Serious Questions for the straight guys..

Lex

Expert Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2004
Posts
8,253
Media
0
Likes
118
Points
268
Location
In Your Darkest Thoughts and Dreams
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
...

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.

I made one comment towards you and now you profess to know/understand my opinions towards you or something you wrote? I would not have even registered your presence if not for Drifter and Hilly responding to your nonsense. I read your comments in their posts, not in yours.



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

That's not what your post history reveals.

Next.
 

B_Stronzo

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2005
Posts
4,588
Media
0
Likes
140
Points
183
Location
Plimoth Plantation
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
strate said:
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.

If by mainstream you mean run-of-the-mill thought you nailed it. You illustrate my point to a "t". Yes. "an uninformed opinion". But you're forgetting that very 'uninformed opinion' is, in my view, deliberately orchestrated and promoted by the heterosexual men in this society.

There's nothing 'unfounded' in bringing to the fore the inequities of what heterosexual men dictate we all do sexually. It's obnoxious, unrealistic, and audacious. I say foul.

I think what struck me and several other posters strate about your view was your immediate use of the word 'repulsive'. Repulsivity is person-specific. And you appear to be intimating that if the general populace finds it "repulsive" (since it doesn't conform to hetero male sexual mores) then it should somehow be understood and excused.

No way.
 

Sergeant_Torpedo

Experimental Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2006
Posts
1,348
Media
0
Likes
23
Points
183
Location
UK
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Impotent men and men afraid of women resort to lesbian pornography for complex reasons. Powerful men often fall into this group, tv and movie producers and directors will pander to their own interests, even if of no contribution to the story being told.

Even for str8 men gay porn is usually more realistic, therefore intimidating, than watching bad actresses playing at lesbians. Lesbian sex for men is safe!
 

Drifterwood

Superior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2007
Posts
18,678
Media
0
Likes
2,815
Points
333
Location
Greece
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.

Bollocks. There you go again telling people what they think. :rolleyes:

Lots of things that you are not familiar with and that are outside your culture may "revile" you, even without the help of that culture demonising it.

I have eaten plenty of things that might make you sick. :eek::biggrin1:
 

Astrate

Just Browsing
Joined
Dec 5, 2009
Posts
85
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
41
Location
UK
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
Lots of things that you are not familiar with and that are outside your culture may "revile" you, even without the help of that culture demonising it.

I have eaten plenty of things that might make you sick. :eek::biggrin1:
Precisely. Don't you think that "familiarisation" in many cases is a desensitisation of natural aversion.
 

Astrate

Just Browsing
Joined
Dec 5, 2009
Posts
85
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
41
Location
UK
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
There's nothing 'unfounded' in bringing to the fore the inequities of what heterosexual men dictate we all do sexually. It's obnoxious, unrealistic, and audacious. I say foul.

I think what struck me and several other posters strate about your view was your immediate use of the word 'repulsive'. Repulsivity is person-specific. And you appear to be intimating that if the general populace finds it "repulsive" (since it doesn't conform to hetero male sexual mores) then it should somehow be understood and excused.
There are heterosexual men around who moralise and do exactly what you say. But what you see on TV is purely aimed at maximising viewing figures: it is catering to popular taste. That’s what this is about: taste, nothing to do with nonconformity to hetero mores. There’s no moralising or dictating in this. More people like MFF than MMF, that’s all: by far the majority of heterosexuals are not homophobic but find male-on-male contact unpleasant. In my opinion that is not a learnt distaste and they will never find it attractive, that is my argument.

Most heterosexual men also have a distaste for heterosexual anal intercourse. Many people who loose their libido after middle age find sex of all kinds distasteful and switch off any programs with any sex in it.

You can argue that in some sections of society the natural distaste/aversion of same-sex contact is then reinforced by moralising you are undoubtedly right, but not as much as it used to be. Reserve your spleen for people that add value judgments to any aversion they feel, but that is a minority.
 

Astrate

Just Browsing
Joined
Dec 5, 2009
Posts
85
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
41
Location
UK
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
No, it's its own normality. Why can't you see that?
What I see is that humans are born with certain natural aversions.

Many tastes are easily acquired from culture through canalised development, e.g. the taste for meat and honey. Other tastes are much harder to acquire and need to go through a desensitisation during socialisation, e.g. for maggots -which are instictively linked to decay (sic), or snakes -which are instinctively linked to danger
 
Last edited:

B_Stronzo

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2005
Posts
4,588
Media
0
Likes
140
Points
183
Location
Plimoth Plantation
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
Most heterosexual men also have a distaste for heterosexual anal intercourse.

I don't necessarily think that's true. Most heterosexual men have an aversion or 'distaste' for gay men having anal intercourse. It's fine for heterosexual men and women to engage. Double standard.

That's as plain as I can make my premise strate.

But what you see on TV is purely aimed at maximising viewing figures: it is catering to popular taste. That’s what this is about: taste, nothing to do with nonconformity to hetero mores.

As Drifterwood says "Bollocks". It's about control. Nothing more, nothing less.

strate said:
]What I see is that humans are born with certain natural aversions.

You cannot actually believe that can you - especially when it comes to sexuality?


Reserve your spleen for people that add value judgments to any aversion they feel, but that is a minority.

Minority? On which planet do you reside pray tell?
 
Last edited:

Drifterwood

Superior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2007
Posts
18,678
Media
0
Likes
2,815
Points
333
Location
Greece
What I see is that humans are born with certain natural aversions.

So, in effect, you are saying that humans have an instinctive aversion to homosexuals in the same way that we are thought to have an intrinsic knowledge of the danger of snakes and spiders and threatening facial expressions.

The logic for this to be true would have to be part of our evolution, we would have to see that Daddy kissing another man was a threat to our survival. If you can find evidence to support this, I would be very interested. We all needed mummy and daddy to fuck, but as far as I am aware, children brought up by same sex partners are not in constant trauma.
 
Last edited:

Astrate

Just Browsing
Joined
Dec 5, 2009
Posts
85
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
41
Location
UK
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
So, in effect, you are saying that humans have an instinctive aversion to homosexuals in the same way that we are thought to have an intrinsic knowledge of the danger of snakes and spiders and threatening facial expressions.

The logic for this to be true would have to be part of our evolution, we would have to see that Daddy kissing another man was a threat to our survival. If you can find evidence to support this, I would be very interested. We all needed mummy and daddy to fuck, but as far as I am aware, children brought up by same sex partners are not in constant trauma.
That’s not how the aversion would have evolved because it would work at group level, whereas aversion to snakes works at individual level. (And it’s nothing to do with kids because sexual attractions and aversions do not develop until the early teens when the genes that control sex hormones are expressed, and that sexual orientation begins to be discerned).

Homosexuality is a normal aspect of humanity and would be adaptive at group level (at present we can only hypothesise how that is adaptive) and the aversion would have evolved in parallel as a check-and-balance substrate.

Many evolved traits that drive human behaviour are coupled with other traits, all working at group level. E.g. unconditional altruism does not benefit the individual but helps the group to survive, and hence the individuals’ genes. However, on its own this altruism gene (or gene complex) would obviously die out within the group, but if coupled with other drives like guilt in potential freeloaders, and sense of fairness with anger at injustice, the trait of unconditional altruism can survive and be adaptive for the group.

There’s not doubt that, like many instinctive likes and dislikes, the aversion is modifiable through social learning. It can wear off through desensitisation through exposure in a “liberal” setting. Or can be reinforced in communities where homosexuals are regarded as an outgroup and demonised, -hence overt homophobia is a social construct (a meme).


Let's be clear that just because a trait is adaptive in evolutionary terms does not mean it is moral or “good” or “right” in today’s setting.

And explanations are not the same as justifications.
 

D_Tim McGnaw

Account Disabled
Joined
Aug 30, 2009
Posts
5,420
Media
0
Likes
111
Points
133
What I see is that humans are born with certain natural aversions.

Many tastes are easily acquired from culture through canalised development, e.g. the taste for meat and honey. Other tastes are much harder to acquire and need to go through a desensitisation during socialisation, e.g. for maggots -which are instictively linked to decay (sic), or snakes -which are instinctively linked to danger


Rubbish, there is no evidence that snake meat is harder to desensitise an infant to than vegetables. Vegetables being the one instinctive aversion we do know human infants have, there being a far greater number of poisonous plants than there are dangerous animals.

In any event aversions which are instictive for survival bear no comparison with aversions which are purely cultural and have no value as survival mechanisms.
 

Astrate

Just Browsing
Joined
Dec 5, 2009
Posts
85
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
41
Location
UK
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
Rubbish, there is no evidence that snake meat is harder to desensitise an infant to than vegetables. Vegetables being the one instinctive aversion we do know human infants have, there being a far greater number of poisonous plants than there are dangerous animals.
OK. Bad example; the instinctive fear is linked to the snake as predator not as food.


In any event aversions which are instictive for survival bear no comparison with aversions which are purely cultural and have no value as survival mechanisms.
Many memes are adaptive at group level, including aversions.


Even the culturally acquired homophobia would be adaptive in certain societies. For example, a in warrior tribe trying to establish itself amongst rival tribes, any meme that encouraged optimum procreation would be adaptive. So if a moral code was established as religious doctrine, enshrined in scripture, that outlawed the “spilling of seed” (contraception) and homosexual activity, this would be rapidly adaptive. Such a code can find its way to a different society and survive even where it is not adaptive, if that scripture was adopted whole and interpreted literally as a religious construct.

In fact, in this day and age the opposite is true. With population outstripping resources, a meme (cultural construct)that entailed the celebration of gay sex worldwide and supported gay relationships would be adaptive
 
Last edited:

mako shark

Superior Member
Joined
May 8, 2009
Posts
4,280
Media
2
Likes
2,787
Points
358
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
I am one of just a few straight guys that actually is not turned on by two women getting it on, I actually think that it is pretty gross. However if there are two women giving yours truly all the attention that is perfectly fine! I've asked a lot of my friends and they all admit liking women get it on???
 

B_Stronzo

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2005
Posts
4,588
Media
0
Likes
140
Points
183
Location
Plimoth Plantation
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
So if a moral code was established as religious doctrine, enshrined in scripture, that outlawed the “spilling of seed” (contraception) and homosexual activity, this would be rapidly adaptive.

This is the only piece of your wordy post that has any cohesion to it and to which I can respond in any direct manner. The rest is just gibberish.

All right; again you miss the point of the thread strate.

For the third time I'm getting at the genesis of your so-called 'moral code' and the culprits behind it. That you appear unwilling or unable to address.



Such a code can find its way to a different society and survive even where it is not adaptive, if that scripture was adopted whole and interpreted literally as a religious construct.

By whom? Mindless bleating sheep?



In fact, in this day and age the opposite is true. With population outstripping resources, a meme (cultural construct)that entailed the celebration of gay sex worldwide and supported gay relationships would be adaptive

I detect a bit of Armageddon in your turn of phrase.

The population isn't 'outstripping' resources. It's abusing them.

And what on earth does 'the celebration of gay sex worldwide' (as if that's a reality!) have to do with the topic at hand?

My sense is that you're terribly young and subliminally mainstreamed by a largely homphobic society.

Interesting username ...:wink:
 

Drifterwood

Superior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2007
Posts
18,678
Media
0
Likes
2,815
Points
333
Location
Greece
And explanations are not the same as justifications.

If you had grown up in a culture in which male need for sex before marriage was dealt with within a homosexual environment, you would not think as you do. You would find it normal. Because it is.

Why some men are homosexual, I don't know, personally I have this thing for hot wet hungry pussy and wobblyier bottoms, but what do I know.

Perhaps you also theorise that we (str8 christian honkies) are evolutionarily disposed to hate Negros, Jews, Muslims, Women, Commies and disabled people.

I asked you to support your argument. You did not. So, FOAD qnt. :cool:
 
Last edited:

Incocknito

Sexy Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2009
Posts
2,480
Media
0
Likes
68
Points
133
Location
La monde
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Not really into lesbians myself. My fantasy involves more two girls that are playing with me rather than with themselves.

Particularly the idea of being pleasured by one girl and then being walked in on, perhaps by her friend and the two of them showing their "appreciation" is very...appealing.

Of course, if two girls started masturbating each other in front of me, I wouldn't turn away in disgust.

I think that the MFF is more common than the MMF on TV because it is in real life as well?

Then again, I'm not very knowledgeable on threesomes.

If you are wondering why homosexual acts aren't common on TV I think its because statistically they are not that common. Given that around 10% of people are homosexual.

Therefore only 10% of the audience wants to see homosexuality. Because TV caters to the masses, there will be a lot more heterosexual-oriented programming.
 

Opalite

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Posts
1,115
Media
0
Likes
16
Points
123
Location
At home
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Female
First off, I confess to not having read all posts because I'm online on my phone, and It's agonizingly slow tonight. I'll make sure I read them all later though, pinky promice :tongue:

As for the threesome arguement, I've always found that fascinating! I do not believe there's 'one right answer' to the question 'why?' though, but it's interesting to ponder over.

