Straight man giving a blowjob

[HotThroatLA]

Isn't that a similar concept to a "straight" man getting sucked by a man at a gloryhole?
Since the "straight" man can't actually see the gender of the mouth sucking him, it's not actually "gay"?
Oh wait, what - you saw a goatee? Just close your eyes...

 

[deleted15807]

Anyone can call themselves straight. But when such a person willingly (as opposed to because of economic, peer, or other social pressure) engages in homosexual acts, they are either bi- or gay. We all know what true sexual attraction feels like. To deny it is choice, but is still lying to either oneself or others, or both. Sexual attraction can certainly change over time, just as we might favor some sexual act or trait of another person and then lose such favor, so too can we grow into or out of sexual feeling for the same or the opposite sex. but during the time that we feel sexual attraction, we are what we are. To call oneself one thing but feel and act another is dishonest.

Dishonest? People lie all the time about things big and small that we know this from a number of scientific studies. Why would sexuality be any different?

Sexual desire, sexual attractions, sexual behavior are all different things.

 

[ItsAll4Kim]

On the surface it is easy to agree with you, but when I start taking your observations apart a number of questions without answers start to emerge.


This comment seems so logical, but it is coming from the fish that is unaware that he lives in water. If LPSG does nothing else it puts a spotlight on how many different ways people express, feel or categorize “homosexual acts” or “true sexual attraction”. I am not sure they can even be adequately defined.

Also”
Rather than saying someone is dishonest or lying, I would hold out for using the word “confused or conflicted”.

Think of the straightest guy you can and if another guy he knows, and trust, and is comfortable with should end up stroking his dick, there is a very good chance that he will develop a bonding with that individual. The act would not even need to be that intimate. To the uber-straight guy it might just be a situation where sexual tension is created.

(Before you argue with my scenario, I have worked around doctors and medics for 30 years and understand the value / impact that an act of intimacy can bring. It’s a frequent and often useful occurrence.)

So how is he to equate and incorporate that feeling or bonding experience? Does he freak out or does he work to incorporate the experience in his own self-understanding? Is he now gay or bi because he might have a “warm” spot or a new level of trust for that particular person?

He isn't straight.

This issue shouldn't even be the slightest concern. It's like arguing whether someone's eyes are blue because even though they're brown she really wants to have blue eyes.

Why is it so foreign and awful to simply be bi or gay? Why this stubborn insistence that one can suck dick or fuck a guy or have intimate feelings for a man, but are still, somehow, straight? Just toss out words, don't bother with them if we're going to make up alternate definitions, then change them later to suit whatever whim one is on.

For sure, conflict and confusion are fine, but the acts and feelings aren't confusing or conflicted. Sex between men is bi or gay. Intimate feelings and desires between men are bi or gay. Straight men are not into that. By all means figure yourself out, and call it what it is.

 

[622675]

Sex between men is bi or gay. Intimate feelings and desires between men are bi or gay.

How are you able to connect an act (conducted by someone else) with their intimate feeling? Unless they tell you what it means to them you have no way of knowing.

The feeling part is going to be totally unique to the individual. It will be based on the totality of factors that provide that individual with the feeling.

There are guys on LPSG who could have intercourse with a human male, female, or an air filled doll and experience an overall lack of any intimate feelings for any of them. Perhaps the guy was just there to get off and he was too busy looking in the mirror to care about anything else.

The act itself is not straight, gay, or bi. It is far more complicated than that.

 

[328982]

To call oneself one thing but feel and act another is dishonest.

So in your view a person who calls themselves gay and has a partner of the opposite sex is lying and dishonest?

 

[ItsAll4Kim]

So in your view a person who calls themselves gay and has a partner of the opposite sex is lying and dishonest?

I don't know, as there are details you haven't provided in this hypothetical.

 

[328982]

I don't know, as there are details you haven't provided in this hypothetical.

It's just the same position you have taken, except from the other side. Why wouldn't you know? You have been categorical that straight men aren't into men, no hypothetical details needed. You've been categorical that when a man willingly has sex with men he is gay or bi, that if he calls himself straight he is lying to himself or others and is dishonest. So, same level of detail, does that also apply to gay people who have willing sex/relationship with the opposite sex? They must be straight or bi and if they call themselves gay, they are lying and dishonest. That follows, yes?

 

[ItsAll4Kim]

The feeling part is going to be totally unique to the individual. It will be based on the totality of factors that provide that individual with the feeling.

There are guys on LPSG who could have intercourse with a human male, female, or an air filled doll and experience an overall lack of any intimate feelings for any of them. Perhaps the guy was just there to get off and he was too busy looking in the mirror to care about anything else.

The act itself is not straight, gay, or bi. It is far more complicated than that.

The "totality of factors that provide that individual with that feeling" still add up to having sexual attraction to women, men, or both. Let's try to keep the OP in mind...which asks about guys who consider themselves "100% straight". It asks whether a guy with zero attraction to men would suck a cock. That's not complicated at all.

 

[ItsAll4Kim]

It's just the same position you have taken, except from the other side. Why wouldn't you know? You have been categorical that straight men aren't into men, no hypothetical details needed. You've been categorical that when a man willingly has sex with men he is gay or bi, that if he calls himself straight he is lying to himself or others and is dishonest. So, same level of detail, does that also apply to gay people who have willing sex/relationship with the opposite sex? They must be straight or bi and if they call themselves gay, they are lying and dishonest. That follows, yes?

I wasn't sure where you question was leading, as it didn't define "partner". But yes, it doesn't matter to me which orientation is involved, if a person isn't being true to their feelings they are lying to themselves.

 

[328982]

I wasn't sure where you question was leading, as it didn't define "partner". But yes, it doesn't matter to me which orientation is involved, if a person isn't being true to their feelings they are lying to themselves.

But let's say they feel essentially gay, so in that sense they are being true to their feelings. I think you are saying there's a disjoint between what they feel about themselves and their actions? You characterise that as lying and dishonesty but might it be more complex than that?

 

[ItsAll4Kim]

But let's say they feel essentially gay, so in that sense they are being true to their feelings. I think you are saying there's a disjoint between what they feel about themselves and their actions? You characterise that as lying and dishonesty but might it be more complex than that?

If you have a particular attraction, but deny it to yourself, or relate it differently to others (which is not the same as simply not telling others anything), or live in a manner contradictory to it, I find it impossible to state that you are being honest about it.

While things can be or seem complex, any scenario still boils down to our actual feelings, and how we actually consciously deal with them, and how we relate to others. I am not implying that there is an unchangeable brand we must decide and then wear...people can develop new or different feelings. But describing them, if we decide to do so, should be done in as accurate a way possible. Straight and gay should be the extremes of description, mutually exclusive. Bi should describe all the mutually inclusives between those extremes. Words such as Curious, fluid, experimental, undecided...all help us relate the nuances. I'm simply trying to use language to clarify rather than muddy or deceive.

 

[Uncutsouthernboy]

I think this book, in a nutshell, says "it ain't queer if you don't kiss". Am I right?

 

[328982]

If you have a particular attraction, but deny it to yourself, or relate it differently to others (which is not the same as simply not telling others anything), or live in a manner contradictory to it, I find it impossible to state that you are being honest about it.

While things can be or seem complex, any scenario still boils down to our actual feelings, and how we actually consciously deal with them, and how we relate to others. I am not implying that there is an unchangeable brand we must decide and then wear...people can develop new or different feelings. But describing them, if we decide to do so, should be done in as accurate a way possible. Straight and gay should be the extremes of description, mutually exclusive. Bi should describe all the mutually inclusives between those extremes. Words such as Curious, fluid, experimental, undecided...all help us relate the nuances. I'm simply trying to use language to clarify rather than muddy or deceive.

Yes, we've had this argument before about terminology I'm not sure it's that helpful or accurate, in any real sense, to define straight/gay in such a black and white way. For these reasons:

• The words themselves are not defined so extremely or exclusively in the dictionary
• The definitions are not fixed entities or Platonic forms - the meaning of 'heterosexual' has changed significantly, for example, since it was coined by medics in the late C19th. In other words, the meaning of the word is defined by its usage and reflects changing social attitudes
• Social scientists studying sexual orientation don't use the terms in in the binary way that you do. They use more nuanced, relative terms such as 'exclusively heterosexual', 'mostly heterosexual’ etc. which acknowledges degrees of straight and gay - they are part of the scale.
• 95%+ of the world identify as straight. A good proportion, roughly 30% in some studies, have had more than one same sex encounter. It doesn't seem helpful or realistic to say that they are all mistaken about their sexual orientation, in denial or dishonest about it. They feel straight, they are straight. Conversely many gay people have had multiple opposite sex encounters, some even long marriages - it doesn't help to brand them liars.
• It doesn't really help accuracy either to lump all people who are not 100% exclusively straight/gay into a hold-all bi category, in fact it's misleading because that term can describe people with almost polar opposite sexual histories and attractions. Plus it makes the terms straight and gay so exclusive as to be almost useless. Relatively few people could describe themselves as "truly" straight (according to your definition) despite the fact that, in reality, more than 95% of the world identifies as such.

So in defining straight/gay so exclusively, so simply, I think you create more problems than you solve in terms of meaning, because the terms don't accurately match what happens in the real world.

 

[dude77007]

I initiated this post by asking if a man who considered himself 100% straight would suck a penis if it had a condom on it. I didn't ask if that action would mean that he should think of himself gay or ask for anyone's opinion if such an act was gay. From a personal standpoint, perhaps because I have a penis myself, I am fascinated by other penises. Why I like penises has become irrelevant to me. I like the variety of shapes and sizes. I am fascinated by how they react to stimulation and many other physical aspects of a penis. My fascination has led to my desire to touch other men's penises and on occasion perform actions that the owner of that penis consents for me to do, presumably because he enjoys the physical sensations it provides. I am truly not that much interested in what a penis is attached to. It could be a trans. I like cocks. Since the thread has turned into this, Does one have to label themselves because of this interest in dicks? Can I call it a fetish? Do I have to identify myself as gay or bi? Since society tells me I have to label myself as something from a sexual standpoint, I label myself Bi, because I like women, I like the looks of a vagina, as long as it is shaved. I am interested in what else comes with a vagina.....the face, the breasts, body size and personal style....the whole package. The thread has turned into one of labels and a gay men's fascination with straight men.... all of which have repetitiously been beaten to death in many forums. I realize now that I should have placed this question in the ASK A STRAIGHT MAN forum and perhaps made it a survey in order to get a plain YES or NO on the topic, which is what I was hoping for. Additionally, any person sucking a cock these days should perhaps have a condom on it, unless it is perhaps their spouse. That said, based on my experiences with married men, some of those penises should be bagged as well.

 

[328982]

What I'd add is that really it's only the category of straight male that is 'defended' and policed in this way. Female (and gay) sexuality is allowed to be much more fluid. For example, a woman on this site may identify as lesbian or mainly lesbian while having a long-term male partner. Nobody bats an eyelid or challenges that self-identification. But a man who identifies as straight while being in a relationship or having sex with another man, he will be attacked, ridiculed, called deluded, in denial, pretending, a liar etc. So why the difference, what's at stake here? It's remarkably clear that straight male sexuality is given more exclusive importance, almost protected status. Policing is always about protecting of property. So why? The most obvious reason is because being a straight male is of higher status, it is more valued by society. I mean that quite literally, to be a straight male is to have more value: studies show that heterosexual men are paid more than gay men or women (of any orientation) for the same job of work. So all this focus on definitions and terminology is really just a conservative defence and propping up of a value system that rewards straight men for being straight and male - and the rest of us better know our place.

 

[ItsAll4Kim]

What I'd add is that really it's only the category of straight male that is 'defended' and policed in this way. Female (and gay) sexuality is allowed to be much more fluid. For example, a woman on this site may identify as lesbian or mainly lesbian while having a long-term male partner. Nobody bats an eyelid or challenges that self-identification. But a man who identifies as straight while being in a relationship or having sex with another man, he will be attacked, ridiculed, called deluded, in denial, pretending, a liar etc. So why the difference, what's at stake here? It's remarkably clear that straight male sexuality is given more exclusive importance, almost protected status. Policing is always about protecting of property. So why? The most obvious reason is because being a straight male is of higher status, it is more valued by society. I mean that quite literally, to be a straight male is to have more value: studies show that heterosexual men are paid more than gay men or women (of any orientation) for the same job of work. So all this focus on definitions and terminology is really just a conservative defence and propping up of a value system that rewards straight men for being straight and male - and the rest of us better know our place.

I wouldn't call it "defending" and definitely not "attacking", to question someone calling themselves straight but desiring homosexual encounters. And frankly, this particular topic is repeated ad nauseum in these forums, hence my initial post. It smacks of wank-bait. We certainly don't see Women's Issues or Ask a Woman with anywhere near the volume of these forms of question.

You asked me to clarify my position regarding how I would consider the same scenario with the man identifying as gay but engaging in a heterosexual relationship. I thought I was quite clear about considering it to be exactly the same problemd. This post clearly makes assumptions that do not apply to me at all.

 

[Sherwood D. Likelym]

Thanks @hunghorse30 for your civil discourse. Perhaps, your terminology explanation has led me to identify myself as 50/50.

AND, thanks @dude77007 for your clarification on the forum's intended focus. I still struggle with the thought of utilizing condoms for oral sex. Old timers like me need to be reminded about health risks.

 

[328982]

I wouldn't call it "defending" and definitely not "attacking", to question someone calling themselves straight but desiring homosexual encounters. And frankly, this particular topic is repeated ad nauseum in these forums, hence my initial post. It smacks of wank-bait. We certainly don't see Women's Issues or Ask a Woman with anywhere near the volume of these forms of question.

You asked me to clarify my position regarding how I would consider the same scenario with the man identifying as gay but engaging in a heterosexual relationship. I thought I was quite clear about considering it to be exactly the same problemd. This post clearly makes assumptions that do not apply to me at all.

I'm making a more general point here, probably stretching too far, and I didn't mean that you were in attacking mode particularly. But I am sure, from observation, that straight men who have sex with other men are attacked on all sides on this site whereas other identities are not so prized or defended. It strikes me as interesting that a woman can say she is lesbian but be with a male partner and that is not an issue, but a straight man can't. That is a different treatment. Just speculating as to why.

 

[ItsAll4Kim]

Yes, we've had this argument before about terminology I'm not sure it's that helpful or accurate, in any real sense, to define straight/gay in such a black and white way. For these reasons:

• The words themselves are not defined so extremely or exclusively in the dictionary
• The definitions are not fixed entities or Platonic forms - the meaning of 'heterosexual' has changed significantly, for example, since it was coined by medics in the late C19th. In other words, the meaning of the word is defined by its usage and reflects changing social attitudes
• Social scientists studying sexual orientation don't use the terms in in the binary way that you do. They use more nuanced, relative terms such as 'exclusively heterosexual', 'mostly heterosexual’ etc. which acknowledges degrees of straight and gay - they are part of the scale.
• 95%+ of the world identify as straight. A good proportion, roughly 30% in some studies, have had more than one same sex encounter. It doesn't seem helpful or realistic to say that they are all mistaken about their sexual orientation, in denial or dishonest about it. They feel straight, they are straight. Conversely many gay people have had multiple opposite sex encounters, some even long marriages - it doesn't help to brand them liars.
• It doesn't really help accuracy either to lump all people who are not 100% exclusively straight/gay into a hold-all bi category, in fact it's misleading because that term can describe people with almost polar opposite sexual histories and attractions. Plus it makes the terms straight and gay so exclusive as to be almost useless. Relatively few people could describe themselves as "truly" straight (according to your definition) despite the fact that, in reality, more than 95% of the world identifies as such.

So in defining straight/gay so exclusively, so simply, I think you create more problems than you solve in terms of meaning, because the terms don't accurately match what happens in the real world.

I wrote about using various descriptive terms to address the nuances of sexuality. Why is it creating a problem if "gay" or "straight" used without qualifiers means "100%", and bisexuality can have qualifiers, or not (if the person has equal attraction)?

 

[ItsAll4Kim]

I'm making a more general point here, probably stretching too far, and I didn't mean that you were in attacking mode particularly. But I am sure, from observation, that straight men who have sex with other men are attacked on all sides on this site whereas other identities are not so prized or defended. It strikes me as interesting that a woman can say she is lesbian but be with a male partner and that is not an issue, but a straight man can't. That is a different treatment. Just speculating as to why.

There are overwhelmingly more male members in LPSG. There are statistically more straight men than bi- or gay men. So it is reasonable to theorize that more people will question the terminology used to describe a person who engages in same-sex relations involving males than females. We talk more about what we know or can relate to than what we can't or don't.