Why Straight Men Have Sex With Each Other

Status
Not open for further replies.
Why would you have a consensual sexual encounter with another man if you're heterosexual? I'm experiencing one long processing error as I participate in this thread. My brain isn't equipped to compute this, but the take away is that the term "bisexual" means "attracted a lot to both sexes", and the term "heterosexual" means "attracted usually to one sex but not necessarily only to one sex". As yet there's no term anymore for someone who is only attracted to one sex. It would be simpler if "heterosexual" were that term as many thought it was, but apparently that's stupid because close mindedness and bros and threatened homophobes and stuff.

Well, again I used sexual experimentation at puberty as an example. This isn't something I did myself, but I know it is supposedly common. I can see how children might experiment with each other simply for the fact that they are sexually curious. I am not really talking about anal sex, but rather other sexual experimentation.
 
What exactly are they doing wrong? Since, having sex has nothing to do with a person's sexual orientation, how is a man that is not sexually attracted to other men, that has sex with another man, doing it wrong? Here, you imply that two men having sex means they can't be straight, but in another post you say, "To me, straight means only attracted to people of the opposite gender."



This topic is about men that are not sexually attracted to men, that for whatever reason, have sex with other men.

I guess for a lot of people (like myself, admittedly), it's hard to envision having sex with people you aren't sexually attracted to at all. I guess I can see how someone who viewed it more utilitarian or even mechanical could do it, but I'd always default to masturbation when I get the itch.
 
It's not frustrating so much as it is stupid. Sure, sexuality is fluid for many people. I understand that. I accept it. But this idea that it's so fluid that mere words simply can't contain is fuckin' ridiculous.

Here's how it can be, so it's really simple:

Straight: Only attracted to the opposite sex. I know this exists because it describes me.

Bisexual: Can be attracted to either sex to varying degrees. I know this exists because I've met people like this (and a lot of them participated in a recent survey designed for heterosexual respondents).

Homosexual: Only attracted to the same sex. I know this exists because I've met people like this.

--

Can someone explain to me why these definitions are flawed? Why are they incapable of handling our complex reality and why am I worthy of mockery for thinking they are perfectly capable? Talk real slow so a buffoon like me can follow.

People have been explaining it to you repeatedly as far as I can tell. Are you actually reading anything?
 
It's not frustrating so much as it is stupid. Sure, sexuality is fluid for many people. I understand that. I accept it. But this idea that it's so fluid that mere words simply can't contain is fuckin' ridiculous.

This right here is a fundamental flaw within the human condition. We like order, we like reason, and we will irrationally apply order to an irrational, wholly chaotic reality in order for it to make sense to us and appear "reasonable".

Reality exists, and has existed for trillions of years before we had words to describe it. Why would some concepts of reality have to strictly be able to conform to a spoken word to describe it?
 
Here's a neat diagram that's not limited by hetero/homo. I'm sure it's not in anyway complete, but more comprehensive than most. I personally identify as gynephilic.

Sex-sexuality-venn.png

I knew NBC were liberal, but this is a bit too far...
 
I agree with the thrust of your argument, but the word "disgust" is unnecessary. There's this tendency to invoke the feeling of disgust when discussing sexual orientation, when the two aren't really intimately connected. Disgust has more to do with boundaries, insecurities, and other things along those lines, and using it as a measure of how straight/gay you are is almost always misleading. There are women out there who might be willing to experiment with other women, but who are uncomfortable staring at vaginas. There are men out there who haven't the slightest desire to experiment with other men, but find straight porn more satisfying than lesbian porn.

"Disgust" is a feeling a lot of straight people latch onto to guard their sense of straightness. Ironically, it's also a feeling some very closeted gay people latch onto for exactly the same purpose.

English isn't my first language, so maybe "aversion" is a better term.

But you're right, aversion isn't a measurement for sexuality.
 
Surprised this hasn't been posted yet-


Seriously though, I believe this story. Sexuality has always been a fluid thing, and to some it it also a power thing. I mean, it's common knowledge that in ancient times(Roman times IIRC) that it was common for men to sleep with other men, or homosexuality being used in ancient miltary as a morale booster of sorts.

I don't have a problem with it, personality. I consider myself an omnisexual. If I had a chance to make sweet sweet love to Freddy Mercury, I would. Only him though.
 
Why would you have a consensual sexual encounter with another man if you're heterosexual? I'm experiencing one long processing error as I participate in this thread. My brain isn't equipped to compute this, but the take away is that the term "bisexual" means "attracted a lot to both sexes", and the term "heterosexual" means "attracted usually to one sex but not necessarily only to one sex". As yet there's no term anymore for someone who is only attracted to one sex. It would be simpler if "heterosexual" were that term as many thought it was, but apparently that's stupid because close mindedness and bros and threatened homophobes and stuff.

I'm going to try using a faulty analogy here...

You ever see someone have issue with how the terms "atheist" and "agnostic" are applied? This discussion is not all that dissimilar.

"An agnostic is an atheist without balls!"

"To be atheist, you have to be close-minded, because you're pretending you know that there is no God!"

In reality, it's not that simple. At the core of atheism is an absence of belief, and at the core of agnosticism is an absence of knowledge. How people revolve around the respective core they identify with is deeply personal, and sometimes it can seem like there's some overlap. To capture some of the variations of belief, you see people come up with terms like "strong atheism." Similarly, you see people come up with terms like "heteroflexible" to describe men/women who self-identify as straight, yet are sexually fluid enough to occasionally find themselves engaging in homoerotic activities.

But in the end, labels are usually an unproductive way to capture the complexity of the human condition. You long for a label that describes the way you specifically self-identify, that somehow manages to perfectly distinguish you from anyone and everyone who wavers from your self-identity in some way, and you're far from alone in looking for such a label. The reality is you're never going to find it, because labels are inherently social constructs, and will always be vulnerable to deconstruction. You're going to have to be happy with your personal sense of who you are.
 
edit: also this ^

I'm only interested in the academic side of this. I don't care who has sex with who. I can't understand why "heterosexual" has to allow for some attraction to members of the same sex, when I thought we already had a perfectly good term for that. And as I work my way through this, trying to understand, I get a lot of people condescending to me and acting like jerks for reasons I can't fathom.

I'm not trying to condescend, I meant "honey" affectionately. I appreciate you're making an effort to understand this thing and it looks like you're right on the edge of getting there.

Why does having sex have to include attraction at all?

"Heterosexuality" doesn't exist. It's not a thing. There's no test for it. If a "straight" man put his dick through a glory hole he wouldn't *not* get off if a dude was blowing him. "Heterosexual" is a label we apply to broadly capture a range of behaviors and experiences and phenomenon. But a label at best is an approximation, it's not the truth of someone's soul: understanding someone's sexuality is going to take a lot more than one word.

It's worth, therefore, expanding the space around these words. Maybe some men would be more open to fulfilling, enjoyable experiences having sex with men if they weren't worried whether that "makes them" gay.

Some sex is intimate and emotional and some is mechanical and some is about power etc etc. we can imagine men who date women romantically, intend to marry and raise a family with a woman, but sometimes he just needs to get his rocks off and a BJ is better than masturbating alone to porn. The identity you choose to inhabit doesn't have to gel totally with the sex you have. There's nothing dissonant about a "straight" man having "gay" sex. Constructed labels are expedient, they're not binding.
 
I knew NBC were liberal, but this is a bit too far...

Humans like categorical organizational structures; they can be useful for conveying information quickly but can also lead to the conflation of something defined under a label with the prototypic image of what that label defines.

This is a middle ground to express relevant information quickly without losing a lot of subtle detail, or worse implying a nontypical technical member of a category is exactly like a typical member of a category, which would be very misleading.
 
Penises are attached to men at a staggering 99.99% rate I believe. Idk?

That number you just made up on the spot is very convincing, also, what's your point?

I was just stating that there are straight men out there who have a thing for penises on female bodies. No, this doesnt make them gay, in case you're going to argue that.
 
One of my friends is straight but makes out with dudes on the odd occasion and says he's sucked a dick or two.

He's certainly not gay and I wouldn't even call him bi. Bisexuality implies some sort of 50/50 or even 60/40 balance. If you're like 90% attracted to women but still find the odd dude here and there that you're into, you're still straight. You're also human, like most people.

I have pretended to be bi by talking about dudes I think are attractive when around certain girl friends because I think they're aroused by the fantasy, just like how my fiancée talks about wanting to do things to female celebs because she knows I like hearing about it. Circumstances, surroundings and relationships have an effect on sexuality. It's just not a black and white thing.
 
The glory hole is a good example. Instant gratification regardless of where who is on the other side matched your preferences or not.
 
Hey, I'm hard straight so I understand what Jobbs is trying to express here.

Nah for sure, I get it. I wouldn't really disdain anyone for thinking sexuality is rigid especially if that's been their personal experience with it. As long as you're not trying to impose that understanding it's harmless. I think shifting into the other place, where we recognize and internalize the imprecision of the language, is better.

Like I'm not going to reject or deny your "hard-straightness". It's just that when I read it in my mind I append a "... so far".

>.>

<.<
 
Pretending Bi people don't exist. How #progressive

If that's your take away from my response, then you're reading in a conclusion that wasn't there. Of course there are people you would call bi, meaning at any time they might be attracted to people of either sex.

There are also people that are attracted to one sex or the other, but due to circumstances, may decide to mix it up and do something different. Maybe they were in the mood for some strange (or what they would normally consider "strange")?

The OP is trying to make a distinction between the person in my first paragraph vs the one in the second. Specifically, talking about guys who are like "eh, we're here, it feels good, let's rub one out". The point being that much of our behavior is random, impulsive, and not some greater expression of deep-seated identity. Do you have an objection to that idea?
 
That number you just made up on the spot is very convincing, also, what's your point?

I was just stating that there are straight men out there who have a thing for penises on female bodies. No, this doesnt make them gay, in case you're going to argue that.

Anyone on GAF into chicks with dicks that wants to clarify this? What's the attraction and do you consider yourself heterosexual?
 
Thought you were always a conservative since first time I read posts from you on here, especially in controversial threads. You've never come off as a liberal imo.

So men not only is self-identifying as straight immediately in doubt, but you can't even identify with a political ideology without suspicion here :lol

Dude is liberal, I often find myself in the same boat as Dave. I often find myself ranting to conservative guys I know about obnoxious behavior from people on my own side, politically speaking.
 
That number you just made up on the spot is very convincing, also, what's your point?

I was just stating that there are straight men out there who have a thing for penises on female bodies. No, this doesnt make them gay, in case you're going to argue that.

bgt6sifvjpex.jpg
 
The last point she makes about the flaws in the "born this way" narrative and the allure of queerness/queer culture for straight men is genuinely interesting, but many of her points are WAAAAAYYYY overthought and making the typical feminist/postmodernist mistake of imbuing complex sociopolitical motives into what are basically idiosyncratic experiences. And her denial of biology as being basically at the root of what drives most sexual behavior is, well, silly, again demonstrating that wrongheaded postmodern conviction that there really is no objectivity, that everything is a mere trick of language and belief. The vast majority of straight-identifying men will never seek out homosexual contact in their whole life, and will have little to no desire to do so. Those that do may simply be closeted bisexuals or homosexuals, i.e. have genuine romantic and/or sexual attraction to other men, but of the rest, each will have their own personal cocktail of wherefores underlying their behavior. To try and encompass it in some overarching jargony idea of "performing heterosexuality" or whatnot is just replacing one dogma with another, really.
 
Nah for sure, I get it. I wouldn't really disdain anyone for thinking sexuality is rigid especially if that's been their personal experience with it. As long as you're not trying to impose that understanding it's harmless. I think shifting into the other place, where we recognize and internalize the imprecision of the language, is better.

Like I'm not going to reject or deny your "hard-straightness". It's just that when I read it in my mind I append a "... so far".

>.>

<.<

Haha, you wish buddy.

But yeah, I'm not trying to argue that sexuality is a rigid construct, but the tone of the conversation is shifting to "there's no such thing as heterosexuality" which is just as asinine as arguing that there is only heterosexuality and.....deviance?
 
Nah for sure, I get it. I wouldn't really disdain anyone for thinking sexuality is rigid especially if that's been their personal experience with it. As long as you're not trying to impose that understanding it's harmless. I think shifting into the other place, where we recognize and internalize the imprecision of the language, is better.

Like I'm not going to reject or deny your "hard-straightness". It's just that when I read it in my mind I append a "... so far".

>.>

<.<

If I fuck a dude in the future I'll give you all the deets.
 
Anyone on GAF into chicks with dicks that wants to clarify this? What's the attraction and do you consider yourself heterosexual?

They are heterosexual, bi maybe if they are also attracted to the male aesthetic. Sexuality isn't just about genitals, I'm gay and a guy with a vagina is no dealbreaker for me, and no that doesn't make me straight or bi.
 
Humans like categorical organizational structures; they can be useful for conveying information quickly but can also lead to the conflation of something defined under a label with the prototypic image of what that label defines.

This is a middle ground to express relevant information quickly without losing a lot of subtle detail, or worse implying a nontypical technical member of a category is exactly like a typical member of a category, which would be very misleading.

It was a joke based on the similarity to the logo, but whatever.
 
To me, this pseudo-author is just another hipster. Full of confusion,bullshit theory who doesn't make any sense at all in every possible explanation she might come up with.She's not talking about some kind of incident or rape, the shower soap scenario at prison etc. She says 'there are men screwing up other men whenever the hell they feel like BUT they love women, marry women, have their own families, but still suck dick here n there..AND they're straight'.
It's like being gay, marrying another gay, living with him & telling people u're straight.
Seriously?
GTFO & Congrats on the attention whoring.
 
Right. There is always simply a possibility that a large number of guys who categorise themselves as 'straight', never even realised they were bisexual, or that they could be.

Nope. Straight people can get sexually aroused by their same sex during certain, specific situations. Just like gay guys can get aroused by females in the same way. It isnt rocket science.

Why are some straight guys being so defensive about this? Is not like you will be less of a "man" if this reality exists. You could argue is totally the opposite, going by our cultural heritage of Greece and early Rome.
 
To me, this pseudo-author is just another hipster. Full of confusion,bullshit theory who doesn't make any sense at all in every possible explanation she might come up with.She's not talking about some kind of incident or rape, the shower soap scenario at prison etc. She says 'there are men screwing up other men whenever the hell they feel like BUT they love women, marry women, have their own families, but still suck dick here n there..AND they're straight'.
It's like being gay, marrying another gay, living with him & telling people u're straight.
Seriously?
GTFO & Congrats on the attention whoring.

Kinsey: Just another hipster.
 
Nope. Straight people can get sexually aroused by their same sex during certain, specific situations. Just like gay guys can get aroused by females in the same way. It isnt rocket science.

It isn't rocket science, it's bisexuality. Bisexuality doesn't mean you're attracted in equal amount and equal frequency to both genders, it just means you can be attracted to either gender. That's what bisexuality is.

The universe is once again insane. I think we're going in circles, though, I just won't be able to understand this.
 
One of my good friends growing up is straight and we used to mess around all the time. Anal sex even. He wasn't afraid to come out, or be called bi or gay, he was just straight and really enjoyed the sex we had. Nothing more.

Of course, when I was a teenager, I didn't understand this as clearly and felt that he should just come out. But as I grew up and our sexual relationship continued, I realized...

Some straight guys don't mind fooling around with other guys. That's the end of it. Sexuality isn't black and white. Get over it.
I'd say your friend is bi, because he enjoys sex with women (maybe even predominantly) and men. I mean, there's a word for that! It's not about using unnecessary labels. IMO of course.

What's even a straight guy if desiring sex with men doesn't make you bi?
 
ive never wanted to have sex with a man

image.php


Fuck it, I wanted to avatar quote. I don't care how accurate it is.

It isn't rocket science, it's bisexuality. Bisexuality doesn't mean you're attracted in equal amount and equal frequency to both genders, it just means you can be attracted to either gender. That's what bisexuality is.

The universe is once again insane. I think we're going in circles, though, I just won't be able to understand this.

But bisexual is a really nebulous term. What if you've only felt attraction to the same sex once in your entire life? Are you irrevocably bisexual? What if you generally feel attraction to the opposite sex as opposed to the same sex? Bisexual implies equal attraction to both sexes and that simply isn't the case for the most part.
 
But bisexual is a really nebulous term. What if you've only felt attraction to the same sex once in your entire life? Are you irrevocably bisexual? What if you generally feel attraction to the opposite sex as opposed to the same sex? Bisexual implies equal attraction to both sexes and that simply isn't the case for the most part.
No, "bisexual" doesn't mean any of that. You can be bi and prefer men or women, you can be bi and desire mostly either genre most of the time.

I feel like people are just irrationally afraid of that term - probably because most people know so little about bisexuality.
 
Then don't we need a new term for people who are only attracted to the same sex? Hard straight, maybe, since being attracted sexually to both genders now inexplicably inhabits the terms bisexual as well as heterosexual?
Yeah, maybe. Perhaps there could be a specific term for each level on the Kinsey Scale, or one of the other scales mentioned on that page (i.e. Klein, Storm, or one of the other ones).

This whole thing is striking me as kind of ridiculous.
Really? I don't see what the big deal is. The fluidity of sexuality has become less of a taboo and we're developing a cultural inventory in response to that. There's bound to be some flux and confusion as we build the social toolkit.
 
It isn't rocket science, it's bisexuality. Bisexuality doesn't mean you're attracted in equal amount and equal frequency to both genders, it just means you can be attracted to either gender. That's what bisexuality is.

The universe is once again insane. I think we're going in circles, though, I just won't be able to understand this.

The main point of contention seems to be that your definition of "bisexual" is too wide, and covers too many diverse behaviours to be practically useful. Demanding complete purity in order to attain the status of "gay" or "straight" strikes me as pedantry at best, bigotry at worst.
 
Nope. Straight people can get sexually aroused by their same sex during certain, specific situations. Just like gay guys can get aroused by females in the same way. It isnt rocket science.

Why are some straight guys being so defensive about this? Is not like you will be less of a "man" if this reality exists. You could argue is totally the opposite, going by our cultural heritage of Greece and early Rome.

It's not being defensive, it's about not changing definitions and labels just because you feel like it.

A straight person is someone who is only attracted to their opposite gender, and only engages in sexual activity with that gender. Unless of course the extent of activity with the opposite sex is a kiss as a dare or something outlier like that. Or something situational like having a threesome where the third addition is another guy. There is no such thing as a straight person who is attracted to, and engages in sexual conduct with the same sex, quite the contrary, there is a predefined term to describe such sexuality, and that is being bisexual. Being bisexual doesn't mean you have to be equally attracted to both men and women, just that you are or can be, in any capacity, attracted to both genders. These definitions exist for a reason.
 
Anyway to seriously respond to the topic: homosexuality, bisexuality and heterosexuality is a wholly contemporary western concept. Other cultures at different points in time are either more fluid with their definitions or are more diverse when it comes to sexuality regardless of gender or genders involved and many of you are just looking at it from that very narrow definition. That's all that needs to be said, really.
 
It isn't rocket science, it's bisexuality. Bisexuality doesn't mean you're attracted in equal amount and equal frequency to both genders, it just means you can be attracted to either gender. That's what bisexuality is.

The universe is once again insane. I think we're going in circles, though, I just won't be able to understand this.

The desire for both sexes has to be persistent in order to be a bisexual, it doesnt matter if you have more or less desire at certain point of life towards certain gender. The desire for your same sex could be minimal while dating a woman, but it is still persistent, and backwards.

Situational, ocasional, contextual sex with the same sex can be achieved while being straight.

Sex, at the end of the day, has a lot to do with many things other than "sex" itself, like power relations or emotional contexts. So I really dont see why a guy who enjoys once and then to have sexual relief with his same sex has to be stripped of his straight identity.
 
A straight person is someone who is only attracted to their own gender, and only engages in sexual activity with that gender.

There is no such thing a straight person who is attracted to, and engages in sexual conduct with the opposite sex, quite the contrary, there is a predefined term to describe such sexuality, and that is being bisexual.
I am officially confused now.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom