Straight man giving a blowjob

[ItsAll4Kim]

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.

Motivated or favorably disposed by *what*? The criteria was a 100% straight guy. My question regarding motivation is rhetorical, the point being that someone who is truly "100% straight" is simply not going to be into sucking a dick, with a condom or without.

How do you figure explaining the definition of "inclined" provides what I'm requesting....a legitimate motivation for someone with zero interest in homosexual sex to engage in any aspect of it?

If you've ever found yourself in a situation where there was an opportunity to have sex with someone for whom you had zero sexual attraction, you might understand what I'm asking. It doesn't matter what combination of genitals is involved, if there is zero attraction, there is no reason to proceed.

 

[ItsAll4Kim]

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

This doesn't seem "gay", if the guys are servicing a woman who is into the activity, and their only interaction is being near each other. This is analogous to "play rooms" where couples of any combination may pair off to have sex. Not an orgy, necessarily, and practiced by people into voyerism and exhibishionism, couples may be in close proximity but not actually in contact with any other person but their partner at that moment. When straight couples are involved, is this a gay activity just because another guy or guys are in the same proximity?

 

[328982]

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.

Not at all, that's a misrepresentation. If a guy says he's gay that means - as per the dictionary definition - that he is sexually and romantically attracted to the same sex. No more, no less. Homosexuality is "an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions to people of the same sex". What it doesn't necessarily mean is that he's never had a heterosexual thought in his life, or even that he's never had sex with a woman or never will. That is where your 100% absolutism leads you and it's nonsense. Common sense must tell you that.

 

[ItsAll4Kim]

Not at all, that's a misrepresentation. If a guy says he's gay that means - as per the dictionary definition - that he is sexually and romantically attracted to the same sex. No more, no less. Homosexuality is "an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions to people of the same sex". What it doesn't necessarily mean is that he's never had a heterosexual thought in his life, or even that he's never had sex with a woman or never will. That is where your 100% absolutism leads you and it's nonsense. Common sense must tell you that.

Absolutism about what? A word. All I'm suggesting is that "gay" and "straight" should imply 100%. The areas between that involve attraction are defined by "bi".

The definition you cite clearly leaves out attraction to the opposite sex, and despite you clearly stating "no more, no less", you proceeded to apply your own personal addendum of what it "doesn't necessarily mean" in regard to a person's past. I have mentioned previously that orientation isn't a brand you must choose and then wear permanently. Saying, "I'm gay" describes now. The person you mention who perhaps had a girlfriend but has since determined they really aren't into women can say this, but if discussing the past could accurately state, "I was into women years ago, but really aren't attracted to them any more" or, "I had intercourse with a woman but it didn't do anything for me at all". None of that describes today. If today that guy is still attracted to women and men, what the hell is wrong with saying, "I'm bi"?

 

[622675]

This doesn't seem "gay", if the guys are servicing a woman who is into the activity, and their only interaction is being near each other. This is analogous to "play rooms" where couples of any combination may pair off to have sex. Not an orgy, necessarily, and practiced by people into voyerism and exhibishionism, couples may be in close proximity but not actually in contact with any other person but their partner at that moment. When straight couples are involved, is this a gay activity just because another guy or guys are in the same proximity?

Thank you for you thoughtful and diligent input.

Your perspective on BUKKAKE style sex gives a good example of what I have been trying to convey in this discussion. My point is that individuals who assess themselves as “straight” are products of both biology and culture. They are made to think like the culture has trained them and as life experiences have impacted their biological design. As the old saying goes, we make our culture and our culture makes us.

Currently our culture is a product of hetronormative development. Every aspect of what we do and how we see our selves is heterosexually driven and has been for generations. There have been some really odd things go on between people thought out history, but almost without exception they can be traced back to heterosexual motivations and tensions.

In our current sexual culture, trying to get a read on men who see themselves as 100% straight is like trying to hold on to Jello with wet hands. This is especially problematic when heterosexual men are starting to participate in acts that only a few years ago would have been seen as gay, And because they are often doing these things for (what they see) as heterosexual reasons.

Personally I am glad to see these changes occur. This offers a chance for both gay and straight cultures to stand in each other’s shoes and see the world from the others perspective..

 

[328982]

The definition you cite

The definition I cite is from the dictionary. Homosexuality is "an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic and/or sexual attractions to people of the same sex." (Note: not exclusive, not 100%, not your absolute definition.)

The dictionary definition describes my sexuality. I'm in a long-term monogamous relationship with a man, all my relationships bar one have been with men. That is an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic and sexual attractions to people of the same sex. I have no desire to have a sexual or romantic relationship with a woman. I did enjoy the one heterosexual relationship I had and the sex was good. I can get off on straight porn. It's not impossible (the 100% certainty you require) but unlikely I'll have sex with another woman. Arguably that is bisexual if you hold that a gay man is only exclusively 100% attracted to men, but in my view the enduring pattern here is homosexual.

Bisexuality would be an enduring pattern of emotional/romantic/sexual attractions to people of both sexes. That doesn't really describe me. It's not that I see anything "wrong" with saying I'm bi, except that it's not accurate.

My first boyfriend was bisexual. He left a woman to be with me, he left me for another man, then was with a woman again. If I met him again, I wouldn't know if he was dating a woman or a man. That is bisexual. I'm gay. Is that okay by you?

 

[328982]

Saying, "I'm gay" describes now. The person you mention who perhaps had a girlfriend but has since determined they really aren't into women can say this, but if discussing the past could accurately state, "I was into women years ago, but really aren't attracted to them any more" or, "I had intercourse with a woman but it didn't do anything for me at all". None of that describes today

I don't think you can decide on your sexuality on a daily basis. As above, it's an enduring pattern. You can't wake up and say, today I'm attracted to men and women, so I'm bi, or today I feel straight. Your sexuality is the longer term pattern of your attractions and sexual relations, it's not just the now. That's why your 100% exclusive definition is nonsense. You're trying to impose a simplistic formula on something that is far more complex and long term.

 

[ItsAll4Kim]

The definition I cite is from the dictionary. Homosexuality is "an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic and/or sexual attractions to people of the same sex." (Note: not exclusive, not 100%, not your absolute definition.)

The dictionary definition describes my sexuality. I'm in a long-term monogamous relationship with a man, all my relationships bar one have been with men. That is an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic and sexual attractions to people of the same sex. I have no desire to have a sexual or romantic relationship with a woman. I did enjoy the one heterosexual relationship I had and the sex was good. I can get off on straight porn. It's not impossible (the 100% certainty you require) but unlikely I'll have sex with another woman. Arguably that is bisexual if you hold that a gay man is only exclusively 100% attracted to men, but in my view the enduring pattern here is homosexual.

Bisexuality would be an enduring pattern of emotional/romantic/sexual attractions to people of both sexes. That doesn't really describe me. It's not that I see anything "wrong" with saying I'm bi, except that it's not accurate.

My first boyfriend was bisexual. He left a woman to be with me, he left me for another man, then was with a woman again. If I met him again, I wouldn't know if he was dating a woman or a man. That is bisexual. I'm gay. Is that okay by you?

What's okay by me has never been the issue. I have been trying to keep this, or make this just be a friendly discussion of terminology, but your pervasive personal attitude makes it increasingly difficult.

You are saying that having enough sexual attraction to have had enjoyable sex with a woman, enough romantic attraction to maintain a relationship with her, and still having enough sexual attraction to women to get off on straight porn, in addition to having sexual and romantic attraction to men, is not an enduring pattern of......sexual and/or romantic attraction to both sexes?

Alrighty then.

 

[328982]

What's okay by me has never been the issue. I have been trying to keep this, or make this just be a friendly discussion of terminology, but your pervasive personal attitude makes it increasingly difficult.

You are saying that having enough sexual attraction to have had enjoyable sex with a woman, enough romantic attraction to maintain a relationship with her, and still having enough sexual attraction to women to get off on straight porn, in addition to having sexual and romantic attraction to men, is not an enduring pattern of......sexual and/or romantic attraction to both sexes?

Alrighty then.

Just giving you some real life examples to consider. If you really can't tell the difference between an enduring pattern of homosexual and bisexual behaviour, then there's not much more to be said. We're looking at the same thing and calling it differently.

I've been civil with you this far, making mainly general points backed up by reasoning and evidence. You took this personally a while back ("this post makes assumptions that do not apply to me at all"), and when challenged you tend to assert rather than argue your point: "If you are 100% straight, call it "straight" or heterosexual, and end it". You've made some illogical or just plain wrong statements (e.g. that your sexual orientation is what you are today or that the largest population category needs fewest subcategories), that you won't admit. Your favourite tactic is to travesty the other person's position and to be reductive about complex points. In other words, you don't argue in good faith. And when you've nowhere else to go, you resort to playing the victim and retire hurt. Alrighty then.

 

[ItsAll4Kim]

Just giving you some real life examples to consider. If you really can't tell the difference between an enduring pattern of homosexual and bisexual behaviour, then there's not much more to be said. We're looking at the same thing and calling it differently.

You clearly stated that your heterosexual relationship was years ago, and to this day you can get off to straight porn. You mention having same-sex relationships overlapping this entire period? Please explain how these don't add up to an enduring pattern of attraction to both sexes.

 

[328982]

You clearly stated that your heterosexual relationship was years ago, and to this day you can get off to straight porn. You mention having same-sex relationships overlapping this entire period? Please explain how these don't add up to an enduring pattern of attraction to both sexes.

Nope . What I described was an enduring pattern of same sex attractions and relationships, 99.9% of them completely homosexual. The chances of my having another heterosexual encounter and desire to do so are practically zero, less than 1%. I round that up to gay, you round it down to bi. Which is more realistic?

If I had been having multiple heterosexual contacts in that time and was open to more, yes that would look like bisexuality. But I'm not. You're putting a lot of emphasis on the straight porn but I'm focusing on the man getting off and on his virility, not the woman in the scene. A straight (or possibly bi) man might identify with the man in the scene, but the man wouldn't be the sex object for them - big difference.

But it's futile arguing with you. You won't accept anything less than 100% for straight or gay. In your book anything from 99.99999999999999999% straight to 99.999999999999999999% gay is by definition "bi". Lumping almost all shades of sexuality into one hold-all category. If anyone says otherwise, they are lying. No matter what they identify as, no matter the different weight they give to their own experiences, you know their sexuality better than they do and will define it for them. It doesn't matter to you that your absolutist position is at odds with the real world, contrary to social science studies, unsupported by dictionary definitions, even contrary to the categories on this site (90/10 counts as straight or gay in the Ask a Straight/Gay Man forums). And increasingly at odds with how younger people view sexuality.

And why? All so you can safeguard your precious 100% straight identity from contamination by some kind of imagined impurity.

 

[ItsAll4Kim]

Nope . What I described was an enduring pattern of same sex attractions and relationships, 99.9% of them completely homosexual. The chances of my having another heterosexual encounter and desire to do so are practically zero, less than 1%. I round that up to gay, you round it down to bi. Which is more realistic?

If I had been having multiple heterosexual contacts in that time and was open to more, yes that would look like bisexuality. But I'm not. You're putting a lot of emphasis on the straight porn but I'm focusing on the man getting off and on his virility, not the woman in the scene. A straight (or possibly bi) man might identify with the man in the scene, but the man wouldn't be the sex object for them - big difference.

But it's futile arguing with you. You won't accept anything less than 100% for straight or gay. In your book anything from 99.99999999999999999% straight to 99.999999999999999999% gay is by definition "bi". Lumping almost all shades of sexuality into one hold-all category. If anyone says otherwise, they are lying. No matter what they identify as, no matter the different weight they give to their own experiences, you know their sexuality better than they do and will define it for them. It doesn't matter to you that your absolutist position is at odds with the real world, contrary to social science studies, unsupported by dictionary definitions, even contrary to the categories on this site (90/10 counts as straight or gay in the Ask a Straight/Gay Man forums). And increasingly at odds with how younger people view sexuality.

And why? All so you can safeguard your precious 100% straight identity from contamination by some kind of imagined impurity.

When you previously withheld a detail like, "You're putting a lot of emphasis on the straight porn but I'm focusing on the man getting off and on his virility, not the woman in the scene" now, but not previously, how am I supposed to evaluate your example?

Why mention that you "get off to straight porn", as if it's a hetero attraction, then when I cite it as part of an enduring heterosexual attraction, decide to mention that *the guy* is your attraction in such porn? That's a significant detail to leave out.

You had a hetero relationship. Said the sex was satisfying. You said it's unlikely you would have another such heterosexual relationship. Why not?

If you were previously but now are no longer attracted to women, that's an evolution in feelings that you seemed to previously tell me was nonsense.

If you never were attracted to women, then neither of your examples describe any attraction to women.

Once again, why the assumption that this is about "safeguarding your precious 100% straight identity from contamination"? Do you assume I identify as 100% straight? I have never expressed this, ever. And if you paid any attention in the prior discussion with you in another thread, I repeatedly stated that I don't favor ANY labels (it's specifically why I don't cite a percentage for my account), but that if used they should be clear.

And when you asked me if the same scenario with a gay, rather than straight, man were presented, would I feel the same about that description, and I thought I clearly stated I would. Seems you either ignored it, or don't believe me.

I feel that straight means no attraction to the same sex, gay means no attraction to the opposite sex, and attraction to both sexes at any level is bisexuality. There is no agenda in this but clarity. Saying that gay can mean no attraction to the opposite sex at all OR some attraction to the opposite sex is not clarity at all. The definitions you cite do not state that some attraction to the opposite sex is included. Definitions are what they state, not what they may imply, and you even stated, "no more, no less" when describing the definition.

You seem angry with me for this opinion, and that makes the discussion uncomfortable. If you wish to discuss it privately and civilly that's okay, but I'm not interested in continuing this here. Thanks for your time.

 

[328982]

When you previously withheld a detail like, "You're putting a lot of emphasis on the straight porn but I'm focusing on the man getting off and on his virility, not the woman in the scene" now, but not previously, how am I supposed to evaluate your example?

Why mention that you "get off to straight porn", as if it's a hetero attraction, then when I cite it as part of an enduring heterosexual attraction, decide to mention that *the guy* is your attraction in such porn? That's a significant detail to leave out.

You had a hetero relationship. Said the sex was satisfying. You said it's unlikely you would have another such heterosexual relationship. Why not?

If you were previously but now are no longer attracted to women, that's an evolution in feelings that you seemed to previously tell me was nonsense.

If you never were attracted to women, then neither of your examples describe any attraction to women.

Once again, why the assumption that this is about "safeguarding your precious 100% straight identity from contamination"? Do you assume I identify as 100% straight? I have never expressed this, ever. And if you paid any attention in the prior discussion with you in another thread, I repeatedly stated that I don't favor ANY labels (it's specifically why I don't cite a percentage for my account), but that if used they should be clear.

And when you asked me if the same scenario with a gay, rather than straight, man were presented, would I feel the same about that description, and I thought I clearly stated I would. Seems you either ignored it, or don't believe me.

I feel that straight means no attraction to the same sex, gay means no attraction to the opposite sex, and attraction to both sexes at any level is bisexuality. There is no agenda in this but clarity. Saying that gay can mean no attraction to the opposite sex at all OR some attraction to the opposite sex is not clarity at all. The definitions you cite do not state that some attraction to the opposite sex is included. Definitions are what they state, not what they may imply, and you even stated, "no more, no less" when describing the definition.

You seem angry with me for this opinion, and that makes the discussion uncomfortable. If you wish to discuss it privately and civilly that's okay, but I'm not interested in continuing this here. Thanks for your time.

In other words, you now concede the point but are making out that I withheld information. I simply said that I can get off on straight porn, you ascribed motivation to that to suit your argument.

What I've been saying consistently is that I'm gay, not 100%, because I've had a relationship with a woman, but easily gay enough to identify as gay rather than bi. You seem to have a lot of trouble accepting that.

Why wouldn't I have another heterosexual relationship? Because I'm gay and it doesn't feel right or satisfying to me.

I've not said that there can't be evolution in feelings, there can be over a period of time, but because sexuality is an enduring pattern of attractions/relationships, the idea that you can decide your sexuality on a 'today' basis seems unconvincing.

I've given very clear definitions, from the dictionary. I've also been clear about why your definition of sexuality doesn't work in the real world and my agenda is clarity in terms of being true to life and people's experiences.

I don't assume you are necessarily 100% straight (after all, you've also posted as a gay man in Ask a Gay Man, so there seems to be some confusion there) but I do think all your arguments are about protecting the idea that straight can only be 100% straight. It's about exclusivity and guarding straight male status, not linguistic clarity. That was the starting point. Yes, we've been arguing gay/bi labels, but precisely because you said you'd feel the same way about equivalent straight/gay scenarios, the argument was equally about straight status, which is where your real interest is. Why else is this so important to you? If you really had no investment in the straight label, you wouldn't spend hours arguing about it in multiple threads.

Robust argument makes you uncomfortable? Too bad. This is a forum for frank exchanges.It's passive-aggressive to have your say then walk off when somebody disagrees with you, but that seems to be the pattern of your posting.

 

[pursine]

Top review of that book on Amazon, btw.

Read, but with care
Byshonaon August 10, 2015
Format: Paperback

Spot the disgruntled academic. Translation: this book is getting more attention than mine and I'm pissed.

