Why Straight Men Have Sex With Each Other
- Thread starter shadyspace
- Start date
- Status
I dunno. I have a problem with criteria like "interest in participating in queer culture" because that sounds way too close to the "gay lifestyle" rhetoric the right likes to use when vilifying homosexuals, or the "you're only gay because you haven't fucked the right woman yet" nonsense. is this some kind of academic terminology thing?
Well, in the case of my office, everything they say at any specific moment in time, they twist it as a joke so it always has to do with doing gay stuff (except when we deal with higher-ups of course). 9 AM monday, Wednesday lunch break, or crunching for stuff on a saturday, it's all gay jokes at every possible turn. It's an all-dude team of five, btw.
Menial, every day stuff like "can I please have you send me those files I requested?" "can I schedule you for a one on one?", etc., are conveyed with such body language and puns afterwards that it really becomes obvious it's gay innuendo in exactly the way you are imagining right now: not very cool at all. Before you think I'm delusional, they literally hit on each other, and me as well, afterwards.
I've noticed that this trend of thought is also present in any group of mostly-male or male-only productive groups, and even more with nerds. A group of geek friends I have also does it. I take it as just banter in practice, but there wouldn't be so much smoke if there wasn't fire, perhaps?
Meh, maybe it's just a Mexico thing.
KibblesBits
Member
Also, I know it's a bit off topic but...
Fluffers are NOT A THING IN PORN ANYMORE.
Your scene partner gets you up or you just use porn with Caverject or Pills.
...don't ask me how I know this.
Fluffers are NOT A THING IN PORN ANYMORE.
Your scene partner gets you up or you just use porn with Caverject or Pills.
...don't ask me how I know this.
Storm Raider
Banned
Apparently we are in the midst of the fucking hour here at NeoGAF
Hahaha this forum is too good
flatearthpandas
Member
Haha. At any rate, I thought the article in the OP was pretty interesting.
hey_monkey
Banned
I think this is an important thing to remember. Sometimes people just really want to fuck and they will take any hand or hole around. Doesn't change your regular preferences, especially in youth.
But I'm a woman and I'll agree with some of the earlier assessments in this thread about the way expectations about female sexuality develop vs male. A little cross-spectrum fucking is almost expected with women, but with men, it's seen as some big taboo. I think it's great that there are people working to change that.
charlequin
Banned
It is in part some academic (or at least sociological) terminology, though it's also just one small part of the full picture. If you have two men that are attracted to the exact same mix of mostly women and a few men, but one chooses to get married to a woman and live a suburban picket fence life while the other stays single and is involved socially with LGBT organizations, they're probably going to identify themselves differently. That's not because of a "homosexual lifestyle" (those LGBT organizations might just be knitting circles or volleyball teams or whatever) but it does acknowledge how people's social context is a big factor in how they identify themselves.
...Scatter...
Banned
Ooof. There's no amount of #nohomo that can overcome the clarity that any man that willingly takes the D is clearly not straight. Straight guys wouldn't entertain the idea. But to each their own.
What many people fail to think about its that "attraction" by another person isn't really necessary for a sexual situation to happen. After all, most of us are quite capable of getting off on our own, either using our hands or convenient objects nearby. Many guys stuck their dicks into strange holes at some point in their lives. Many girls stuck strange things in their holes as well. Many guys too.
For example, a pillow is not a sexual object for most people. But in a lonely afternoon some horny guys might fool around with it, specially in their teens.
So, if a guy can get off by humping a pillow without becoming aroused every time he walks by the bedding section of a department store, it's entirely possible for a guy to get off with another dude without becoming attracted to guys, as long as they aren't repulsed to it to the point it kills their momentary libido.
The classic story of the straight guy getting a blowjob from some other dude is a good example. There's very little effort required from the guy in the receiving end: he can close his eyes and the whole thing becomes sort of an enhanced masturbation session, his imagination replacing the other guy by whoever he desires. It's purely a sexual release, with zero feelings or even the possibility thereof, because the other dude is just a convenient tool for busting a nut, just like the pillow.
Calling these people bissexual is a disservice to bisexual people. They're just using each other for their masturbatory urges.
For example, a pillow is not a sexual object for most people. But in a lonely afternoon some horny guys might fool around with it, specially in their teens.
So, if a guy can get off by humping a pillow without becoming aroused every time he walks by the bedding section of a department store, it's entirely possible for a guy to get off with another dude without becoming attracted to guys, as long as they aren't repulsed to it to the point it kills their momentary libido.
The classic story of the straight guy getting a blowjob from some other dude is a good example. There's very little effort required from the guy in the receiving end: he can close his eyes and the whole thing becomes sort of an enhanced masturbation session, his imagination replacing the other guy by whoever he desires. It's purely a sexual release, with zero feelings or even the possibility thereof, because the other dude is just a convenient tool for busting a nut, just like the pillow.
Calling these people bissexual is a disservice to bisexual people. They're just using each other for their masturbatory urges.
kitchenmotors
Banned
Really all that needs to be said.
Captain Europe
Member
Then why are ladyboys a thing?
There's men out there who aren't attracted to other men, but for some reason find penises attractive.
Don't agree with some of the tone used but this is a really great post.
Little sad to see how people still view males in society and sexuality, something I really wished was talked about and could help society move forward if discussed more.
I'd like to point I'm not condemning people who engage in that. Same sex masturbatory experiences are somewhat common in the early teens, for example.
It's the "one drop" rule used to put people into one of mere the buckets that I'm calling out on, which sadly is very common as shown by the "100% straight" reactions of many posters on this very thread.
This whole labeling thing and "purebred straight" mentality causes all sorts of suffering and problems. Like people who are forever haunted by "that one time at the camp" and decide to counter it by becoming staunch homophobes.
It won't happen, sadly. We still live in a society full of insecure people who think like "penis in butt = LOLOLOLOLOL U GAY now I have the right to disrespect you"
Blood Diamonds
Banned
You're saying that there's tons and tons of men pretending to feel attracted to women, faking their hard ons when they have sex with their wives and forcing themselves to ejaculate to become fathers? Because gay men, by definition, are not attracted to women.
How does that work, in your opinion?
Also, if a gay men can fully functionality pretend to be straight and have sex with women, this means straight men can also fully functionality pretend to be gay and have sex with men, which means you agree that it's possible for a straight guy to work on gay porn, is that right?
...Scatter...
Banned
Antiwhippy
the holder of the trombone
Why is it so much harder for people to accept that Bi people exist?
Shit meant bi, man.
umop_3pisdn
Member
sex is a facet of sexuality, human sexuality is a broad enough subject that one thing doesn't 'define' it.
It's going for specificity/factuality for in situations where that might be desired, it doesn't really have anything to do with politics dude.
Man Called Aerodynamics
Member
The bro doth protest too much, methinks.
Wouldn't that be nice? Why can't adults just like other consenting adults without worrying of the gender?
...Scatter...
Banned
I do think some peoples lines are more blurred than others. For example, some dudes just love to get their dick sucked so much, they don't give a rats ass who's doing it. The old "anything that moves" crowd. I don't know if Id categorize these cats as bi. More like omni.
I like this post.
It's not that they don't exist, it's that three buckets is still way to few. Depending on the strictness of the definition you end up with the vast majority of the population in the bi bucket, which accomplishes nothing.
I heard about this book last week, and was a bit put off by how it was characterized in this review.
I haven't read the book (and don't know if I will), but I felt rather put-off by the portrayal.
I haven't read the book (and don't know if I will), but I felt rather put-off by the portrayal.
Yup. There are a lot more dudes who fall in this camp than most people imagine. Just because your friends never told you about it it doesn't mean none of them never did it.
Their existence muddies the labeling water quite a lot.
While saying that anyone who has ever experimented with the same sex is bi is technically inclusive, identity is self-defined and fluid. A man can experiment with another man and decide that it isn't for him and still identify as straight. He could even enjoy the experience and repeat it, but since you don't get to choose his identity for him, it can be straight, gay, bi, or even something else that he feels more closely fits him.
Chezzymann
Member
I understand that attraction is what defines sexuality, not sex, but one thing I dont understand is if you're a straight male out if all the things you could stick your pens into to masturbate, why would you choose another dudes butt? At least to me as a straight male and what I've heard from others I know, just the thought of having sex with a dude is nasty. I'm very sure I couldn't even manage to get turned on if I was doing it. Unless maybe I closed my eyes and tried really hard to pretend its a girl or something
AuthenticM
Member
lol
Antiwhippy
the holder of the trombone
No that's the thing, the Bi bucket is incredibly fluid and incredibly malleable. I tend to think of straight and gay as opposites of a spectrum that Bi occupies.
You couldn't be more wrong. I'm very open minded. I'm just trying to analyze what some people are saying intellectually. I clearly don't care who thinks I'm gay by the amount I wear pink/purple.
