straight men have sex with men - shocker?!
- Thread starter col1974
- Start date
I've never had a verification pic.
Jay1074
Expert Member
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2007
- Posts
- 374
- Media
- 2
- Likes
- 126
- Points
- 113
- Location
- A Very Warm Handbasket
- Sexuality
- 50% Straight, 50% Gay
- Gender
- Male
I have to agree whole-heartedly with this line of thought. The problem, as I see it, is in the way society as a whole perceives sexuality. The status quo still is "straight = normal; gay/bi = not"... which is just utter crap and thank God is becoming less pervasive. So the immediate connection people make in their minds is that anyone who is not completely straight must be some deviant or freak, which is bad or undesirable.
I read a quote in someone's profile once that said... "Heterosexuality is not normal, it's just more common." I think that makes alot of sense. This will stop being an issue when people are not treated like they are crazy for admitting their sexual proclivities. I'm not a big believer in "Pride" but the idea of having to hide who you are is just such a retarded way of living. But this is essentially what studies like this prove.. that there are people who feel obliged to hide certain activities from the people in their lives. It says nothing earth-shattering about the people in the study but it speaks volumes about society and how we treat one another affects even the most mundane aspects of our lives.
I tend to see this in almost reverse terms. I think men are "straight" if they say they're straight and they make relationships and families with women. The only ones I see as "gay" are those who self identify as "exclusively" gay. Many of them have never been anything but gay. So I'm not sure if that includes the ones who've come out of the closet from marriages with kids. Privately I think of them as functionally bisexual, even though they are now "exclusively" "gay."
So I see the default as straight. Dallying with men doesn't make "straight" men gay because most of them never prefer or enter into housekeeping with men. As I see your sentence I quoted above, one experience with another man irrevocably banishes a man from "straightdom." That's just not what I see in real life.
I thought Ayesho's post was very good too. In visiting other cultures and reading about them, I think most are less rigid about "straightness" than the U.S.
Thanks Jay1074.
Our civilzation has been so hung up on interpretations of the few to control the masses. Even these "interpretations" of what one thinks God says is blown out of proportion. Even in the oldest spiritual writings known to man, The Vedas, Lord Krishna himself came down as a consort to his favorite man soldier before battle the next day.
This world is spinning out of control population wise, and we as humans are destroying Mother Earth. So when is heterosexuality "normal" except for the preservation of a race or mankind? Even the animal kingdom is wiser, and homosexuality is the norm.
In that stance, standing up and being who one is sexually is being authentic and is normal, and truthful. I myself don't feel I have to wave a banner to say I am gay, but at the same time I feel can walk with dignity and accept all others for whom they are.
Again, the ancient and accepted definition of "morality" is: "Do nothing intentionally to harm another, including oneself."
Fear is always the opposite of love, and is the basis of anger. Fear of what? Like gossip (the worst form of judgment), only tells the audience who the person is judging. All about their insecurities, themselves... again FEAR. Being authentic and truthful make life so much easier, even in the face of opposition. How many millions of men and women through history despite being gay were loved for who they are? They shined!
The next time one meets a new person, listen especially to their judgments, and learn all about who they really are. Then choose to be friends or not?
Most generally their judgments are about what they do not like about themselves. Otherwise, it would not strike a few internal wires in the first place.
It is fabulous to meet a person who is authentic and stands in that authenticity for who they really are - even if they are straight, being gay is no threat to them. Same with being gay and gracious, only attracts admiration from those who are otherwise.
BigDallasDick8x6
Admired Member
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2006
- Posts
- 3,881
- Media
- 6
- Likes
- 863
- Points
- 333
- Location
- Dallas TX (North Oak Cliff)
- Sexuality
- 99% Gay, 1% Straight
- Gender
- Male
You're speaking of desires. There is also behavior. A str8 guy in prison may only WANT a woman, but he might ACCEPT a blowjob from a guy.
In speaking of gay vs. str8 there is more than one measure --
Self-identity
Desire
Behavior
etc.
There are several more and someone articulated it here a few month ago far better than I ever have.
Phil Ayesho
Superior Member
Sorry to disabuse you but all meaning of all words are relative.
Usage defines words, not dictionaries...
That's why dictionaries get updated regularly.
The point is that there is almost no such thing as a "straight" man by your definition.
The other point is that a large percentage men who self-identify as "straight", nevertheless, have had sex with men. Be it once or weekly.
Ergo- your defintion of the word straight can not possibly be correct.
The term homosexual refers to sex with the same gender- heterosexual refers to sex with the other gender.
So of the two words- straight, or heterosexual, the one with the more definable meaning is heterosexual.
Straight, as a slang term, has a far more mutable meaning.
The fact is that men who only occasionally indulge in sex with me often self identify as straight. What do you think their reasoning is for this?
Partly, certainly, it is fear of the social bias against homosexuality.
But I argue that they feel a marked difference between their desire for women and their willingness to engage in sex with men.
I would argue that such men feel an emotional attraction and want to pair bond exclusively with women... but for various reasons are not adverse to sex with men with no emotional attachment.
I am suggesting a way of looking at the terminology that eliminates this kind of absolutist debate.
That Gay or Straight refer to your ROMANTIC inclinations and preference. The Gender that sends you.
The recognition that SEXUAL behavior is sometimes opportunistic and not entirely linked to ones preferences.
I can enjoy sucking a cock, but I would never fall in love with a man.
And given the choice between cock and pussy I would pick the pussy every time.
How is that not straight?
ETA- being more open minded than you doesn't make me less straight... not as long as women are the only ones with which I form deep emotional attachments.
Last edited:
I agree.. any student of rhetoric, ancient or modern, knows that words do not point to Platonic ideals that somehow exist in purity somewhere in the ether. Words are not discrete units like numbers... they blend, they change, they come from other words, they form more words. In some instances they mean one thing, in other instances the same word can mean something completely different.
The problem with the study is asking people to "self-label." People suck at self-labeling. Labels are political statements, usually. If a guy who's sucked 1000 dicks labels himself "straight," that's probably him saying something like, "My religion says homosexuality is wrong," or "I don't consider oral sex to be 'sex'" or something like that. Both of those are political statements, if you look closely enough.
The problem with the study is asking people to "self-label." People suck at self-labeling. Labels are political statements, usually. If a guy who's sucked 1000 dicks labels himself "straight," that's probably him saying something like, "My religion says homosexuality is wrong," or "I don't consider oral sex to be 'sex'" or something like that. Both of those are political statements, if you look closely enough.
Terms like "homosexual" and "heterosexual," to say nothing of colloquialisms like "gay" and "straight," are of comparatively recent origin. Indeed, the very concept of sexual orientation is not very old -- I think less than a hundred years old, though perhaps one can find its antecedents in the work of psychologists of the 19th century. Whatever the exact dating of the emergence of the concept, if you went back in time, say, 200 years or more, and you wanted to ask whether some man was or was not heterosexual, not only would you find no words in the language of the day to express your meaning neatly, but you would find no means of asking your question even by circumlocution. Even if you posed a plain question like, "Does he fuck other men, or only women?", your use of the word "fuck" might lead to miscommunication: do you mean his inserting his penis into some orifice of another man's body (must it be the anus? does the mouth count? or a hand? or the space between the thighs?), or do you also include his being the recipient of another's penis (and if so in what manner)? I think that by the time you got the question broken down into clear meanings and got your answers, there would be no clear way to put the pieces back together so as to get an answer to the question that you originally wanted to ask.
My main point is that classifying oneself as "gay" or "straight" is a comparatively recent development, and that it owes as much to the social and cultural setting of people's sexual activities as it to those activities themselves. In consequence, we should not be surprised if we find that the facts of human nature often refuse to divide themselves along the lines that we would like them to do.
My main point is that classifying oneself as "gay" or "straight" is a comparatively recent development, and that it owes as much to the social and cultural setting of people's sexual activities as it to those activities themselves. In consequence, we should not be surprised if we find that the facts of human nature often refuse to divide themselves along the lines that we would like them to do.
If you ACCEPT a blowjob from a guy then, at least on some level, you desire it or at least find it appealing or passable e.g. you derive some modicum of pleasure out of it. It doesn't mean it's your favorite but you WANT it, you ACCEPT it, etc. In other words, you get some sort of enjoyment out of it. As a truly straight man I can tell you I find the idea of another guy jerking me off or whatever to carry NO appeal. I'm sure there are others who feel the same way.
I feel like this is 1984 (the book, not the year). Look, if you like women but occasionally let a guy suck your dick for pleasure you're bi. You may not be very feminine. You may seem "normal" and blend in with other guys who like only women but you're bi. You may prefer women to men but since you like sexual activity with both you're bi. I don't know why you in particular seemed so hell bent on bending the interpretation of pretty black and white concepts. Once again, I'm drawing a distinction between the idea behind "straight" and "straight acting". Many men who are "straight acting" (if this board is any indication) are, in effect, bi because they occasionally like to have sexual encounters with men.
The bottom line is that this sort of thing is pretty easy to understand. There is nothing wrong with being bi. There is nothing bad about it. I personally have NO problems with men who enjoy sexual activity with either sex. What I do have a problem with is people who want to bend pretty concrete words and phrases to fit their own convenient definitions.
Of course. You gotta get at least to the point where the dick is in the mouth to enjoy it. I know you are saying there is no desire, but if you let it happen with someone you were friendly with--if it did happen, you would enjoy it too.
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2008
- Posts
- 733
- Media
- 421
- Likes
- 2,675
- Points
- 498
- Location
- Johannesburg, South Africa
- Verification
- View
- Sexuality
- No Response
- Gender
- Male
So, let me get this straight...
My friend who only drinks coffee whenever the rest of us consume alcohol (even when we're socializing at a bar or a braai), who prefers to live a life of a teetotaller would, when he has a glass of champagne at the odd celebration, be labelled as a drinker or maybe even a closet alcoholic...?
My friend who only drinks coffee whenever the rest of us consume alcohol (even when we're socializing at a bar or a braai), who prefers to live a life of a teetotaller would, when he has a glass of champagne at the odd celebration, be labelled as a drinker or maybe even a closet alcoholic...?
TroMag
Experimental Member
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2009
- Posts
- 463
- Media
- 1
- Likes
- 8
- Points
- 103
- Location
- North Carolina
- Sexuality
- 99% Straight, 1% Gay
- Gender
- Male
I was thinking the same thing. What percentage of men self-identify as gay, and what percentage as bi?
:rofl:
You're missing the point and using a poor example. "Alcoholic" implies that the person drinks on a somewhat regular basis as does "drinker".
I think a better example would be to say that your "friend" couldn't say he's alcohol-free despite having a drink once in awhile. That's the same concept here. It's not the frequency of the act, or what you prefer that matters but rather the mere fact it happened is what's relevant.
MarkLondon
Sexy Member
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2008
- Posts
- 1,911
- Media
- 21
- Likes
- 98
- Points
- 193
- Location
- London, UK
- Sexuality
- 99% Gay, 1% Straight
- Gender
- Male
There seem to be a lot more surveys of "have you ever had..." than "do you self-identify as...".
However, found this on Wikipedia:-
"In the United States, according to exit polling on 2008 Election Day for the 2008 Presidential elections, 4% of electorate self-identified as gay, lesbian, or bisexual, the same percentage as in 2004.”[72] "
TroMag
Experimental Member
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2009
- Posts
- 463
- Media
- 1
- Likes
- 8
- Points
- 103
- Location
- North Carolina
- Sexuality
- 99% Straight, 1% Gay
- Gender
- Male
I'm surprised only 4% self-identify that way. Of course there are multiple confounding factors. First, it's a survey, and not everyone is honest. Second, a survey of voters, who had just handed over identification to get into the voting booths, may lead to less candidness than a survey performed under different circumstances. And if we're getting at gay/bi men, we have to take into account that there are far more gay/bi men than lesbian/bi women (according to what I've seen on the matter).
The figure doesn't surprise me, but where in the USA do voters have to submit identification in order to vote? It was my impression that attempts to institute such a thing have all been challenged and defeated as effectively discriminatory against low-income (and thus Democratic) voters.
That is what I have always heard too -- or at least that there are more homosexual males than females.
Similar threads