 

[HOU_HEADHUNTER]

There are straight men that are completely repulsed by penises that are not their own. Although some are repulsed by other mens penises that doesn't mean that they wouldn't let another man give them a blowjob. Prime example was a neighbor that I used to have. We went to the same high school and he lived down the street from me. He was a popular class clown and was always talking to me about which females he smashed. I wasn't out of the closet back then but apparently he sensed something and straight up asked me one day if I was a "fag" or something because I never talked about women I've been with and I never bring up the subject of pussy. I must've got silent so he apologized and said it was cool if I was and he didn't care because I don't act "weird" aka gay. I told him I was bisexual and hoped that would be the end of that discussion.He didn't bring the subject of my sexuality up for a long while until one day he started telling me about how he couldn't get a decent blowjob from the chicks he messed with, to save his life. I laughed nervously but he was obviously hinting at something because he then asked me if I was one of those bisexual dudes that liked to give brojobs and that he needed one. Before I could say yes he was unzipping his pants and pulling his hairy uncut meat out through the zipper hole and told me to help him out so I did and it was great for both of us. He was horned up and I was getting horned up sucking my straight buddy who always talks about how much pussy he gets so I figured l would take mines out and jackoff while sucking him and he yells at me to put my dick away or he would lose his erection. Okay fine I guess, he's the selfish type or maybe not. After I completed the brojob I had to ask him why he yelled so aggressively at me when we were both enjoying it and he nonchalantly tells me "sorry bro but i'm not gay, I don't wanna see another dick that's not my own."

 

[dude77007]

There are straight men that are completely repulsed by penises that are not their own. Although some are repulsed by other mens penises that doesn't mean that they wouldn't let another man give them a blowjob. Prime example was a neighbor that I used to have. We went to the same high school and he lived down the street from me. He was a popular class clown and was always talking to me about which females he smashed. I wasn't out of the closet back then but apparently he sensed something and straight up asked me one day if I was a "fag" or something because I never talked about women I've been with and I never bring up the subject of pussy. I must've got silent so he apologized and said it was cool if I was and he didn't care because I don't act "weird" aka gay. I told him I was bisexual and hoped that would be the end of that discussion.He didn't bring the subject of my sexuality up for a long while until one day he started telling me about how he couldn't get a decent blowjob from the chicks he messed with, to save his life. I laughed nervously but he was obviously hinting at something because he then asked me if I was one of those bisexual dudes that liked to give brojobs and that he needed one. Before I could say yes he was unzipping his pants and pulling his hairy uncut meat out through the zipper hole and told me to help him out so I did and it was great for both of us. He was horned up and I was getting horned up sucking my straight buddy who always talks about how much pussy he gets so I figured l would take mines out and jackoff while sucking him and he yells at me to put my dick away or he would lose his erection. Okay fine I guess, he's the selfish type or maybe not. After I completed the brojob I had to ask him why he yelled so aggressively at me when we were both enjoying it and he nonchalantly tells me "sorry bro but i'm not gay, I don't wanna see another dick that's not my own."

I have posted elsewhere that periodically give blow jobs to four "straight men". Three currently married and one divorced. Some for perhaps four years or longer. Early on, I assumed that none of them were interested in me sexually and would probably be uncomfortable if I pleasured myself while giving them a blow job, so I never did. None have ever given the slightest indication that they wanted to reciprocate until about two years ago, one started casually rubbing my crotch with his foot. It was totally unexpected. I made a very bold decision for me and took my clothes off. He began giving me a blow job but didn't stay on it for only about three minutes, but I thought that seemed like a long time for a "straight guy" to be sucking my dick. He seemed to be enjoying himself, except I thought he was not very good a sucking cock. He suddenly came up and said: "well, I guess this makes me gay". Being somewhat shocked but pleasantly surprised that he had actually sucked my dick, I didn't respond. It could have been an honest statement or just a cover and it wasn't actually the first time he had sucked a cock. I continue to see him every few weeks. He has never sucked my cock again, possibly for several reasons. He didn't enjoy it, he just wanted to try it, maybe he was looking for a trophy dick .....I don't know, but it was not something like hygiene. I did not take it personally. Was it the first time he had sucked a cock? Maybe yes, maybe no. Did he go on to sucking other guy's dicks? The guy fits society's complete stereotype of 100% straight, he hunts deer and wild boar, loves football, has a garage full of every tool imaginable, etc. Like, he does all those "100% straight" things. LOL. Course, some gay guys have been known to do those things, as well. I don't really care what he considers himself. Maybe circumstances presented itself and he wanted to see what sucking dick was all about, so he tried it. . We mutually consider each other a friend, we truly enjoy each other's company before and after I suck his dick. I didn't over think the incident until this post. It seems to work for both of us. The joke is that he has to tell the wife, "Honey, I'm going to Home Depot". His text is always: "I really need to go to Home Depot"!!!!! LOL

 

[ItsAll4Kim]

In other words, you now concede the point but are making out that I withheld information. I simply said that I can get off on straight porn, you ascribed motivation to that to suit your argument.

What I've been saying consistently is that I'm gay, not 100%, because I've had a relationship with a woman, but easily gay enough to identify as gay rather than bi. You seem to have a lot of trouble accepting that.

Why wouldn't I have another heterosexual relationship? Because I'm gay and it doesn't feel right or satisfying to me.

I've not said that there can't be evolution in feelings, there can be over a period of time, but because sexuality is an enduring pattern of attractions/relationships, the idea that you can decide your sexuality on a 'today' basis seems unconvincing.

I've given very clear definitions, from the dictionary. I've also been clear about why your definition of sexuality doesn't work in the real world and my agenda is clarity in terms of being true to life and people's experiences.

I don't assume you are necessarily 100% straight (after all, you've also posted as a gay man in Ask a Gay Man, so there seems to be some confusion there) but I do think all your arguments are about protecting the idea that straight can only be 100% straight. It's about exclusivity and guarding straight male status, not linguistic clarity. That was the starting point. Yes, we've been arguing gay/bi labels, but precisely because you said you'd feel the same way about equivalent straight/gay scenarios, the argument was equally about straight status, which is where your real interest is. Why else is this so important to you? If you really had no investment in the straight label, you wouldn't spend hours arguing about it in multiple threads.

Robust argument makes you uncomfortable? Too bad. This is a forum for frank exchanges.It's passive-aggressive to have your say then walk off when somebody disagrees with you, but that seems to be the pattern of your posting.

I didn't see this reply until now, sorry for the long delay. To clarify some points:

- I don't identify orientation here because the percent system seems awkward and definitely doesn't allow for the fluidity we've discussed. What the hell is "80% straight"? How does one apply objective standards to subjective feelings?

- I posted in Ask A Gay Man by accident. By all means report it and have it removed if it's a problem, as your comment there seemed to indicate.

- I don't know how to be more adamant that my interest in the terms is strictly clarity. There is no "defense of status" or anything like that on my part.

-Robust argument is fine, few enjoy it as I do. What I don't appreciate is being told how I feel, or "where my real interest is", especially when it's by assumption or stereotype. I've clearly stated, repeatedly, that my only interest is clarity, yet you repeatedly asserted that I'm "defending my precious straight status". The tone of your comments on this, whether intentional or not, come across as insulting and condescending. But the real issue is that you're putting words in my mouth. This is an anonymous forum, I have nothing to protect or hide...if I felt a label applied to me, I would have no problem stating this. As you seem unwilling to accept that I'm only interested in the language aspects of this issue, there was and is no point in going further.

 

[nailz]

LOL!
The whole Straight/Gay spectrum is really silly, just do whatever makes you happy..
..but I'm just wondering what bizarre definition of "100% Straight" includes having another man's penis your mouth?

 

[rayray]

@ItsAll4Kim said..... I don't identify orientation here because the percent system seems awkward and definitely doesn't allow for the fluidity we've discussed. What the hell is "80% straight"? How does one apply objective standards to subjective feelings? This is an anonymous forum, I have nothing to protect or hide...if I felt a label applied to me, I would have no problem stating this.


I look at the percentages on here as a clever way to say (for example).... Someone that idenifies as straight can put 99% straight and 1% gay. That 1% may because they like to look at other guys cocks and compare but have no interest other than admiration and comparison . Myself my percentages are mostly gay and I apply a small percentage to straight because I admire a woman's body . I thought about having hetero sex but only have had gay sex . So in the real world I identify strictly as gay . Also, this may be an anonymous site and you may have nothing to lose by stating your opinion but everyone wants to get there point across and be correct . With that being said, anonymous or not one can get a reputation for being stubborn and one sided on a regular basis .

 

[ItsAll4Kim]

LOL!
The whole Straight/Gay spectrum is really silly, just do whatever makes you happy..
..but I'm just wondering what bizarre definition of "100% Straight" includes having another man's penis your mouth?

Hey, mom and dad said I could be anything I wanted!