A lot of people are saying a lot of straight guys like to have sex with men. That doesn't compute. If you are a man and like to have sex with men, you're bi or gay. By definition. I'm not bi or gay, so I have less than zero sexual interest in other men. Sometimes the world seems like it's going crazy right here on neogaf.
What about a mouth? Or a hand? Or no contact at all, but watching porn in the same room?
You people have a very narrow definition of sex.
KibblesBits
Member
lol
If you are a man and have sex with men and identify as straight then you are doing it wrong. That's not what straight means.
There's truly absolutely nothing wrong with bisexual. If you have sexual thoughts towards other men then you are bisexual/gay. Deal with it.
charlequin
Banned
Because bisexuality challenges the narratives that both straight and gay relationships tend to be built around... but that's also not really what's going on here, exactly.
Based on what data there is, for whatever reason, anal sex is relatively uncommon in these scenarios. (Even among self-identified gay males, anal sex is significantly further from universal than vaginal sex is for straight couples, and fifty years back an even larger portion of gay men didn't engage in it.)
When you get to mutual masturbation or blow jobs I don't think it's actually that difficult to imagine why a person might want those instead of jerking themselves off, once you're talking about someone who isn't sexually repulsed by members of the same sex.
Good thing you're open minded. I can't even imagine your opinion if you were closed minded... because I can't come to with a more close minded claim than that one.
why do we always try to fit the humans into the labels and not fit our labels to the humans
It is so sad to watch people attempt to compress their emotional spectrum to match up with a flat, arbitrarily constructed label or archetype. There seems to be some pervasive belief that labels and their definitions along with categories and their boundaries are immutable and intrinsic. I often see people trying to shoehorn something into a category defined by a label as if being identified under that label will change the properties of said thing to be prototypic of that which the category's label supposedly represents, and vice-versa trying to exclude something from a category as if that will make said thing no longer exhibit the qualities of the category. Identifying a dolphin as a fish does not make the dolphin suddenly more fish-like*.
The recent proliferation of a much wider range of gender identity labels seems to be a pragmatic solution for this - we haven't fixed the way we irrationally regard labels, but if we can make enough labels to satisfy and include everyone while minimizing homogenization** then I suppose for all intents and purposes the problem is solved. I fully support the usage of as many labels as it takes to make everyone feel properly represented - and perhaps on a societal scale we must interpret "fitting the labels to the humans" on a metaphysical level as well: perhaps on a societal scale we must fit our conceptual representation and organization of the world to human shortcomings, at least for now.
Basically, my belief is that these "new" gender identities have always existed regardless of whether we had a proper label for them, and would have continued to exist even if we continued our improper ignorant labeling. But properly labeling them is still important for people to not feel marginalized and to express themselves, even if it does continue the pervasive attitude that labels define people as opposed to the correct inversion.
*An unsavory person might use this line of thought to be dismissive of transgendered people, but this line of thought actually supports transgendered people: misgendering a transgender person is again like trying to say that because you keep calling dolphin "fish", they will become more fish-like. To an uneducated person, that dolphin may appear to be fish-like based on a limited understanding of what defines fish-ness, but that doesn't make them right. Gender is defined based on self-identity and brain-wave studies support this notion.
**No, homogenization sadly doesn't mean "to inoculate people to be more open to having homosexual relations" [/joke]
EDIT: dammit i spent too long writing this post for it to stay uncriticized at the bottom of a page
It is so sad to watch people attempt to compress their emotional spectrum to match up with a flat, arbitrarily constructed label or archetype. There seems to be some pervasive belief that labels and their definitions along with categories and their boundaries are immutable and intrinsic. I often see people trying to shoehorn something into a category defined by a label as if being identified under that label will change the properties of said thing to be prototypic of that which the category's label supposedly represents, and vice-versa trying to exclude something from a category as if that will make said thing no longer exhibit the qualities of the category. Identifying a dolphin as a fish does not make the dolphin suddenly more fish-like*.
The recent proliferation of a much wider range of gender identity labels seems to be a pragmatic solution for this - we haven't fixed the way we irrationally regard labels, but if we can make enough labels to satisfy and include everyone while minimizing homogenization** then I suppose for all intents and purposes the problem is solved. I fully support the usage of as many labels as it takes to make everyone feel properly represented - and perhaps on a societal scale we must interpret "fitting the labels to the humans" on a metaphysical level as well: perhaps on a societal scale we must fit our conceptual representation and organization of the world to human shortcomings, at least for now.
Basically, my belief is that these "new" gender identities have always existed regardless of whether we had a proper label for them, and would have continued to exist even if we continued our improper ignorant labeling. But properly labeling them is still important for people to not feel marginalized and to express themselves, even if it does continue the pervasive attitude that labels define people as opposed to the correct inversion.
*An unsavory person might use this line of thought to be dismissive of transgendered people, but this line of thought actually supports transgendered people: misgendering a transgender person is again like trying to say that because you keep calling dolphin "fish", they will become more fish-like. To an uneducated person, that dolphin may appear to be fish-like based on a limited understanding of what defines fish-ness, but that doesn't make them right. Gender is defined based on self-identity and brain-wave studies support this notion.
**No, homogenization sadly doesn't mean "to inoculate people to be more open to having homosexual relations" [/joke]
EDIT: dammit i spent too long writing this post for it to stay uncriticized at the bottom of a page
charlequin
Banned
That's pretty unfortunate, I didn't feel like that attitude came through in the interview linked in the OP but it's pretty lousy if that's her actual takeaway.
Yeah, basically any serious investigation of how sexuality and gender have been modeled throughout history will make it clear that there's an enormous range of desires, behaviors, and identities among human beings and any given culture's models at best make an imperfect fit to that messy reality.
I'm not sure this is the argument the author is making. What I think she is arguing is that there is greater fluidity to male sexuality than is generally accepted. What you seem to be arguing here is that men do it simply because it is a means to an end. That's not to say your argument is better or worse than hers however.
There is obviously some variance when it comes to sexual attraction. And so it is easy for her to make this argument. However, it really doesn't seem so simple to me. I remember watching a documentary years ago about 'feeders'. Feeders are men who like to fatten up their wives or girlfriends to point that they are so fat they can barely walk. That is what they found sexually attractive. Why they found that sexually attractive none of them I am sure could tell you.
There are people who are sexually attracted to inanimate objects; there are people who are attracted to animals; There seems to be a sexual fetish for anything you can possibly conceive of. Nature is not perfect and so there are no absolutes. What is relevant however is what is statistically significant. And the fact remains that heterosexuality is statistically significant.
I'm just acknowledging reality. People telling me all straight guys are sexually attracted to other men to some degree doesn't compute. I haven't experienced that at all. So, from my perspective as someone who is over 30 and has never experienced this even once, people who do experience this, to me, meet the description of bisexual/gay.
If you told me I could take a magic pill and be attracted to men for a day, I'd probably take it. It's not a matter of being open or closed minded. I've just never experienced the same sex attraction phenomenon in my life. I'm sorry that I haven't experienced it, that it makes me a jerk or a joke or a bigot or an over defensive bro or whatever, but I just haven't.
Common Knowledge
Member
I can't say anything about that book, as I've haven't read it, but I can't help but notice the complete shut-down of open-mindedness that occurs when most straight guys get this kind of stuff brought to their attention, and which has been demonstrated more than once in this very thread.
No, I'm not saying all of us straight guys should go and try sucking a cock right now just to see what it's like, but the fact that the very idea of a straight guy having some sort of sexual experimentation with another guy is so foreign and impossible of an idea that "No, that guy can't actually be straight, and I know this because I'm so 100%, completely, without-a-doubt-straight and would never even fathom doing that in a million years!!" is the type of language a lot of us resort to when this gets brought up is embarrassing.
Like the idea that male heterosexuality, and male heterosexuality alone, has to be so god damn rigid and bullet-pointed that this type of stuff is a threat to one's own heterosexuality even when you're not the one participating in this sort of experimentation, and that there can't be even a nuance of a difference in identity of being a heterosexual male, and the only proof one has of that is their own personal perception of it... THAT's what's stupid.
No, I'm not saying all of us straight guys should go and try sucking a cock right now just to see what it's like, but the fact that the very idea of a straight guy having some sort of sexual experimentation with another guy is so foreign and impossible of an idea that "No, that guy can't actually be straight, and I know this because I'm so 100%, completely, without-a-doubt-straight and would never even fathom doing that in a million years!!" is the type of language a lot of us resort to when this gets brought up is embarrassing.
Like the idea that male heterosexuality, and male heterosexuality alone, has to be so god damn rigid and bullet-pointed that this type of stuff is a threat to one's own heterosexuality even when you're not the one participating in this sort of experimentation, and that there can't be even a nuance of a difference in identity of being a heterosexual male, and the only proof one has of that is their own personal perception of it... THAT's what's stupid.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked