Straight man giving a blowjob

[Hatt_101]

Would the men here who consider themselves 100% straight and have never given another guy a blow job or never had any interest in sucking a cock, find that placing a condom on the guy's dick would OR could change their perspective about doing it? If you are straight and into MMF three ways, would you consider sucking the other guy's cock if it had a condom on it? Maybe just a few slides???? Would that make a difference? Could you see yourself experimenting once? Or as they say these days........."NO means NO !!!"

easy answer No. its like giving someone garbage as a gift but saying because it has a bow on it that its different. its still unwanted and a small change isnt going to make any difference

 

[ItsAll4Kim]

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.

As you stated, it's been asked here so many times, hence my initial reply. You state, "100% straight", which clearly and inarguably means the man has zero, zilch, nada, none, NO sexual attraction to other men. So why do it? If curious, then he is not 100% straight, he's bi-curious. If he's just horny, as has been mentioned by others, remember that he is giving, not receiving, in this scenario....if he gets off by giving head to a man, do you really think "100% straight" applies to him? If he's being dared, it's just succumbing to peer pressure, but I'm 55, live a rather liberal lifestyle, and have never met a guy who was honest and open about being totally straight or totally gay, who would cave in such a way.

 

[dude77007]

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.

Are you saying that there are overwhelmingly more straight men on this site than bi or gay men?

 

[ItsAll4Kim]

Are you saying that there are overwhelmingly more straight men on this site than bi or gay men?

Please re-read exactly what I wrote.

 

[328982]

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)?

For the reasons I gave above: 95%+ of the world identify as straight, so we need some qualifiers for the term straight to cover the spectrum in that very broad population. If you make the term straight too exclusive, confined to only 100% straight, then you un-straight a large chunk of people who identify as straight and don't see themselves as bisexual or gay, and who in reality aren't. That's why categories like 'mostly heterosexual' are used in social science and why terms like heteroflexible (i.e. hetero and flexible) are coming into common usage, to describe the nuances within the category of heterosexual. Certainly there can be qualifiers too for bisexuality, which otherwise is a uselessly broad term if used to cover everything that is not 100% straight or 100% gay.

 

[Billybrown1]

Straight man giving a blowjob is an oxymoron.

 

[persiandude]

Even though this is the 21st century, it seems the stigma associated with being "gay" is still so strong as to keep people in the closet. And that leads these men to fantasize about other straight men. They don't want to take the risk of coming out of the closet and joining the flamboyant gay subculture. They would rather fall in love with their straight buddies and have a secret "straight" gay relationship with them. Encouraged by stories of straight men experimenting or getting drunk and being seduced, they seek out scenarios where this can happen for them.

Straight guys may or may not suck a dick under the right conditions. One thing is for certain though, a straight guy isn't going to have romantic feelings for another dude, and any "relationship" built on seduction is going to fail and leave you lonely. It's sort of like eating grubs on Fear Factor. It's gross and nobody wants to do it but they do it anyway, with the right pressure. If you succeed in getting a straight guy to suck you off, do you really want to be that grub? Wouldn't it be better to find a willing partner that will not see you as a one night experiment? You can be gay and not be effeminate. You don't have to wear dresses and trot around the drag clubs. You can be macho and gay. And you can find a partner with the same qualities. But first you have to be honest with yourself and what you really want.

If you have to sweeten the pot for sex with things like "even if I put a condom on it?" or "nobody will ever find out" or "it will just be an experiment it won't make you gay" then you're pursuing something you cannot have. Not good for either party.

 

[328982]

Straight man giving a blowjob is an oxymoron.

Just because it doesn't appeal to you. Lesbian giving a blowjob is an 'oxymoron' you'd probably pay to see

 

[Billybrown1]

No, I mean you have to be at least one percent gay as a man to give blow job voluntarily with no financial or other rewards involved.