I always figured an explanation why lesbian sex and mff threesomes were so loved by straight guys (and lots of gay men and straight/bi/lesbian ladies too) is that there has always been somewhat of a focus on the female body - be it in the media, art.. Anything. The round shapes of a female body are often seen as sexy, an art in itself. Something to look at and admire. The male body, however seems to be admired for other reasons by the mass; strength, power, abilities. It is seen as pretty because of it's purpose - not purely and solely for the aesthetics. While a female body in general can be beatiful by itself, the male body is often looked upon for it's qualities. Like one would have to account for even admiring it. I hope this makes any sense!

I'm not saying these are my personal views and I could have interpreted it completely wrong. But hypotheticly, it could explain why lesbian and mff sex is looked upon as sexy instead of posing a thread (be it to ones sexuallity, relationship or the chance of finding a partner in general): the enjoyment and adoration of anything female is nearly considered 'normal' because it doesn't need explanation or haveto be sexual. It has been excepted to be beautifull either way, so doesn't nescesairy have to be linked to partnership and 'finding a mate. Maybe you could say It's 'not sex'-sex. Think about it: while 'gay' discribes both male and female same-sex sexuality, we found it nescesairy to lovingly find a specific name for female same-sex sexuality (lesbian), as if it would be different from the general idea of what is gay. To pretty it up, perhaps.

Then gay sex and even mmf threesomes could pose a thread, seeing the male physicque is loved for it's abillities and qualities. Seeing those can obviously vary, but it's a lot more specific. Like a large penis for an example: directly linked to sexuality! It suddenly becomes a lot more personal, because it would actually say something about a personal preference (the preferance of said specific feature, not nescesarily the preferance of men).

Eventhough that would sound like a lame excuse and a bit crazy even (and it can still be), it could be why anything involving more then one guy seems to be less excepted: It's merely prudeness, because it would involve us reflecting on our sexual preferances.. Which simply still aparanty 'not done'. We're afraid of our society thinking we don't fit the norm, we're affraid of beeing judged. (a norm we would find out to be anything but consistant WOULD we actually be open and honest about it - we peoplez are silly creatures, are we not?).


That all beeing said, I personally think the male body is just as much a piece of art as the female body. Human anatomy is just beatifull for both it's simplicity and complexities. Sadly, these views seem not to be commonly accepted in the purest form.

As far as threesomes go, I've had my fair share so to say. I've noticed mff usually doesn't work for me: for me personally, sex with another lady is a totally different experiece than sex with a man. And eventhough I love both, I mostly prefer them by itself. I tend to feel I can either focus on having sex with the lady OR the guy.. If I try both, it seems I lose that focus for either. There have been exceptions where it felt differently, where it seemed to just 'click'. But generally, they're not my preferance.

In my experience mmf threesomes with bi-guys are a lot 'easier', seeing the experience of both sexual partners for me is the same (in it's basics I think of my experiences with ladies as primarily erotic, sex with a man is more about lust). I love bi(curious) guys personally, because in a threesome I prefer it actually beeing sex among three people, rather than two people having sex with one. And ofcourse there are plenty of exceptions with this too, these kinds of threesomes for me tend to be less 'complicated' as far as dividing my attention goes, or atleast I don't catch myself worrying about it... For me is a lot more enjoyable when you feel free to do whatever and just totally give in to the moment.

Gay sex between two men alone, I find just as sexy and fascinating as between two ladies.. Perhaps even more! The fact that I can't play along 'cuz of the lack of penis only adds to the mystery of it. I love watching gayporn because of that mystery. Lesbian porn on the other hand, not so much.


All in all, I think the general idea of mff and lesbian sex are more often generally excepted, because it isn't accepted to question that statement. It feels 'safer' not to, because the time we live in is still a lot more prudish than we'd like to believe. We're still a bit weary about actually thinking past the one m/f sexual position we have been thought is the most 'normal' or 'right', and embracing that we primarly are; sexual beeings. And that sexuality doesn't have any boundries in itself but the ones we create.

(I know I must have repeated myself over and over, perhaps only talked pure nonsence. But I'm too drunk to care. I wouldn't rule out the possibility of me beeing very ashamed in the morning, though.) :tongue: :biggrin1:
 

B_Stronzo

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2005
Posts
4,588
Media
0
Likes
140
Points
183
Location
Plimoth Plantation
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
Katt said:
The male body, however seems to be admired for other reasons by the mass; strength, power, abilities. It is seen as pretty because of it's purpose - not purely and solely for the aesthetics.

Chat with some gay men Katt. You'll find we see the form (think Michelangelo's David) of the male body as graceful and beautiful from an aesthetic point of view as hetero men do the female body.

Nonetheless I enjoyed your perspective.

I'm sure most heterosexual men would agree with you.