Whoops, meant opposite! Lol.
Why Straight Men Have Sex With Each Other
- Thread starter shadyspace
- Start date
- Status
Whoops, meant opposite! Lol.
You Know Nothing
Member
According to who? I would say every bisexual person I know still tends to spend more time engaging in sexual conduct with one gender more than the other. I think like any person, bisexual people have their preferences too.
But what if you don't have any attraction to the same sex but have had sex with them in the past? Just because you enjoy the sex doesn't mean your sexually attracted to a person.
really? i question this.
This is apparently true IRL. Well, New York apparently. There was a report which indicated that straight-identified males have more man-on-man sex than gay-identified males. I went "FML" when I first read the report too.
Why would you have had sex with them in the past if you've never been remotely interested in or attracted to them? Surely to have sex with someone, there needs to be some level of basic attraction or arousal, if even a bare minimum.
VaultBoy101
Member
I think you should go back and read the rest of the thread.
Because sometimes people just enjoy sex and it doesn't always have to do with attraction, it could be just whats available at the time, you don't have to be attracted to someone to fuck them.
Aarglefarg
Member
It is a definition some people put forward. Meanwhile, bisexuals and sexologists generally say nope. Sexuality if put on a line isn't a line with 49.5% of it being the gay range then 1% bi then 49.5% straight range. Bisexuality isn't a fence, it is a field.
When it comes to identity, the second sex attractions just have to be important enough to the individual by their own standards, to identify as bisexual. When it comes to behaviour and attraction, I see no problem with it being broadly defined. Sexologists have dealt with the problem of it being a broad category with things like the Kinsey scale to break it down. It doesn't mean they need to identify as such either.
Words convey meanings in two classically defined ways: through denotation and connotation.
Denotation is "the dictionary definition", the most common set of criteria necessary for a word to be a valid descriptor of something - this can also be considered the prototypic image of what a word represents.
Connotation is the emotional valence of the word and implied characteristics that are often inferred by using this word.
For instance, the word "thug" has a common denotation of "a violent criminal", yet the term has also been reclaimed as a relatively positive connotative term that converys the prototypic image of an underprivileged youth who maintain their rebellious exterior in the face of tough challenges and always stick with and protect their friends and family. However, the two definitions are being conflated to ascribe the characteristics of a violent criminal upon underprivileged but tough, usually black, youth who have commited minor acts of vandalism or drug usage. This is also known as the motte-and-bailley fallacy, wherein the use of the word "thug" to describe such youth's rebelliousness is meant to transcribe the quality of being a violent criminal upon them, yet when challenged the person claims to be only invoking the colloquial and far less connotatively damning definition. Usually the colloquialism is defended by invoking the denotation, making this an unusual example, but highly relevant in recent times. This variant works because the common connotation is not shared by the group for whom it is meant to be influenced by the conferring of the qualities of a typical violent criminal upon underprivileged youth.
Similarly, the word bisexual... apparently according to Meriam Webster's means "possessing characters of both sexes" - which isn't even close to the common usage of the word today, but the balance of prescriptivism in dictionaries is another topic... but for the sake of this argument has your common accepted simple meaning of "[one who] can be attracted to either gender". The issue is that the prototypic image of bisexuality and what most people believe bisexuality to be is equal attraction to both sexes. Classifying all people who can be attracted to either gender with no mention of circumstance, frequency or context is already not a very useful category, but then for such a broad category to be represented by that specific prototypic image of what a bisexual person is has led to much confusion and many misconceptions about what bisexuality is and is a very large contributing factor to myths about bisexuals.
I might be (ironically) slightly expanding the scope of the literal meaning of denotation and connotation for this argument, but I'm trying to frame abstract metaphysical properties of words using common literary terms. Also my two examples are actually different enough to not be entirely analogous to one another, but I'm getting sleepy and can feel my ability to communicate falling fast.
This is basically what I'm trying (and failing) to succinctly get across, with the extrapolation that the clashing of the modern cultural definition and broad simple definition causes misunderstanding. I am not very good at short, effective communication.
I'd argue you do. Otherwise how do you even keep it up? It's not like we walk around with constant boners lol, generally something has to arouse you no? If you're arguing there needs to be no sexual attraction what so ever, and it's only the animalistic urge to simply fuck, if it was legal and acceptable in society, would that same person be able to say, engage in intercourse with an animal? Eg, would they be able to stay hard whilst fucking an animal too? Or a child, or whomever or whatever else?
I would have assumed that irrespective of whoever or whatever it is you were fucking, there still needs to at least be some level or arousal. At least that's my personal perspective.
Yep. I'm bisexual, but not bi-romantic. I have sex with men, but that's it. Never had any inclination towards romance and a long-term relationship.
Maybe I just love boobs too much to consider ever spending my life away from them.
Isn't this just about people denying their own identity? I am all for equal rights, see no difference in two men, women, or men and women being in love, but the thought of me personally being attracted to a man is about as realistic as me being in love with a door handle or a tire.
Oh I can completely appreciate and understand that.
I have cum many times looking into a dirty ass toilet, come on you can't seriously be trying to make this point. (walks back to gaming side)
Lets not go down this path. This is the same faulty logic people use to make the argument that men can't be raped.
Men can get it up for sexual encounters with people they're not attracted to. Simple as.
Men fuck socks, goats and apple pies. Door handles would be on the list of they had holes. Should surprise no one that men fuck men once in awhile.
Don't got to be attracted to something to fuck it
You can keep it up because it feels good. People have sex with inanimate objects all the time, are these people attracted to these objects or are they just enjoying the feeling of sex? I don't see why doing those acts with another person suddenly has to involve feelings of attraction.
Someone hasn't seen a certain Vice documentary where dudes were fucking goats. I'd give you a link but I'd think it would shatter your world where people only have sex with what they are attracted to
What, of course men can be raped. But for a guy to rape another guy, I'd imagine he'd need to at least be bisexual, or take some form of arousal from it. If not just the attraction to the guy himself, some sort of arousal from domination or control. I don't really buy that we can fuck anything or everything and not require any level of arousal or attraction at all, but that's just me.
Oh no I've seen it. I just assumed because it's culturally acceptable there to fuck goats, they'd become accustomed to seeking arousal from it.
Rimon-hanit
Member
As a super gay bi-sexual straight man, I find myself in complete agreement with all if not none of the statements made in this thread.
Aarglefarg
Member
I had wondered about romantic attraction as it fits into this discussion, thinking that some percent of these straight men could identify as such based on being heteroromantic.
Not forgetting that if they're on the receiving end, they don't necessarily need to be erect.
Knew a guy back in university who wasn't gay, but really enjoyed anal sex. He was fuck buddies with someone else not because of attraction, but because it was a regular way of having something up his bum.
After about a year or so of this, he met a girl who was into pegging. They're still together now and he's not been near a guy since.
Mechanical stimulation is enough to induce climax. With the improper coupling of sex and gender in common definitions, people often feel that because they climaxed from mechanical stimulation by X, they must be attracted to X. This is untrue, although attraction towards your source of mechanical stimulation enhances the overall experience in emotional terms and a lack of attraction may discourage someone from voluntarily receiving mechanical stimulation from X, attraction is not necessary to climax: if it was necessary, how would masturbation work? Attraction amplifies sexual experience and a lack of it may heavily detract, but it is not necessary.
Fair points. I'd have assumed masturbation generally involves some sort of mental stimuli, if not pornography, then at least some sort of mental imagery. And that's where I would have thought ones sexual preferences come in to play. Eg, if you're a straight male, you might picture fucking a woman. As a gay male, the opposite, and as a bisexual, either or.
Sorry, should have further clarified: raped by women.
charlequin
Banned
It can't be stated enough that the particular concept of homosexuality really only dates back to the 19th century. People certainly had gay sex before then, but in Western culture the idea that the defining characteristic was who you are (a homosexual, i.e. a person who is interested solely in sex with the same gender) rather than what you do is pretty recent.
Sure, but this casting of the situation is an excluded middle fallacy. The scale isn't two giant gay and straight blocks with an immeasurably tiny bi spot, but defining it as two tiny straight and gay spots with everything in between lumped together in one "bi" category is similarly problematic. All the tediously defensive declarations of absolute straightness these discussions always produce aside, if we applied that standard then a way smaller portion of NeoGAF posters would qualify as straight than one would typically judge from meeting those posters in day-to-day life.
When you get down to it, it's probably more useful in some ways to break that scale down much more finely -- so that "straight" might be limited to a fairly narrow definition. That's certainly part of why people start coming up with terms like "heteroflexible," "K1," "mostly straight," etc. But in our context where most people don't interrogate sexuality at this level of fine-grained detail, it's much easier to give all of these labels some conceptual space than it is to force everyone unwillingly into a giant bi bucket.
So a straight guy is someone who only is interested in sex with women, maybe a little man kissing, and is okay with letting two dicks touch but only during carefully specified MMF sex acts.
I see what you did there.
Antiwhippy
the holder of the trombone
Aarglefarg
Member
The rest of my post addressed this. When it comes to identity, it just has to be significant enough to the individual. When it comes to behaviour or attraction, things like the Kinsey scale break it up into subcategories and it doesn't mean people have to identify with it.
:lol
Yeah I figured that, I just think it's funny they still identify as completely straight.
His girlfriend was smokin' and the blowjob would have been part of a 3 some that I backed out of. I'm just not that adventurous.
If you're bi just say you're bi. Your girlfriend is already hot, who gives a fuck?
HappyBivouac
Member
Sexuality is incredibly fluid. I've never agreed with the prevailing emphasis on choosing a pre-defined "sexual identity." It seems a bit reductive to be honest. My take is that it doesn't matter what you call yourself; just do what you like to do. I understand and respect that identity is important to a lot of people, though. Gay subculture is a big thing and I know a lot of my friends have found comfort and companionship in it, so I don't mean to knock that. At the same time, though, overemphasis on fitting an identity can be incredibly constricting to a lot of people.
As a man, I've only ever had sexual encounters with women, and to be honest, I find men's bodies repulsive to the point I don't even enjoy watching straight hardcore porn and couldn't imagine myself wanting sex or intimacy with a male. I still would love to see more mainstream discussion on the topic of sexual fluidity, rather than pre-defined identities, though.
As a man, I've only ever had sexual encounters with women, and to be honest, I find men's bodies repulsive to the point I don't even enjoy watching straight hardcore porn and couldn't imagine myself wanting sex or intimacy with a male. I still would love to see more mainstream discussion on the topic of sexual fluidity, rather than pre-defined identities, though.
kinoki
Illness is the doctor to whom we pay most heed; to kindness, to knowledge, we make promise only; pain we obey.
People who think that society should dictate what is normal when it comes to sexuality are perverted. Social code dictated by religion and shame is not a healthy guide for an animal.
This argument is no more logically defensible than the social conservative creed that one shouldn't "redefine marriage, which is defined as being between one man and one woman." It's similarly historically shortsighted. In the same way people take for granted their conception of marriage, and thus overlook how much that conception has changed over generations, some people take for granted that their conception of sexuality is somehow etched in stone.
It refuses to acknowledge the obvious gaps in their definitions. What about gay men who only desire and are only comfortable with sex with other men, but who have the capacity to get occasionally get aroused by fantasizing about specific women in specific situations? What about straight women who live their day to day lives only attracted to men, but find lesbian porn more appealing than straight porn?
There has to be room for a version of straightness/gayness that allows people to express that their collection of impulses, desires, and boundaries result in lifestyles that romantically and sexually revolve around a single gender, but also that their romantic and sexual tendencies aren't 100% rigid.
And that version of straightness/gayness certainly will not always be bisexuality. Bisexuality can reflect a couple things: one, a relatively well formed capacity to be romantically and sexually engaged with either gender; two, a conscious decision to acknowledge and emphasize your sexual fluidity. One is more reflective of your reflexive inclinations, and the other more a kind of self-expression.
Many straight people live their lives with an aversion to homoeroticism that stems from preconceived notions, lack of exposure, and a desire for acceptance. They might be in an environment where a tiny, tiny percentage of the people around them are openly gay. Here's what I'm getting at: you say straightness is by definition completely rigid, but this rigidity is rarely there because someone was born without the capacity for same-sex attraction. When you piece together a straight person, what are the necessary ingredients? A complete refusal to experiment with the same sex? The inability to feel pleasure when someone of the same sex does something you typically find pleasing? The complete absence of curiosity? Someone for whom there does not exist a single person, a single situation, a single combination of factors that could create the space to engage in a homosexual experience?
Because in my mind, the straight person you're piecing together, the version of straightness you're defending, only barely has anything to do with human sexuality. It has more to do with the very rigid boundaries within which that person is willing to express their sexuality.
LookAtMeGo
Member
This is all very confusing. I think the term straight should be reserved to describe men that don't have sex with men. Too much messing around with language with all of this. When you start messing with words and meanings, you get more words to mean other things. There are already too many words out there.
But sex in prison is probably less about attraction to the opposite sex, and more about exerting power over others, or just wanting to put your dick in a hole. If it is literally satisfying a crude physical urge, and the only available orifice is a male one, I would hesitate to call that gay or bisexual. The key being the potential lack of attraction to a gender and it being more about physical satisfaction.
I wonder how we'd view sexuality if we weren't conditioned by our respective societies to separate and classify them so heavily.
Animals probably don't give a fuck.
unholyrevenger72
Banned
The former is called Rape, and isn't sex. The latter is Bi sexual. Deep down he'd rather do it with a willing partner regardless of sex, than just jerk off.
LookAtMeGo
Member
Its an interesting thought. I wonder what sexuality would be like if we didn't have religion.
Always-honest
Banned
Pretty good, actually
I would argue that modern conceptions of sexuality owe a lot more to developments in capitalism (and, indeed, a rationalism associated with science), although they were influenced by concurrent religious thought.
Regarding the interview itself, I agree with the framing of the "born this way" argument as a liberal overcorrection. The idea of sexuality as innate can be just as limiting as it can be liberating.
Chuckie
Member
No that was a show about really religious gay men who decided not to live with men but got married to women.
They admitted to being attracted to guys but chose Gods way by marrying women.
D
Deleted member 125677
Unconfirmed Member
We all did what we had to survive back then
Is this more widespread during the wild hormonal rides of the teen ages - or is it the same for adults and adolescents?
Is this more widespread during the wild hormonal rides of the teen ages - or is it the same for adults and adolescents?
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.
I have no idea what I'm looking at here....
Good point, if this thread was "how can you be gay if you slept with a woman" I don't think there would be so many people stating that they must be bi.
However going slightly OT, I found her description of straight men's repulsion of female bodies interesting:
does anyone have a clue towards which feminist writers she refers to?
Orgy of sex
MrRudiMentary
Member
People calling these people gay for having sex with another man need to grow up. Sexuality isn't something that can be so definitely defined. You can have sex with a person and get enjoyment out of it without being sexually attracted to the other person. You can enjoy getting sucked off by a dude without being attracted to the guy.
Although I would say I'm at least a little bit bi.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked