even men fucking women) and, of course, I know straight men who find lesbianism to be cute and shiek and erotic. Guys in that category have been as socially hypnotized as anyone else.

Girls have caught onto this and, in bars, you will see girls being more "lesbian-like" in PDAs if for no other reason than to catch guys' attention.

These infinite double standards are tiresome. People like what they like. As long as it is between consenting adults, people should keep their personal judgments to themselves.

What ever happened to happy?

 

[Astrate]

This innate repulsion of yours is purely cultural, there are numerous cultures in which this repulsion does not exist.

The aversion is the natural state. Where this repulsion does "not exist" desensitisation has occurred as part of socialisation.

You make too many presumptions i.e. about things like "our society", who's society are you talking about ? And what constitutes unenlightened culture in your opinion ? Plenty of traditional cultures have no problem with homosexuality at all, in fact permissiveness of sexual heterogeneity is unconfined to technologically advanced societies.

By "our society" I mean 21stC Western society, founded on the Enlightenment, and the basic recognition of universal human rights. Some other societies still persecute and execute people for being gay. Yes there are cultures where homosexuality is accepted, but as a tradition, not because of the recognition of rights.

 

[Drifterwood]

Flame if you must but its a fact of nature.

I have no interest in flaming.

But, I will say that you are completely wrong.

It is a fact of nurture; not nature.

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

The aversion is the natural state. Where this repulsion does "not exist" desensitisation has occurred as part of socialisation.

That is your opinion, not fact. Nor is it an opinion which is based on any particular evidence worth the name. Indeed there is plenty of evidence to the contrary but I suspect it is pointless to digress in this thread any further on the matter.

By "our society" I mean 21stC Western society, founded on the Enlightenment, and the basic recognition of universal human rights. Some other societies still persecute and execute people for being gay. Yes there are cultures where homosexuality is accepted, but as a tradition, not because of the recognition of rights.

This society of yours does not exist. The term "western" is highly dubious, and what you mean by basic recognition of universal human rights is perfectly opaque, since human rights are understood differently and applied differently in almost all countries around the world. You keep making wilder and wilder generalisations none of which fit actual facts or represent any kind of informed position.

 

[ruffboy]

The aversion is the natural state. Where this repulsion does "not exist" desensitisation has occurred as part of socialisation.

aversion is not the natural state. the human being is an animal life form like every other animal life form. look around at every other animal on this planet and you'll see plenty of 'homosexual' sex acts. drive by any pasture and take in the scene of a female cow humping another female, see male dogs trying to do each other, its absolutely undeniable. BISEXUALITY is the only thing anyone could claim to be the 'natural state' and its a fact that it is the creation of social norms as well as basic personal preference/choice (be it something you're born feeling or a concious desicion) in human beings which supress this natural urge.

 

[Astrate]

The evidence from twins studies shows that the variance in attitude towards same sex relations depends on heritable factors for around 50% and on environmental factors for 50%. This for adults of all sexual orientations, so the figure is likely to be higher for heterosexuals. “Heritable” is not necessarily “genetic”, but includes all non-nurture factors and represents innateness. ("Variance" means the average difference between members of the group. I.e. for some individuals it could be 100% nurture and others 100% nature, or anything in between).

This strongly suggests that this attitude, like most attitudes and behavioural patterns that humans take into adulthood, has an innate basis, modifiable to a variable degree by nurture.

If same-sex attraction was a consequence of conditioning there should be some response to re-conditioning. The evidence is overwhelmingly against this (despite the best efforts from the conservative Christianity and their attempts to provide evidence of a "cure" for what some perceive as a "disorder" and others as a "choice"). Why should it be much different for same-sex aversion.

That is your opinion, not fact. Nor is it an opinion which is based on any particular evidence worth the name. Indeed there is plenty of evidence to the contrary but I suspect it is pointless to digress in this thread any further on the matter.

It's not a digression. It provides an answer to the OP

This society of yours does not exist. The term "western" is highly dubious, and what you mean by basic recognition of universal human rights is perfectly opaque, since human rights are understood differently and applied differently in almost all countries around the world. You keep making wilder and wilder generalisations none of which fit actual facts or represent any kind of informed position.

You deny the development of a post-Enlightenment Western civilisation based on the rights of the individual, formalised by the post WWII UN Declaration of Human Rights, increasingly backed by judiciary such as the European Court of Human rights. Granted local cultures in the West vary in the degree to which this is applied in attitude and practice, but the principle exists, with increasingly unifrom application.
A stark illustration of the different directions societies have taken: in the UK it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. In Iran they execute homosexuals.

 

[Astrate]

BISEXUALITY is the only thing anyone could claim to be the 'natural state' and its a fact that it is the creation of social norms as well as basic personal preference/choice (be it something you're born feeling or a concious desicion) in human beings which supress this natural urge.

That is against the evidence, and in fact as a trait would very soon have been selected out. Sexual orientation with a genetic basis -genes for all orientations present in all individuals, where expression of orientation is triggered by an enviromental factor -say the number of males present in the group at some point in infancy (but not through socialisation or "nurture"), would be adaptive.

 

[B_Stronzo]

Lex's post has managed to get to the core of what I'm trying to get across. Bravo. Allow me, if you would, to add my two cents;

When I thought I was straight, I never understood lesbian scenes in straight porn. I figured, hell, if the girls like each other, they probably don't want dick. I always hit fast forward. It was wasted VHS tape as far as I was concerned.

I do/did the same thing.... 'wasted tape' (but to reinforce my premise to other posters it's my individual sexual orientation I'm espousing here). It's never occurred to me once to say "oh that's repulsive" when seeing two women going at it in a female on female porn flick. Reason? To each his or her own. Don't like it? Just move along. JUST DON'T IMPOSE YOUR (the collective your) PREFERENCES AS IF THEY WERE THE SOLE SOCIETAL NORM.

And, as someone who has done MFM, MMF, MFMF, MMM, MMMM, MMMMM (and more) over the course of my life, I can say that being a guy and being in a three or moresome with guys is infinitely LESS work than when girls are included

Agreed. Similar experience here. But I can add MMMMM I'm happy to report...

I do know straight men who find all anal sex to be gay (even men fucking women) and, of course, I know straight men who find lesbianism to be cute and shiek and erotic. Guys in that category have been as socially hypnotized as anyone else.

You've gotten to the very foundation of why I posed these questions to this diverse audience. I'll add that not only have these guys been 'socially hynotized' as you so pointedly put it but also we find many women have been heirarchically hoodwinked by those who appear to set the sexual double standard. It's precisley to that phenomenon that I take singular exception.

Girls have caught onto this and, in bars, you will see girls being more "lesbian-like" in PDAs if for no other reason than to catch guys' attention.

BINGO! Being a big mo... straight women confide in me and what you've just written is truth itself and without exception when questioned each girl/woman has said they have zero bisexual tendancies.

This is the shit I'm talking about. Here's to the the Women's Movement Gloria Steinem ... Women? WOMEN!! Stop letting others dictate your sexual behavior any more than confident gay men do. Have we learned nothing?

These infinite double standards are tiresome.

.... not to say inexcusable, arrogant, and maddening.

People like what they like. As long as it is between consenting adults, people should keep their perrsonal judgments judgments to themselves.

Indeed. Spread the word. I know I'm doing my best to.

What ever happened to happy?

Once upon a time heterosexual men decided human sexuality was solely jurisdiction. It's been a subliminal given for too long.

Last night while glaring at the tube I watched on a network sitcom two comely lasses kissing simply for the benefit of the man they knew was about to enter the room. I dare say had it been a comely lass entering the room to encounter two men doing same the network would never have broadcast the scene.

Thanks for weighing in.

Oh and there are plenty of gay people who aren't that crazy about butt sex either.

- raises hand in order to be included in said group....

This innate repulsion of yours is purely cultural

Yes. This is the very arrogance, so duly noted in the theme of yours posts, that prompted me to author this thread.

Thanks.

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

strate[/LEFT];2498716] The evidence from twins studies shows that the variance in attitude towards same sex relations depends on heritable factors for around 50% and on environmental factors for 50%. This for adults of all sexual orientations, so the figure is likely to be higher for heterosexuals. “Heritable” is not necessarily “genetic”, but includes all non-nurture factors and represents innateness. ("Variance" means the average difference between members of the group. I.e. for some individuals it could be 100% nurture and others 100% nature, or anything in between).

This strongly suggests that this attitude, like most attitudes and behavioural patterns that humans take into adulthood, has an innate basis, modifiable to a variable degree by nurture.

This is more of this heritability of yours, you can choose to believe the wild and frankly unscientific presumptions it makes if you wish but presenting it as fact is specious.

strate[/LEFT];2498716]If same-sex attraction was a consequence of conditioning there should be some response to re-conditioning. The evidence is overwhelmingly against this (despite the best efforts from the conservative Christianity and their attempts to provide evidence of a "cure" for what some perceive as a "disorder" and others as a "choice"). Why should it be much different for same-sex aversion.

Aversion is not the same attraction, it's causes need not be the same.

strate[/LEFT];2498716]uniform You deny the development of a post-Enlightenment Western civilisation based on the rights of the individual, formalised by the post WWII UN Declaration of Human Rights, increasingly backed by judiciary such as the European Court of Human rights. Granted local cultures in the West vary in the degree to which this is applied in attitude and practice, but the principle exists, with increasingly application.
A stark illustration of the different directions societies have taken: in the UK it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. In Iran they execute homosexuals.

I think much of the developed world has developed a mythology which congratulates itself that it is more civilised and more humane than the rest of the world. Parts of the myth are based on reality other parts are not.

An even starker illustration of this mythologising is that in spite of this so called enlightenment culture of yours it has taken hundreds of years for the issue of rights for the inter-sexed and

transsexual to be brought to the fore whereas Indonesia and Malaysia (both majority Muslim countries) and much of south east Asia recognised many hundreds of years ago the existence of other forms of sex than the purely feminine and purely masculine archetypes and normalised them as part of society.
​

Homosexuality has no history of persecution among most pre-industrial south American societies, nor is it persecuted in the remote tribal societies of Papua. Evidence for persecution of homosexuals in a variety of east Asian societies before the current era is lacking also. There is no evidence that homosexuality was persecuted in a wide variety of archaeologically attested civilisations from around the world. The history of persecution of homosexuality is indeed a widespread one and of an epic scale and with a mere superficial glance might appear to be universal. However to presume so implies a set of cultural biases which amounts to chauvinism and shows a lack of subtlety of perception.

However the places in which homosexuality has been persecuted the very worst are those areas of the world in which the Abrahamic religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam, have become dominant, which includes the oh so "civilised" Europe and North America. It is only in the last few decades that Europe and the US (though even the US only unwillingly and in fits and starts) has begun to try to undo the harm that 1500 years or so of vicious religious beliefs have caused leading to the human rights cultures in those places of today. Where was the enlightenment regard for humanity you tout during the Shoah ? Or during the first world war or any number of the grotesque conflicts and persecutions and atrocities which Europeans and their former colonies have been involved in since the 18th century ?


Sorry about the underlinings et.c. my evil spellcheck at work again.

 

[Lex]

This is an important topic and I think Adam Lambert really put it on the map with his performance. The reaction was as lame as it was priceless: "OMG--Adam pushed a guy's face in his crotch!" Well, did we all see Janet do the same thing during her opening performance when she did he old dances from "If"? You know the sequence where she reaches and grabs the guy's crotch from behind, throws him to the floor by said crotch, picks him up, then mashes her pussy in his face! (Oh, the stuff of which jock dreams are made!).

Strate - if you indeed a new member, you are finding very quickly that although this is a site full of sexual matters, there are enlightened thinkers here who will not tolerate your ignorance. Aren't there any homophobic support groups where at you can talk about cock?

Hilly-- as usual, you rock.

I'll probably have more to say after I shovel off the 10" of snow outside my house (with 14-16" more to come).

 

[B_cigarbabe]

I prefer mfm (but the guys have to be straight)

Why do the guys have to be straight?
You really think most men are going to tell you upfront if they're bisexual?
I don't particularly like str8 men unless they happen to be
Drifterwood or Tripod or Big Bull!
Which only means they are knowledgeable about themselves
the world and their own sexuality.
What Tripod, Stronzo,Hilaire and Lex have said are dead on.
I'm summarizing here, The double standards are just so cruel and insane.
It makes no sense what so ever for "women on women" sex to be tolerated
but if it's men on men "OMFG Heather!"
That is soooo gross!
Bullshit!
C.B.:saevil:

 

[NotSoDumb_Blonde]

I love this post. I've often wondered this myself, I assumed (yeah, I know what that makes me) that men liked the ego boost. Two women for one man = super man?

I much prefer the fantasy of two men, MFM or even hotter, MMF. If you look at some of the romance/erotic epublishers out there, this is the hot thing. That and MM. Women obviously like the MM or MMF or MFM, since they sell like hot cakes. Ellora's Cave, Loose ID and so on have pages and pages of ebooks loaded with menages, none are MMF.

For men? I still think it's an ego thing and perhaps a bit like watching porn right there in live techno color. But I have to wonder, what if the girls are more into themselves then the guy....what then?

As for anal, I think it's a mind thing -- sex is stimulated more there, I think, then where a woman/man is touched, stroked and so on. Maybe the forbidden too? Not sure on that one.

Great post btw!

 

[Drifterwood]

You are missing the point, Mr. Strate. Your orientation may well be nurture/nature, but your revulsion is pure nurture, and not a little augmented by your christian faith no doubt.

I have a question for the Mo's, big and little :smile:, if you are 90% and your partner 70% (or whatever), would you have a 3some with a woman?

 

[Drifterwood]

For men? I still think it's an ego thing and perhaps a bit like watching porn right there in live techno color. But I have to wonder, what if the girls are more into themselves then the guy....what then? !

I prefer group sex, if anything one on one can be more of an ego trip if it's purely sexual. In a good moresome, you are just part of the fun going on. Perhaps you just don't like the idea of men being liberated out of monogamy.

If the women are more into each other, then frankly it's boring. I have done ths twice, once when an Asian friend wanted to get it on with an African lover of mine and once when an American friend wanted to get it on with the Asian friend. I was the spare part after I had broken the ice.

 

[B_Stronzo]

I have a question for the Mo's, big and little :smile:, if you are 90% and your partner 70% (or whatever), would you have a 3some with a woman?

As for this 'big Mo'? :tongue:

In theory yes.

But I'm more inclined toward sex with the opposite sex than my partner. I think he's pretty much totally homosexual. He tried once to fuck a woman (aged sixteen) but he's got a pretty big wang and she said "pull it out!! I'll just blow you". No problem getting a boner... all the local girls wanted some cuz he's pretty to look at ... but his interest has always been in dicks.

Fuck I don't know. But that's what I love about human sexuality.. it's variables.

The reason I've no answer in the sexuality place here << is that it varies. For the most part I like dick. But I often pull up an exceptionally good straight porn video to have a posh wank.

I can say, without equivocation, that two overbearing men insulting one woman as they "double dip" makes me want to have the bastards locked away. That's not sex. It's ego and abuse purely.

If the women are more into each other, then frankly it's boring. I have done ths twice, once when an Asian friend wanted to get it on with an African lover of mine and once when an American friend wanted to get it on with the Asian friend. I was the spare part after I had broken the ice.

This is astute. For you BIG HET that you are :wink: to be that cognizant is pretty damned heartening.

 

[Lex]

...
I have a question for the Mo's, big and little :smile:, if you are 90% and your partner 70% (or whatever), would you have a 3some with a woman?

While it would not be a MMF in the purest sense, I could see, in the right environment and the right people, having a woman or women be a part of a leather scene in which I am participating. Here I am thinking more along the lines of voyeurism, some flogging perhaps, etc. No penetration.

But then, I am not repulsed by women. I think they are great and I can appreciate them.

 

[Astrate]

Strate - if you indeed a new member, you are finding very quickly that although this is a site full of sexual matters, there are enlightened thinkers here who will not tolerate your ignorance. Aren't there any homophobic support groups where at you can talk about cock?

You are missing the point, Mr. Strate. Your orientation may well be nurture/nature, but your revulsion is pure nurture, and not a little augmented by your christian faith no doubt.

LOL. I don&#8217;t have &#8220;Christian faith&#8221;, if anything I am a humanist. I am not revulsed by guy-on-guy sex and I don&#8217;t have a homophobic bone in my body (NOR do I think that is the same thing). I am simply fascinated by human nature and want to understand the genesis behind it. Further I want to understand phenomena of human nature like Mother Teresa, Nazi Germany/ Al Qaeda, sexual orientation, philanthropy, bigotry &#8211;including homophobia. I have read loads of books, studies, other literature and have observed people over many years.

I&#8217;ve noted the shift over the past 25 years from the assumptions made by Freudians and Behaviourists to notions based on objective evidence. I have found the latter increasingly compelling, and have concluded that the nurture assumption just doesn&#8217;t cut it, despite the fact that it is stuck as a mantra in public perception, -like a religious belief.

You guys resent my opinion that aversion to homosexual activity is natural amongst heterosexuals rather than cultural acquisition or choice, because it means you feel it would absolve homophobes of responsibility for their attitude. This is mistaken on three counts.

1. Having an opinion on the origin of the aversion does not mean that I hold it myself.

2. Aversion is not the same as homophobia. The latter is aversion + bigotry or dogma.

3. Any person is responsible for their own attitude and is culpable for their behaviour, no matter what the origin.


I am simply seeking to explain obvious discrimination between MFF and MMF on mainstream TV in terms of human nature with an informed opinion. Hopefully you can disagree with the opinion without making unfounded inferences.


Edit: But I'm on this site primarily to compare cock and surrounding issues