 

[ItsAll4Kim]

For the reasons I gave above: 95%+ of the world identify as straight, so we need some qualifiers for the term straight to cover the spectrum in that very broad population. If you make the term straight too exclusive, confined to only 100% straight, then you un-straight a large chunk of people who identify as straight and don't see themselves as bisexual or gay, and who in reality aren't. That's why categories like 'mostly heterosexual' are used in social science and why terms like heteroflexible (i.e. hetero and flexible) are coming into common usage, to describe the nuances within the category of heterosexual. Certainly there can be qualifiers too for bisexuality, which otherwise is a uselessly broad term if used to cover everything that is not 100% straight or 100% gay.

You state 95% identify as straight. The same stats show about 1.6% identify as bisexual. It seems far more reasonable to apply qualifiers to the very small number rather than the very large number. It is also still just fine to also use any term that qualifies straight as less than 100%....heteroflexible, mostly-hetero, etc. It seems that using them implies that straight and heterosexual both mean 100%, hence the need to clarify anything less with such adjectives.

You're also essentially saying that ALL descriptors must be qualified with some clarifying adjective, otherwise degree is unknown, whereas "my way" only really needs bisexuality to be given a degree, with any hetero- or homosexual term open to optionally being qualified for degrees below 100%.

Clear, and flexible!

 

[328982]

You state 95% identify as straight. The same stats show about 1.6% identify as bisexual. It seems far more reasonable to apply qualifiers to the very small number rather than the very large number. It is also still just fine to also use any term that qualifies straight as less than 100%....heteroflexible, mostly-hetero, etc. It seems that using them implies that straight and heterosexual both mean 100%, hence the need to clarify anything less with such adjectives.

I don't follow your logic at all. Why should the larger category have fewer subcategories?

To recap: 95% identify as straight and of those around 30% say they have had same sex encounters - quite a chunk - but don't identify as bisexual. Those are the ones who'd be unstraighted by your extreme definition and reassigned regardless of their self-identification. However, within the 95% world population who identify as straight it is reasonable to expect some variations and degrees of straightness, which is what we see, hence the use of qualifiers or subcategories, e.g. exclusively straight, mostly straight, etc in social science/medical studies.

Using those terms doesn't at all imply that straight means 100% straight. The opposite. It would make no sense to say 'exclusively 100% straight’ or 'mostly 100% straight’. It means that straight is not an absolute or exclusive state, there are varying degrees of it - it's on a spectrum, like all sexuality.

You're also essentially saying that ALL descriptors must be qualified with some clarifying adjective

Not at all, only when it's useful to do so!

"Heteroflexibility is a form of a sexual orientation or situational sexual behavior characterized by minimal homosexual activity in an otherwise primarily heterosexual orientation that is considered to distinguish it from bisexuality. It has been characterized as 'mostly straight'."

What we are seeing here is a larger social rejection of gender/sexual binaries in favour of more fluid identity categories, which will become the new norm over the next decade or so. So get with the program!

 

[ItsAll4Kim]

I don't follow your logic at all. Why should the larger category have fewer subcategories?

To recap: 95% identify as straight and of those around 30% say they have had same sex encounters - quite a chunk - but don't identify as bisexual. Those are the ones who'd be unstraighted by your extreme definition and reassigned regardless of their self-identification. However, within the 95% world population who identify as straight it is reasonable to expect some variations and degrees of straightness, which is what we see, hence the use of qualifiers or subcategories, e.g. exclusively straight, mostly straight, etc in social science/medical studies.

Using those terms doesn't at all imply that straight means 100% straight. The opposite. It would make no sense to say 'exclusively 100% straight’ or 'mostly 100% straight’. It means that straight is not an absolute or exclusive state, there are varying degrees of it - it's on a spectrum, like all sexuality.


Not at all, only when it's useful to do so!

"Heteroflexibility is a form of a sexual orientation or situational sexual behavior characterized by minimal homosexual activity in an otherwise primarily heterosexual orientation that is considered to distinguish it from bisexuality. It has been characterized as 'mostly straight'."

What we are seeing here is a larger social rejection of gender/sexual binaries in favour of more fluid identity categories, which will become the new norm over the next decade or so. So get with the program!

The largest group of people are 100% straight. There need be no "subcategory". If you are 100% straight, call it "straight" or heterosexual, and end it.

The next largest category of people are 100% gay. Again, if you are 100% gay, call it "gay" or homosexual, and again, end it.

If you are one of the 1.6% of people who identify as bisexual, use whatever further description best describes your particulars. Call it mostly gay, mostly heterosexual, half and half, 42.7% gay, pansexual, heteroflexible, etc. etc.

In your way of thinking, a guy says he's gay, and this perhaps means he has no interest in women, or maybe it means he's more into women than men...we don't know.

 

[328982]

The largest group of people are 100% straight. There need be no "subcategory". If you are 100% straight, call it "straight" or heterosexual, and end it.

The next largest category of people are 100% gay. Again, if you are 100% gay, call it "gay" or homosexual, and again, end it.

If you are one of the 1.6% of people who identify as bisexual, use whatever further description best describes your particulars. Call it mostly gay, mostly heterosexual, half and half, 42.7% gay, pansexual, heteroflexible, etc. etc.

In your way of thinking, a guy says he's gay, and this perhaps means he has no interest in women, or maybe it means he's more into women than men...we don't know.

You haven't been following what I said - 30% of the largest group identify as straight but don't meet your criterion for being straight. What are you going to call them in your binary model?

 

[328982]

You haven't been following what I said - 30% of the largest group identify as straight but don't meet your criterion for being straight. What are you going to call them in your binary model?

Oh, and heteroflexible is not a subcategory of bisexual, it's a subcategory of heterosexual - the clue is in the word itself, and in the definition above.

 

[ItsAll4Kim]

You haven't been following what I said - 30% of the largest group identify as straight but don't meet your criterion for being straight. What are you going to call them in your binary model?

Bisexual, and clarify the extent with any adjectives that exist. And a binary has only two. Neither of us are suggesting only straight or gay exist.

 

[dude77007]

No, I mean you have to be at least one percent gay as a man to give blow job voluntarily with no financial or other rewards involved.

Billbrown1, I am not sure, but I think you are saying that "YOU think that YOU would have to be at least one percent gay to give a blow job to another man". We can only speak for ourselves. Probably only two men who have replied has actually answered the question whether having never sucked a dick before, would they personally be inclined or somewhat inclined to suck a dick if it had a condom on it? One might think that it is safe to assume that a gay man ( whatever percentage) might be inclined to suck a dick with or without a condom. But, that is again an assumption. Could the issue of a condom be a deal breaker for some guys who say that they would never suck a dick? It's seems to me, that some men on this site have either a penis fetish or at least an obsession with their own dick. This site has it's share of foolish topics and questions, and this one is no more bizarre than many of the others.

 

[ItsAll4Kim]

Billbrown1, I am not sure, but I think you are saying that "YOU think that YOU would have to be at least one percent gay to give a blow job to another man". We can only speak for ourselves. Probably only two men who have replied has actually answered the question whether having never sucked a dick before, would they personally be inclined or somewhat inclined to suck a dick if it had a condom on it? One might think that it is safe to assume that a gay man ( whatever percentage) might be inclined to suck a dick with or without a condom. But, that is again an assumption. Could the issue of a condom be a deal breaker for some guys who say that they would never suck a dick? It's seems to me, that some men on this site have either a penis fetish or at least an obsession with their own dick. This site has it's share of foolish topics and questions, and this one is no more bizarre than many of the others.

The question still remains, if the guy is 100% straight, which was your criteria, what is the motivation to suck a dick?

I don't see your question as being foolish or bizarre. But it's been asked to death here.

 

[622675]

The OP states:

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.

----

It is a good bet that wherever you place this question it will evoke the same kind of discussion as is occurring on this thread. Or if it were placed as a simple yes / no question the results would be almost meaningless.

What the question needs is a clear reason (explanation) why anyone would want to suck a dick wearing a condom. What is this action supposed to do for the sucker?

**There are two lines of thought this kind of challenge might take.

One scenario has a measure of sexual pleasure for the sucker as its goal. That’s likely what the OP is trying to assess here.

The second kind of scenario would be the “fear the fag” type where degradation and violence toward anything homosexual is used to reinforce and affirm the hertonormative culture.

Here you find homosexual acts conducted as hazing rituals, games of dominance and displays of aggression. When conducted under these circumstances homosexual sex becomes heterosexual (or a heterosexual tool).

In this case the heterosexual authority’s challenge is to have you suck a dick with a condom on it in order to demonstrate their idea of the lowest behavior possible according to their understanding of the hetronormative rulebook.

Under the condition given here, if you suck the dick, you are affirming your heterosexuality by following the demand of those in charge. You are humiliating yourself in order to show allegiance to those with the hetronormative rulebook.

It's never simple.

 

[dude77007]

The OP states:

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.

----

It is a good bet that wherever you place this question it will evoke the same kind of discussion as is occurring on this thread. Or if it were placed as a simple yes / no question the results would be almost meaningless.

What the question needs is a clear reason (explanation) why anyone would want to suck a dick wearing a condom. What is this action supposed to do for the sucker?

**There are two lines of thought this kind of challenge might take.

One scenario has a measure of sexual pleasure for the sucker as its goal. That’s likely what the OP is trying to assess here.

The second kind of scenario would be the “fear the fag” type where degradation and violence toward anything homosexual is used to reinforce and affirm the hertonormative culture.

Here you find homosexual acts conducted as hazing rituals, games of dominance and displays of aggression. When conducted under these circumstances homosexual sex becomes heterosexual (or a heterosexual tool).

In this case the heterosexual authority’s challenge is to have you suck a dick with a condom on it in order to demonstrate their idea of the lowest behavior possible according to their understanding of the hetronormative rulebook.

Under the condition given here, if you suck the dick, you are affirming your heterosexuality by following the demand of those in charge. You are humiliating yourself in order to show allegiance to those with the hetronormative rulebook.

It's never simple.

"What the question needs is a clear reason (explanation) why anyone would want to suck a dick wearing a condom. What is this action supposed to do for the sucker?" May I suggest one might be health reasons? Looking at your stats, one might ascertain that you would find sucking a dick with a condom on it undesirable. That's fine...for you. ItsAll4Kim...As far as what would motivate a man who claimed to be 100% straight to be inclined or somewhat inclined to suck a dick with or without a condom on it is not for anyone to decide unless they are the person making the decision.. I didn't ask what anyone's motivation would be. The word inclined means " feel willing or favorably disposed towards something" Does that define the motivation? Perhaps someone in a MMF situation, might be both motivated or "favorably disposed" to diversify the routine somewhat. To further stir up the 100% straights ......20 men standing around jerking off on a woman in a BUKKAKE video appears a little gay to me. It looks like justification for a straight circle jerk. However, I hope these men enjoy themselves since I enjoy watching as I have a penis fetish.LOL

 

[622675]

To further stir up the 100% straights ......20 men standing around jerking off on a woman in a BUKKAKE video appears a little gay to me. It looks like justification for a straight circle jerk. However, I hope these men enjoy themselves since I enjoy watching as I have a penis fetish.LOL

Excellent observation!

As this kind of behavior floats into today’s culture and is practiced by “authentic” heterosexuals, it becomes normalized and safe for other heterosexuals (and gays) to do without the stigma of “fag fear”.

Twenty years ago five guys standing naked in a circle and stroking would have never made into straight porn. It would have been way too gay regardless of whom they were dumping on.

Today it is seen as some form of heterosexual orgy that may or may not have a m/f dominance theme. Along with many other hetro-porno videos the hetronormative rule book is changing to accept males performing sex acts with and on each other so long as a female is included in the screenplay.

It would be very interesting to learn how long it takes before a popular porn video behavior is able to change how “straight guys” (and then the culture) labels that action as either gay or OK.

You like dicks and I am gay so you know why we might enjoy the BUKKAKE video. Problem is we must hang back and let the straight guys adopt the action before we will see more of it (or possibly participate).

Until they put it into the rule book it could be called GAY and that would really spoil the mood.

Possible New question: Would a man who considered himself 100% straight participate in a BUKKAKE style sex activity?