"There's no such thing as 100% Straight"

[D_CountdeGrandePinja]

Felix - in same boat as you - knew I was gay from about 5 - no reason or need for women sexually - I'm in Broward Co. too

 

[Drifterwood]

I always thought that being cyber hounded would be more interesting.

 

[BlackIsKingSize]

i belive if someone says they are 100% something you should take their word for it.

Exactly. Nobody can know someone's orientation and personality better than the person themself. Nobody else lives in their head. If somebody says they're 100% straight, gay, whatever then, unless you know of actions that directly contradict that, it's crazy to think you know them better than they know themself.

So many people say "every guy's at least thought about it." How do they know what other people have thought? Even if it is true that most guys think about it, you can't assume any particular guy has unless he says so.

 

[HazelGod]

Fair point HG. And as Felix says, I have never had any sexual attraction to other men, no matter how much I might like/admire them as people or even appreciate their physique as a man, label or no label for whatever that means.

That basically sums me up as well. I throw that 1% in there based on this, as well as my feeling that absolutes don't exist aside from on paper...anyone claiming to be such an absolute either lacks sufficient life experience to know better, or is living in denial of something.

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

Do I say anything to impune his
argument about "those people?"

Psst. Nic, the word you're looking for is spelled impugn.

 

[B_NineInchCock_160IQ]

Psst. Nic, the word you're looking for is spelled impugn.

If I was SweatyBlackBalls I would argue that I meant my statement wasn't designed to not punish Drifterwood's, and that it made perfect sense.

But I'm not... so yeah... you're right. My mistake.

 

[D_Keziah Binbanger]

I think you can be straight even if you had or even if you want to have a gay experience.

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

If I was SweatyBlackBalls I would argue that I meant my statement wasn't designed to not punish Drifterwood's, and that it made perfect sense.
But I'm not... so yeah... you're right. My mistake.

Actually, I was waiting for you to do exactly that.
Hats off, NIC.
You didn't.

 

[B_NineInchCock_160IQ]

put your hat back on or I'm going to have to veto your designs on my prime ass.

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

put your hat back on or I'm going to have to veto your designs on my prime ass.

Oh, I'll just run the vids.
(You know... from last time.)

 

[Skull Mason]

anyone claiming to be such an absolute either lacks sufficient life experience to know better, or is living in denial of something.

Or is just trying to avoid dozens and dozens of pms from men that would follow a change in orientation percentage...

 

[B_Monster]

Sexuality is not black and white

 

[HazelGod]

Or is just trying to avoid dozens and dozens of pms from men that would follow a change in orientation percentage...

Hah...good point! I was speaking in the general sense, but you're right...that 1% label here does seem to invite a rash of attention.

Sexuality is not black and white

Wow...you're a veritable font of profundity and originality. However do you manage such things AND remember to keep breathing?

 

[Drifterwood]

So, irrespective of the now predictable intervention of the new site saddo to anything that I try to discuss, does anyone who espouses that there is no such thing as 100% straight, yet maintains that one can be 100% gay, wish to justify their apparent anomaly? Because, irrespective of the predictable horse manure from said site saddo, I am quite open to plausible POV's.

 

[Ethyl]

I have seen this opinion espoused many times on this site by some Gay men. Yet I have never seen the same people question whether there is such a thing as 100% Gay.

The same could be said about women in reverse. Some say there is no 100% with women and that we're all naturally heteroflexible, to borrow AlteredEgo's term You've had your share of moresomes. Were they all acting in a bisexual manner during the menage or display only heterosexual behaviour?

 

[B_NineInchCock_160IQ]

So, irrespective of the now predictable intervention of the new site saddo to anything that I try to discuss, does anyone who espouses that there is no such thing as 100% straight, yet maintains that one can be 100% gay, wish to justify their apparent anomaly? Because, irrespective of the predictable horse manure from said site saddo, I am quite open to plausible POV's.

Site fuckwit, would you like me to link to the 30 other threads?

 

[ManlyBanisters]

He still doesn't get it!

Women seem to be able to get away with a lot more in terms of avoing sexual labels though (well, as regards orientation, anyway). A girl can be in an FMF and not get labelled bi and certainly not lesbian. Nor is she particularly 'required' to worry about it. Women get the pointy end of the stick only when they do claim the 100% gay label. Though funnily enough it is almost always men who would claim, I imagine, to be 100% straight who would also argue that a lesbian could be 'turned'. Of the gay men I've known well I would say none of them would speak of themselves in absolutes - but then those men wouldn't have claimed that 100% straight is a myth either.

 

[Drifterwood]

The same could be said about women in reverse. Some say there is no 100% with women and that we're all naturally heteroflexible, to borrow AlteredEgo's term You've had your share of moresomes. Were they all acting in a bisexual manner during the menage or display only heterosexual behaviour?

Very good question MB. I was thinking about the very same thing. Whilst I can't define the difference, I would maintain that male and female sexuality are not interchangeable. That said, I have been in situations where women have said no to a mff threesome even though there was no intention of nor pressure of woman on woman activity and I have also been in one situation where I was quite happy to be in a two men and one woman situation where again it was the woman who said no. So IME, women can most definitely be 100% heterosexual and not wish to be in any sexual situation involving another woman.

 

[B_NineInchCock_160IQ]

He still doesn't get it!

Just because the snooty jackass who is smart enough to pretend eloquence appears to be on your side of an argument doesn't mean that you are making good points, dear.

 

[ManlyBanisters]

Re-reading my last post and Drifter's (and mb's too actually) I have a notion.

I have no evidence whatsoever to back this up by the way. I'm postulating, not even stating a firm opinion nevermind trying to present it as fact. So please don't get on my case about stating absolutes - because I'm not, not at all.

My assumption above is that some 100% straight men can't believe a woman can be 100% NOT attracted to men.
Drifter's assumption (more an observation in his case maybe) is that some 100% gay men can't believe that a man can be 100% NOT attracted to men.
In both cases the 100% man is unable to believe that a person he has potential to be attracted to would have no potential to be attracted to him. So is it, perhaps, an ego thing?

Does the same hold true in women? Are 100% straight women more likely to have a hard time accepting a man can be 100% gay?