The land of great stupids

[328982]

@hunghorse30 .. it isn't like your points are completely invalid. Generally, yes. Gay men have to deal with what straight men are into everywhere they go. I do think it's overbearing. I'm a woman. Don't you think I get sick if seeing my gender over sexualized for these fuckers?

My only point is that having gay men try to convince straight men that actual heterosexual preferences don't exist is understandably annoying in this particular site. We're supposed to be accepting. That includes straight men who don't have any interest in homosexual sex at all.

Yes, I agree with that.

 

[liquiss]

My only point is that having gay men try to convince straight men that actual heterosexual preferences don't exist is understandably annoying in this particular site. We're supposed to be accepting. That includes straight men who don't have any interest in homosexual sex at all.

See you've hit the nail on the head there. For some people, the expectation of acceptance only goes one way. You more then anyone knows my stance on privileged and my understanding of it. Let's add straight to white and male and living in North America. I get what I have, and I'm the last person to push my shit on anyone else. So why can't I speak up when someone is pushing their shit on me? Because I'm straight I'm the enemy here? Hardly.

 

[Tight_N_Juicy]

Random thought to add to the current conversation: the reason we don't see "baiting" questions in the AAGM section is the fact that straight men here have no interest in convincing gay men to start fucking women.

There's no personal motive. Gay men have a much smaller pool of potential partners because as far as we know currently, there are significantly fewer gay/bisexual men in the world in the first place. (The science isn't accurate on that, because of the exact issue we're discussing... But I hope my point is understandable).

Why would the straight men here have any motive to convince gay men to start having sexual desires for women?

There's an obvious motive to try to get straight men to show interest in a potential homosexual experience. Not so much the other way around.

The women here aren't gonna try to bait gay men into vagina either, because the ladies here know how fucking rude that is. (I'm not all the women of the site, but I've come to know them well enough to say that I strongly believe they are in the same boat I am in this regard)

 

[MisterB]

Gold Star gay here. I'm not one for labels as a rule, but, IMO, there are times when labels are necessary. For whatever reason.

Most of my current male friends are 100% straight. Several of them I find attractive. Appreciate their personalities. Their physiques. Their friendship. But...Don't wanna bonk them. They don't wanna bonk me. They don't bonk guys. Period. They just don't. That doesn't mean they can't appreciate a good looking guy or that a guy has a nice physique. Whatever. But it's not spoken about with any sexual connotation. At all. Doesn't mean they want to fool around/sleep with a guy. It's just observational.

I love women. My friggin' two besties are women. But I ain't feeling anything the least bit sexual about them. I can appreciate an attractive woman. A smart woman. A woman with a great physique. Whatever. Doesn't mean I want to sleep with them. Nope.

A couple guys I know identify as "straight". Both married. They play around with guys. IMO, they are not straight. They are perhaps "mostly straight" or "normally straight" or "usually straight". Or GASP--bi-sexual. But no, they are not straight. Period.

So maybe it's time for us to put our collective heads together (no pun intended) and come up with some new definitions for men. I'll start:

Straight: No male sexual contact. Ever.
Mostly straight: Maybe a little fooling around with a guy once upon a time, but nothing in years and no desire to. Kinda like I was curious, but now I know and it's not for me.
Mainly straight: Maybe a little fooling around now and then, but more situational than planned.
Semi-straight: Planned fooling around.
Straight in name only: Self-explanatory.

Gay: No female sexual contact. Ever.
Mostly gay: Maybe a little fooling around with a woman once upon a time, but nothing in years and no desire to. Kinda like I was curious, but now I know and it's not for me.
Mainly gay: Maybe a little fooling around now and then, but more situational than planned.
Semi-gay: Planned fooling around.
Gay in name only: Self-explanatory.

Now that I've typed this out, it seems silly to me. Cuz it's just one person's opinion about labels. Yours may/will vary. And that's okay.

I would seriously like to hear other perspectives. Some good ole honest discussion. Without rancor. Or name calling. Just because I may not agree with your opinion doesn't mean I don't want to hear it. As long as it's constructive. An opportunity for me to learn, if you will.

And we've yet to discuss Lesbians turning straight women gay...I for one would find such a discussion fascinating and another opportunity to learn something I'm probably ignorant of and don't know it.

But, IMO, we need to respect those men who say they are 100% Straight. Because they exist. Contrary to anyone's fantasy or hope. They really do. I know several. So do you.

 

[Squirrel1]

And another thread that's gone off the rails.

 

[Tight_N_Juicy]

And another thread that's gone off the rails.

Well... Look okay the thread title itself.

Kinda fitting, don't ya think?

 

[Tight_N_Juicy]

Look okay the thread title itself.

What the actual fuck does that mean, TnJ?

Fuckin hell man...

 

[328982]

Gold Star gay here. I'm not one for labels as a rule, but, IMO, there are times when labels are necessary. For whatever reason.

Most of my current male friends are 100% straight. Several of them I find attractive. Appreciate their personalities. Their physiques. Their friendship. But...Don't wanna bonk them. They don't wanna bonk me. They don't bonk guys. Period. They just don't. That doesn't mean they can't appreciate a good looking guy or that a guy has a nice physique. Whatever. But it's not spoken about with any sexual connotation. At all. Doesn't mean they want to fool around/sleep with a guy. It's just observational.

I love women. My friggin' two besties are women. But I ain't feeling anything the least bit sexual about them. I can appreciate an attractive woman. A smart woman. A woman with a great physique. Whatever. Doesn't mean I want to sleep with them. Nope.

A couple guys I know identify as "straight". Both married. They play around with guys. IMO, they are not straight. They are perhaps "mostly straight" or "normally straight" or "usually straight". Or GASP--bi-sexual. But no, they are not straight. Period.

So maybe it's time for us to put our collective heads together (no pun intended) and come up with some new definitions for men. I'll start:

Straight: No male sexual contact. Ever.
Mostly straight: Maybe a little fooling around with a guy once upon a time, but nothing in years and no desire to. Kinda like I was curious, but now I know and it's not for me.
Mainly straight: Maybe a little fooling around now and then, but more situational than planned.
Semi-straight: Planned fooling around.
Straight in name only: Self-explanatory.

Gay: No female sexual contact. Ever.
Mostly gay: Maybe a little fooling around with a woman once upon a time, but nothing in years and no desire to. Kinda like I was curious, but now I know and it's not for me.
Mainly gay: Maybe a little fooling around now and then, but more situational than planned.
Semi-gay: Planned fooling around.
Gay in name only: Self-explanatory.

Now that I've typed this out, it seems silly to me. Cuz it's just one person's opinion about labels. Yours may/will vary. And that's okay.

I would seriously like to hear other perspectives. Some good ole honest discussion. Without rancor. Or name calling. Just because I may not agree with your opinion doesn't mean I don't want to hear it. As long as it's constructive. An opportunity for me to learn, if you will.

And we've yet to discuss Lesbians turning straight women gay...I for one would find such a discussion fascinating and another opportunity to learn something I'm probably ignorant of and don't know it.

But, IMO, we need to respect those men who say they are 100% Straight. Because they exist. Contrary to anyone's fantasy or hope. They really do. I know several. So do you.

I quite like your definitions. Of course 100% straight men exist. I hope you don’t think I was saying they don't. But it is interesting that your definitions allow for degrees of straight and gay - mostly, mainly, semi etc. This fits better with reality imo than the idea that you can’t call yourself gay/straight if you've ever entertained a stray desire or had a quick fumble. So I'd call myself mostly gay on your scale, within the gay spectrum.

Re: being approached by women I can think of at least 5 occasions when women have come on to me even though they knew I identify as gay. Can’t say I felt disrespected by that, more flattered. And no, I wasn’t tempted.

 

[693987]

I do however find it interesting that you've used the last paragraph of the above quoted comment to try and imply that I feel slighted, or I'm a champion of the straight man and somehow offended. If I went into a Ford forum, and started asking about under what circumstance my Ford F150 become a Chevy, wouldn't you expect some people to answer, "Under no circumstance"?

Finally, I know you've liked comments from other people challenging my views. It's happened a number of times. I also know, that for some reason you've decided to come in here and try to paint me as homophobic or a bigot. You've "tracked" my posts in one section of this forum and then tried to slander my character as a result of those posts. If you've tracked anything other that what you've decided to be offended by, you'd have seen that I'm the first person to stand up for the rights of people. I don't care if your a woman, a child, a man, gay, bi, transgender, whatever. As long as you're not a douchebag, I'll gladly stand behind you. I'm happy to indulge in your witch hunt, but I can tell you with 100% certainty, you're wrong about your assessment of me.

Do the world a favour... stop looking for offense where there is none. There's enough of that shit going on already.

That's his MO. Pretty much any time someone disagrees with me about something no matter how innocent or bland the topic, it is zero surprise to see him Like their post.

 

[328982]

That's his MO. Pretty much any time someone disagrees with me about something no matter how innocent or bland the topic, it is zero surprise to see him Like their post.

That's a little rich. I'm not allowed to disagree with you or show my support for a different viewpoint? We all like posts we agree with, all the time. I've actually liked several of your posts where I've agreed with you.

 

[liquiss]

I quite like your definitions. Of course 100% straight men exist. I hope you don’t think I was saying they don't. But it is interesting that your definitions allow for degrees of straight and gay - mostly, mainly, semi etc. This fits better with reality imo than the idea that you can’t call yourself gay/straight if you've ever entertained a stray desire or had a quick fumble. So I'd call myself mostly gay on your scale, within the gay spectrum.

Re: being approached by women I can think of at least 5 occasions when women have come on to me even though they knew I identify as gay. Can’t say I felt disrespected by that, more flattered. And no, I wasn’t tempted.

The only reason @MisterB had to provide a spectrum of definitions is because people still seem to be afraid to be labeled as bi or gay. he said himself that after he wrote it, it seemed silly. I totally understand that unfortunately there is still a pile of stigma attached to the label of bisexual or gay. That's truly unfortunate, and I assure you it's certainly not coming out of this camp. But just because people are afraid to accept themselves for who they are doesn't mean we have to dilute defined definitions into 457 categories. That's silly. If you're attracted to the opposite sex only, you're straight. If you're attracted to both sexes, you're bisexual. If you're attracted to the same sex only, you're gay. There is absolutely nothing wrong with any of those definitions. Society is fucked, because still judge others for anything they can. That's not right. But if you can't love and accept yourself for who you are, then how can you love and accept others for who they choose to be? Stop focusing on the negativity, block that shit out. If you're looking in the right places, you can always find people who accept you for who you are.

 

[918177]

Talk about the Land of the Great Stupids....

I've got one happening in real life that has me chuckling and shaking my head.

There's a older German lady who lives up the street in my community who has tried on countless
occasion to get me to go out on dates.
There weren't innocent coffee dates because the suggestive wording and manner make it clear
it was a "date date".
I'm always polite but very firm in my refusals.
She's gotten very, VERY pushy.
The answer has still been a very firm NO.

She also has the contract to deliver weekly sale catalogues from the various
stores in town.
It also seems that in retaliation for my rejection of her
advances I'm no longer going to get catalogue deliveries.
In fact I've had no catalogues for the last 3 weeks.

All you can do is laugh and shake your head.

Meh...some how I manage to function and I guess
she doesn't know I can look the catalogues up
on-line without aid of a hard copy?

If it makes her feel better to think she's hurting me I'll let it stand
because quite frankly it's ridiculous.

 

[twoton]

. So why does the straight male category require special protection, greater purity?

Not that it requires protection, but a whole lot of people like to assume that all men have such little control over sexual urges that we’ll get freaky with anyone any time the conditions are right. It’s like the assumption that every woman wants a monster cock, even if they won’t admit it.

 

[liquiss]

Not that it requires protection, but a whole lot of people like to assume that all men have such little control over sexual urges that we’ll get freaky with anyone any time the conditions are right. It’s like the assumption that every woman wants a monster cock, even if they won’t admit it.

Well except we all know that last one is true. Especially the women who frequent these forums. Why else would they be here?

 

[twoton]

Well except we all know that last one is true. Especially the women who frequent these forums. Why else would they be here?

True. How true.

 

[693987]

This:

Can anyone bait someone for me?

 

[EllieP]

"Hey, you're on a big weenie site. Wanna see mine?"

"No, thank you."

"Fuck you, stupid lesbian."

 

[ManofThunder]

"Hey, you're on a big weenie site. Wanna see mine?"

"No, thank you."

"Fuck you, stupid lesbian."

Alternate version of the last line, from a more persistent one: "I'll fuck you stupid, lesbian."

 

[185248]

Social media. I have a chuckle every time I hear how stupid it sounds.

 

[693987]

This shit right here

Photo - Dropbox

More fucking pathetic baiting bullshit

Photo - Trade bait dropbox links