Str8 guys hooking up at the gym.

[D_Ireonsyd_Colonrinse]

petetown: "Had a married guy who lived across the way from me in NYC....he's come over and suck me and play with my ass....he never came...told me that he "Saves it for the wife." Guess she would get quite the fucking after!!!"

----------


What's weird is - we all as individual americans have these stories about exploring our sexuality (sex with married men/women, threesomes, foursomes, sex on the beach, sex with a classmate after beer and pot, exploring porn, weird fantasies in our heads) yet somehow the U.S. is still a really repressive country - ie the religious right condemning condoms & premarital sex ("abstinence only!", "life begins at conception!") , our film industry where any indication of actual sexual penetration (especially m/m) is automatically slapped with a hard R or NC-17, a society that shoots down political propositions for legalized prostitution, gay marriage, sometimes even stem cell research.

Why is America so freaking frigging repressed? We make healthy casual sex encounters dirty here by filling our heads with all the fear-of-sex junk that's taught as early as 3 & 4 & 5 years old. Your story about the married guy stopping over to give a quick bj and a little ass-play - but "saves it for the wife" - that's much closer to the America I know than the other official one we see on primetime tv.

 

[jacero10]

I dont think that America is either repressed or obsessed. I think it is just about right. Basically, American like their sex in private and anything goes there. But public displays of what belongs in private really arent too cool. Now I have had my share of public sex, but it was risky and risk is what I was after. I dont really wanna see other people who are moslty ugly having sex in public places.

As for religious people, well that is their religion. America was founded for freedom of religion and freedom of tyrrany. Of course the tyrrany of the era was the religious tyrrany of the English crown. So, it is all of a piece.

My point is that I am not going to put people down for their religious views cause I dont want them to put me down for my views on sex. They get to vote. I get to vote. What's the problem? If you want to see sex in movies go to a movie that has sex in it. NC-17 isnt harsh, it just means it has graphic sex. Most dont want to see that in a theatre, but in their own home. What's the problem with that?

 

[EdWoody]

So, he smoked a joint, then decided after half an hour that he would suck only the tip of my cock, nothing beyond the head, because, as he explained, if he sucked me down my shaft "that would make me gay".

:laugh2::lmao::rofl:

That's hilarious! Honestly, the convolutions and justifications some men will put themselves through just to maintain their self-image never cease to amaze me.

 

[D_Ireonsyd_Colonrinse]

Jace (jason?):

Here's my beef. By nature, I'm a live-and-let-live do-your-own-thing kind of guy. I try to remain open to all experiences, I believe in personal freedom and personal responsibility.

You've described your sexual behaviour as "post-gay", I believe, in the past. You hook up, you get sexual activities done TO you (consensually), and give nothing back in return. That's your "ground rules"; everyone knows what time it is; got it.

When I was a teenager I remember hanging around in a bookstore drinking coffee (I was a nerd) and finally getting up the nerve to go to the "gay studies" section.... I found a book on gay history. In the 1960's, when gay sex was still pretty much illegal in most states, gay men used to go down to the piers and docks of NYC prowling for dick and "service" straight sailors. The sailors wanted head, the gay men gave it to them, all done furtively in the night. No recip sex. (occasionally these sailors would beat up the gays, too, as attitudes were different back in those Dark Ages).

Isn't that "post-gay" behaviour also? Aside from a little violence breaking out here and there, the same deals were worked out: Suck me off, you get what you want, I get what I want, everybody goes home happy. But something strikes me as absolutely regressive - not PROgressive - about you-service-me-and-I-do-nothing-in-return sex. The whole idea of gay men desiring straight cock so much that they are willing to put their own sexual gratifications on hold (oh, yes! they "jack off" with you. big whoop) seems deviant. It doesn't foster a healthy, open-minded outlook towards sex.

I'm not just slamming you, J. I also taking issue with the gay guys who're so needy as to hunt for "straight" meat, giving oral satisfaction, but having to manually "jack off" on the side because he's not psychologically good enough to get his own dick sucked.

I don't mean to make a whole wicked dysfunctional psychodrama out of this, it's all in good fun, but there are serious over- and undertones to the psychology of your blowjobs.

 

[amygdala]

I think that any efforts to truly understand the psychology of sexual behavior is an exercise in futility. Sexual behavior is, quite often, base, autonomic and instinctual. That's why it's so hard to define - it simply doesn't lend itself to traditional, rational definitions about human behavior. It rarely fits into a neat little box and it certainly doesn't always make sense. I think this is especially true when speaking of, as here, merely getting off.

 

[ledroit]

This is subtle....str8 guys in the showers stay focused on their own bodies and aren't checking out the other guys. By being a little flashy and lingering they let guys know they are up for something. I dont look the guys up and down or stare at their dicks like they do mine. Other signals include licking lips. I guys looks back and forth from my eyes to dick and licks his lips, he's looking to suck dick big time. Guy who makes eye contact but keep washing his ass then turns and bends over to wash him knees or something want to get fucked. But the guy who looks back and forth from his own dick to the eyes of another dude is and kind of plays with himself while looking into the eyes of another is pretty much a "no recip, I'm not into you, suck my dick" kind of guy.

this is a riot, jace. that last thing is exactly what I do, and it works every time, even though I'm gay, not straight. these are universal signals.

I don't think it has so much to do with st8/gay as with "I want a relationship/Forget about relationships."

Guys need to be clear with each other. This includes being clear even in weird, non-verbal settings, like showers/saunas where you don't know anybody from adam. if you are subtle enough, and pay attention, you can figure it out. the straight guys who only want water get to go away happy and clean. the other guys who might enjoy a little dirt with their shower get to go away released. the final guys who might like to talk get a load off, the grunge off, and find something interesting on the other side of the dick.

I can see all of that studying and keen observation is paying off. Going to be a shock to some of those sucking to discover that something more than plums lies behind.

 

[jacero10]

Jace (jason?):

Here's my beef. By nature, I'm a live-and-let-live do-your-own-thing kind of guy. I try to remain open to all experiences, I believe in personal freedom and personal responsibility.

You've described your sexual behaviour as "post-gay", I believe, in the past. You hook up, you get sexual activities done TO you (consensually), and give nothing back in return. That's your "ground rules"; everyone knows what time it is; got it.

When I was a teenager I remember hanging around in a bookstore drinking coffee (I was a nerd) and finally getting up the nerve to go to the "gay studies" section.... I found a book on gay history. In the 1960's, when gay sex was still pretty much illegal in most states, gay men used to go down to the piers and docks of NYC prowling for dick and "service" straight sailors. The sailors wanted head, the gay men gave it to them, all done furtively in the night. No recip sex. (occasionally these sailors would beat up the gays, too, as attitudes were different back in those Dark Ages).

Isn't that "post-gay" behaviour also? Aside from a little violence breaking out here and there, the same deals were worked out: Suck me off, you get what you want, I get what I want, everybody goes home happy. But something strikes me as absolutely regressive - not PROgressive - about you-service-me-and-I-do-nothing-in-return sex. The whole idea of gay men desiring straight cock so much that they are willing to put their own sexual gratifications on hold (oh, yes! they "jack off" with you. big whoop) seems deviant. It doesn't foster a healthy, open-minded outlook towards sex.

I'm not just slamming you, J. I also taking issue with the gay guys who're so needy as to hunt for "straight" meat, giving oral satisfaction, but having to manually "jack off" on the side because he's not psychologically good enough to get his own dick sucked.

I don't mean to make a whole wicked dysfunctional psychodrama out of this, it's all in good fun, but there are serious over- and undertones to the psychology of your blowjobs.

I am not sure that what is post-gay about what I and others do is the sex part. Sex is sex and nothing has changed under the sun in that department. What makes it post-gay is that we no longer politicize the sex, or need to analyze ourselves using the categories invented by the gay community since 1968. Gay outlook and categories are a social/political construct that serve an ideology but dont do so well as actually describing human sexual behavior. I understand what you are saying. I am just not interested in what a third party thinks about what I do with men I find in the gym showers and other places. It is about liberation. The gay community forgot about that word. But, in reality the fact that some gay men get off on sucking straight dick just isn't anybody's business. Some people get off on sniffing shoes, some get off on str8 dick. Why moralize?

I never beat anybody up. Never even occurred to me, so I am not sure what 1950's NYC sailors has to do with me.

If you are going to go after guys who dont want recip, are you going after the subs in the bdsm scene? What about the guys who like to get peed on? How about the Bareback crowd. There are all kinds of ways gays, women, men can debase themselves, I suppose. But, the least of these to be concerned about, I would think, is a guy sucking dick without recip.

I guess I just don't see that there is an issue here. Is there?

 

[nineinchnail4u2c]

I guess I just don't see that there is an issue here. Is there?

Where have you been for 18 pages?

 

[jacero10]

Where have you been for 18 pages?

Nope, no issue here.

To paraphrase, you can keep your moralizing off my dick, thank you.

 

[ledroit]

I am not sure that what is post-gay about what I and others do is the sex part. Sex is sex and nothing has changed under the sun in that department. What makes it post-gay is that we no longer politicize the sex, or need to analyze ourselves using the categories invented by the gay community since 1968.
....
I guess I just don't see that there is an issue here. Is there?

jace, I don't see an issue, and I like your attitude. But about the "gay community" being in power and in control of sexual mores in 1968, well, I'm just not sure they were the ones setting the agenda, then or now. Gays at best are 10% of a population. Men who have sex with men are more than 10%, but if they don't politicize it, they aren't counted. Fine with me. I am in favor of de-regulated sex. Only the opinions of the two engaged in it really matters. I don't think how and with whom you have sex "counts" or should matter anyway on a larger social or political level, which is the point you are trying to make. But you should be more precise when you say things like this that attribute control and responsibility to a minority, recipient "class."

"Identity politics" was a fashion in the 60s. The GOP ran with it in the US, and turned it into branding. This kept them in power for 40 years. They used blacks more than gays, to be honest, but using both helped them raise funds and maintain power.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it takes 2 to tango when it comes to branding. You have to have the "brand-ables" but they can be anybody. What is far more important is the majority that is willing to brand these folks, whether they deserve the brand or not. To create the brand "liberals," for example, took not only some good salesmen on the right wing, but people willing to buy the brand, and use it to club people over the head with. Same thing happened earlier with communists. Before that we had jews, irish, catholics, and in the US, above all people with pigment rich and pigment impaired skin. What is interesting is the majority who were willing to use these brands and club people with it, or worse.

Majorities who buy into the brand are the ones who sustain its power, no matter where the brands come from. Straights who bought into branding "gays" since the 60s were far more responsible for the name and label than the unlucky (and often unwilling) recipients of the label and classification. If gays fight back, as people who either object to or revel in the brand (same goes for blacks), and on that basis, the opposition tries to make the branded class responsible for the brand itself, the contradictions become unsustainable. To straighten things out, you have to do some serious thinking about cause and effect, and distinguish drivers from reactors.

So of all the things you've said so far, this very peculiar claim (which to me sounds like ideology you picked up somewhere, probably uncritically) seems to be the one that might bear the most scutiny. Who in the world can possibly argue that "gays" were in power and in control of mores in 1968, any more than they (as a branded group) are in power now? Were these "gays" (a loathesome and feared, unorganized collectivity at the time) in fact a majority in the US in 1968? Are they a majority now, and I've just missed it?

If you are going to think about power, you have to think about scale and relations.

 

[nineinchnail4u2c]

Nope, no issue here.

To paraphrase, you can keep your moralizing off my dick, thank you.

Then keep it in your pants.

 

[jacero10]

Then keep it in your pants.

Do you know how weird that sounds. So, you are saying I need your approval to have sex? How strange, especially coming from a gay man.

I am not seeking your approval. I dont care for your silly arbitrary moralisms. The post-gay world is emerging precisely because we dont care what you or anybody else thinks. Just not relevant.

 

[jacero10]

jace, I don't see an issue, and I like your attitude. But about the "gay community" being in power and in control of sexual mores in 1968, well, I'm just not sure they were the ones setting the agenda, then or now. Gays at best are 10% of a population. Men who have sex with men are more than 10%, but if they don't politicize it, they aren't counted. Fine with me. I am in favor of de-regulated sex. Only the opinions of the two engaged in it really matters. I don't think how and with whom you have sex "counts" or should matter anyway on a larger social or political level, which is the point you are trying to make. But you should be more precise when you say things like this that attribute control and responsibility to a minority, recipient "class."

"Identity politics" was a fashion in the 60s. The GOP ran with it in the US, and turned it into branding. This kept them in power for 40 years. They used blacks more than gays, to be honest, but using both helped them raise funds and maintain power.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it takes 2 to tango when it comes to branding. You have to have the "brand-ables" but they can be anybody. What is far more important is the majority that is willing to brand these folks, whether they deserve the brand or not. To create the brand "liberals," for example, took not only some good salesmen on the right wing, but people willing to buy the brand, and use it to club people over the head with. Same thing happened earlier with communists. Before that we had jews, irish, catholics, and in the US, above all people with pigment rich and pigment impaired skin. What is interesting is the majority who were willing to use these brands and club people with it, or worse.

Majorities who buy into the brand are the ones who sustain its power, no matter where the brands come from. Straights who bought into branding "gays" since the 60s were far more responsible for the name and label than the unlucky (and often unwilling) recipients of the label and classification. If gays fight back, as people who either object to or revel in the brand (same goes for blacks), and on that basis, the opposition tries to make the branded class responsible for the brand itself, the contradictions become unsustainable. To straighten things out, you have to do some serious thinking about cause and effect, and distinguish drivers from reactors.

So of all the things you've said so far, this very peculiar claim (which to me sounds like ideology you picked up somewhere, probably uncritically) seems to be the one that might bear the most scutiny. Who in the world can possibly argue that "gays" were in power and in control of mores in 1968, any more than they (as a branded group) are in power now? Were these "gays" (a loathesome and feared, unorganized collectivity at the time) in fact a majority in the US in 1968? Are they a majority now, and I've just missed it?

If you are going to think about power, you have to think about scale and relations.

You make intersting points as usual. I do think that the gay community has claimed the center on matters of orientation. Most of the straight world is not preoccupied with questions of gender (not sex, but gender) and orientation. The term "gay" is actually a coinage of the gay community, not the straight community which prior to the 60's always use the proper clinical term "homosexual." The term "gay" was promoted as a way avoiding clinical diagnostic terminology. From the late 60's through the 70's the gay community promoted being gay as "a lifestyle choice" as a way of avoiding clinical diagnostic terminology as well. Currently, the biological explanation of same sex attraction is being promoted to avoid moral judgment on "choices." Even the constuct of being gay as opposed to being a person who likes gay sex, is of recent vintage. This is where the identity politics you mention comes in.

So, the idea of being gay, unless one is 100% same sex attracted, is a social political construct which applied to only a small minority of men who have sex with men. If those who are exlusively gay in orientation are about 2-3% of the population, then they are only about 10% of those men who have sex with men.

As a matter of political advantage, the gay community has tried to claim all men who have sex with men as either gay or bi. But, this doesn't really work. It is like saying someone who is 1/16th black is black. Well, what about the other 15/16ths? They did not count under Jim Crowe or the Third Reich. But, I say they count. If having sex with men is not a taint or stain, then why treat it as such. Applying general labels on someone because of one of a wide range of their sexual behaviors is treating them like that one behavior is more important than all the others for describing this person. This is a repetition of what was done to those of minimal Jewish decent and those of black decent.

What I am saying is that there are a variety of ways of measuring orientation and that I do not look to the gay communities political standards or their social constructs to define me.

I understand that this is upsetting to the gay community. But, it isn't really any of their business. A new generation is on its way that doesn't care for labels and just wants to be free to do and act as they will without shoe horning themselves or anyone else.

I regard the attempt to control labels as a false moralization. Because it implies a "should," an "ought" or a "must," it is a form of moralizing. But moral systems come from somewhere. They are either natural or imposed. In this case it is an imposition. And like a religion, it is a power system, a system of control, saying "you dont define yourself. We define you. We tell you how to feel. We tell you how to think, how to vote, how to dress, how to spend your money." The gay community as a social construct has become just another marketing niche to be exploited by politicians, marketers, etc.

I resist these definitions in my case because they are untrue. They dont describe me at all. And I will not cow to them. Nor will I keep my dick in my pants for their convenience.

 

[Ferocio]

I think "Bi" is a lot more common then most people realize. I am not saying everyone acts out on it, but its a possibility in their sexuality. Then there are some that are abosoulutely straight. But back to the "Bi" thing, especially if things fall into place. (age, hormones, alcohol) My first time was in college and I was freaked out for a day by it after "IT" happened. But, I soon realized that it was fun and after a while of beating myself up over it, decided its who I am. But, it does not define me at all, its just a part of me. When I was younger I would tell myself that dudes in good shape or he looks good, but never would I have thought anything would happen with another dude. I was probably with 60 chics before my first guy experience. But, it did happen, and I think I have the best of both worlds. Interestingly enough, notwithstanding the fact that many of my buds are good looking and in shape,I never would let (nor have I let)anything happen with one. One of my buds, who is now married with kids use to joke and shit back at college about us getting together and I never even made a bit of an effort. I could not hook up with a friend, not sure why that is.

 

[nineinchnail4u2c]

Do you know how weird that sounds. So, you are saying I need your approval to have sex? How strange, especially coming from a gay man.

I am not seeking your approval. I dont care for your silly arbitrary moralisms. The post-gay world is emerging precisely because we dont care what you or anybody else thinks. Just not relevant.

No, I am stating that if you do not want others to pass judgment about your behavior, then you should not be broadcasting it on a public forum. You cannot have it both ways.

Moreover, if you did not care what anyone thinks about your behavior, then you would not be defending it so vehemently.

 

[jacero10]

No, I am stating that if you do not want others to pass judgment about your behavior, then you should not be broadcasting it on a public forum. You cannot have it both ways.

Moreover, if you did not care what anyone thinks about your behavior, then you would not be defending it so vehemently.

No, I dont care what you think about me, personally. I do care, though, that this kind of bullying be exposed for what it is.

And, as the gay community demands rightly not to forced to choose being judged or closeted, I would say the same for myself. You are saying to me closet yourself or be judged. That's not liberation.

 

[D_Ireonsyd_Colonrinse]

J:

Isn't the term "post-gay" a bit bogus (and pretentious)?

We've had "gay", now you're positing a "post-gay", so obviously, a post-"post-gay" - that TRULY enlightened (or post-enlightened?) state of sexual being - must be waiting just around the corner.

----------

It seems to me you're whipping up a lot of "post-gay" blather because you primarily do not seem to want to admit that you engage in dick-sucking/getting blown homosex. After cruising the gym showers, while specifically in the act of receiving that stalked-out cruised-for blowjob, you are in fact engaging in an ordinary garden-variety homosexual act. Yet you seem to have the bisexual's standard fear and rejection of "labels".

By the way, I am sort of playing devil's advocate here, I hate labels myself. I hate politicizing sex, any sex, homo-sex. But the politicization of gay sex, creating an opressed underclass of "homosexuals" is probably necessary to change the laws.

----------

Here is somethiing interesting. I'm pulling this paragraph from somewhere off the web:


"Let's start with the word 'homosexual'. It looks like an ancient Greek expression, but word and concept are modern inventions: the expression was coined in 1869 by the Hungarian physician Karoly Maria Benkert (1824-1882). It took several decades for the word to become current. In ancient Greece, there never was a word to describe homosexual practices: they were simply part of aphrodisia, love, which included men and women alike."

----------

It blows my mind that ancient Greece, a culture that had a couple dozen words to describe a "vase" (pottery), and many words to describe a "slave" had no words differentiating "straight sex" from "gay sex"...this is a culture that apparently took for granted a variety of homo and hetero sexualities. It was so "normal" that no words need be coined to contrast the natural and commonplace (like inventing multiple words for "air"). The word "homosexual" was nonexistent. This class of people was not invented - labeled - until the mid-to-late 1800's and then politicized in the 1960's (I think this is correct -- I was born in the mid-'70's, have no first-hand knowledge, so I am trying to piece together the start of a political movement).

----------

I guess I'm ultimately having trouble with the "post-gay' label. It's still a label. It's still a word that de-naturalizes a sex act.

 

[BigDallasDick8x6]

I could not hook up with a friend, not sure why that is.

Hey Ferocio. :smile: I'm not sure why you feel that way either. I've known other people who feel that way also. My general impression is it's probably not a positive thing?

 

[D_Rod Staffinbone]

Isn't the term "post-gay" a bit bogus (and pretentious)?

We've had "gay", now you're positing a "post-gay", so obviously, a post-"post-gay" - that TRULY enlightened (or post-enlightened?) state of sexual being - must be waiting just around the corner.

it's happening now as we speak in california, and guess what, it's as politicized
as the stonewall riot and the days after the stonewall riot. it's a real movement again. like it or not.

 

[D_Rod Staffinbone]

Dudes,

Got a really smoking, very masculine, kinda tough guy married dude to suck me off twice today in his family's kitchen!! Picked me up in the showers. He was strictly no recip and could deep throat me over and over for hours and could suck like a cheap manwhore.

hey dude,

now tell us what really happened. how masculine is no recip? if true, he sounds like he's not "tough", and not "masculine". and you say he picked you up? and took you to his place?
if you get off on him being "smokin'" then maybe you're into more than just being serviced, like perhaps you are attracted to men? especially "straight" ones?