gay, straight or bi, what is it.
I am surprised that few guys in here come out as straight.
Observation has it that most men in here are either NA, bi curious, bi sexual or gay.
NA leads me to believe that a straight guy does not want to admit that he is straight and has
other tendencies. Being bi curious and bi sexual means there is an interest to suck another
guys junk. In the gay world, a bi sexual is a guy who is afraid to come out as gay.
Are there really guys that want it both ways with either a female or a male and is there
such a thing as a true bisexual. I need to also add to this that most men whom try a same sex
affair, usually end up liking it the best. Those that talk negative of gay men usually are considered
as have gay tendencies themself. So, be careful whom you criticise.
Gay and straight are OK names for sexual partnership, but awkward names for kinds of people. There are most certainly people who, during their lives, will have satisfying sexual relationships with both men and with women. Kind of a lot of people. And this can range from folks who are really turned on by the male-ness of the male and female-ness of the female, to folks who are indifferent to gender.
The labels just get in the way.
I too think labels work better for relationships or behaviors than people. Sexuality has always been complex and I see it more as a matrix that includes circumstance than a spectrum of pure attraction. In 1865 or so the term "homosexual" was coined and in the midish 20th century "gay" emerged to describe not just a sexuality but a lifestyle. I believe that hetero-, homo- and bisexual behaviors and relationships have always existed, but somehow the Industrial Revolution expanded the concept to people as well.
New labels continue to emerge, such as sapiosexual for being attracted to people's minds rather than a specific gender. If sexuality is defined soley on behaviors not requiring relationships, I could consider myself solarsexual for getting aroused by the sun, especially after a long cold winter.
I see the judgments the OP refers to as cultural biases used in defining tribes based on sexual orientation. Even groups who have been discriminated and persecuted against may define an orthodoxy: hence we have "true nudists" and perhaps GINOS too (gays in name only). I remember how we cycled through similar identification rules related to ethnicity when I was a kid. Tomorrow the focus may be on dividing people as right vs. left ass wipers. We need a convenient "other"out there.
I am surprised that few guys in here come out as straight.Observation has it that most men in here are either NA, bi curious, bi sexual or gay.NA leads me to believe that a straight guy does not want to admit that he is straight and hasother tendencies. Being bi curious and bi sexual means there is an interest to suck anotherguys junk. In the gay world, a bi sexual is a guy who is afraid to come out as gay.Are there really guys that want it both ways with either a female or a male and is theresuch a thing as a true bisexual. I need to also add to this that most men whom try a same sexaffair, usually end up liking it the best. Those that talk negative of gay men usually are consideredas have gay tendencies themself. So, be careful whom you criticise.
I am by definition bisexual. I say I am gay to be an agent of positive encouragement for all those who admire or encourage male intimacy and bonding on any level to accept it and not seek shame or receive it neither but also to illustrate that despite my fervent belief that in the end orientation is immaterial before brotherhood and respect the fact that many who call for the end of labels are still hiding what they profess is unimportant.
I am of mind that what an individual identifies himself as is all about where he is at moment in his life from his experiences he has had. To say someone can't be a certain type is politely saying 'narrow minded'. To say a guy can't be straight is like saying a guy can't be gay. Really? Why can't a guy just like one type of sex? Then to say a guy can't like both? I'm not sure what you were trying to point out.
I've learned from actually having conversations with guys, you learn that what experience they've had with their sexual life will determine where they seek at that moment in their life. As it has been pointed out, that will change as men seek to fulfill their sexual desires. Now that there are so many types of labels for so many different sexual pleasures and even individuals that change their sex gender, is a guy that desires to have a relationship with a transgender male, is he then straight or bi? Then some guys 'slip' slowly into having sex with guys from females. They will experience a sexual activity with a guy that they never knew would be so satisfying, then try something else and then be 'bisexual'. One individual I know never considered sex with guys until his wife died and found it was a lot easier to meet guys and females which lead to some fun now and then that eventually he found sex with guys acceptable. Years later he got a partner and hasn't looked back at going back to females. There are many reasons why we men have certain desires and to say it's wrong to say that you have a certain type of sexual desire.
One last point, you, freedomatlast3, stated "Observation has it that most men in here are either NA, bi curious, bi sexual or gay.
NA leads me to believe that a straight guy does not want to admit that he is straight and has other tendencies." You as I do, have NA....
I am of mind that what an individual identifies himself as is all about where he is at moment in his life from his experiences he has had. To say someone can't be a certain type is politely saying 'narrow minded'. To say a guy can't be straight is like saying a guy can't be gay. Really? Why can't a guy just like one type of sex? Then to say a guy can't like both? I'm not sure what you were trying to point out.I've learned from actually having conversations with guys, you learn that what experience they've had with their sexual life will determine where they seek at that moment in their life. As it has been pointed out, that will change as men seek to fulfill their sexual desires. Now that there are so many types of labels for so many different sexual pleasures and even individuals that change their sex gender, is a guy that desires to have a relationship with a transgender male, is he then straight or bi? Then some guys 'slip' slowly into having sex with guys from females. They will experience a sexual activity with a guy that they never knew would be so satisfying, then try something else and then be 'bisexual'. One individual I know never considered sex with guys until his wife died and found it was a lot easier to meet guys and females which lead to some fun now and then that eventually he found sex with guys acceptable. Years later he got a partner and hasn't looked back at going back to females. There are many reasons why we men have certain desires and to say it's wrong to say that you have a certain type of sexual desire.One last point, you, freedomatlast3, stated "Observation has it that most men in here are either NA, bi curious, bi sexual or gay.NA leads me to believe that a straight guy does not want to admit that he is straight and has other tendencies." You as I do, have NA....
And I agree with you because its not really cool to go around telling people what they are, or are not. But you are (in your formulation) also assuming honesty and integrity in the process of self definition (for the record I think most guys are not deliberately lying), and even when they are, if I don't notice it right up in my face, why do I care to check out a story or not? I don't. I think its ok to generally cast shade on people who lie without going after anyone in particular., becaise ,my experience is some spaces have more of that than others and you want a baseline of connections and trust not the other way around.
LSPG one post there was the straw that finally broke my silence. Buddy posted a thread with the title "How come gay guys are growing beards to look butch and steal straight guys away from other straight guys who want to have straight s.x not gay s.x". He was defending the whole thing and I had to shut it all down. I didnt think it was serious at first, but oh no, he was mad... (and for the record the issue for me is a) taking gay s.x for which some of us have died, claiming it is straight, and the suggesting we are adding extra masculinity duplicitously and stealing their men was a bridge too far).... it was also kiling me with laughter but dude was clowning hard.
Gay and straight are OK names for sexual partnership, but awkward names for kinds of people. There are most certainly people who, during their lives, will have satisfying sexual relationships with both men and with women. Kind of a lot of people. And this can range from folks who are really turned on by the male-ness of the male and female-ness of the female, to folks who are indifferent to gender.The labels just get in the way.
That last part. For you this may be true, but you can't decide for others, and there are so many people for whom the words matter (if you spend time reading the theory the idea that they are labels is long gone and people, especially young people have a really complex and nuanced take on identity and what the meaning of a noun entails conceptually)... does it get tedious sometimes? Well hell yes it does. I am going to rather go after the idea of kinds of people. Are there not just people? But sexuality like race suffers from a history of erasure and a history of oppression. And the use of the words to do harm is never from within said community but external. The difference between being called Q///r by a bully and calling oneself the same thing is night and day different. Also, I consistently call myself gay and it has never gotten in the way of anything I wanted and I spend zero time complexing about any of it. I keep the word because I earned it, fighting for rights and doing the work of liberating people from oppression by hand to hand fighting with cops, bullies, skinheads, and bashers in the streets for one glorious summer. Longer in the redux and the public relations. We are often asked to identify ourselves as such and such and so on and I use the word to add to a statistic or set thereof (they all get counted and impact policy) but I hate the race one cause I dont want to choose any lol.
But I don't buy that notion that "bisexual" or "bi-curious" means "gay but too afraid to come out of the closet."
Well, in my experience here even, sometimes it does and that's not my evaluation it's what the person who had the experience has been through and advocated as their authentic path. You don't have to accept it for you, but that isn't everyone else's experience nor should we proscribe what that is for others. I want to point out that depending on where you live, what community you are from and what language you speak, the closet is much tighter and much more dangerous, so just because some of us have been carried by the sexual revolution doesn't mean we all have. I think it is also important to highlight how real that fear is, how valid it is, and how its important to support men who are that afraid because it ranges all over the guys into both women and men and has lots of effects. Focusing on the idea that it's a mistake or dinosaur from the past skips over the question it raises about fear, and what that does to us all. And that kind of shame laced fear was spread all over the place throughout our lives. More than anything else, the speaking for yourself unless you're using data or a reference (its ok to say 80 of 100 when you counted actual examples) will always be a good approach. I do it too slipping into generalization or claiming extra disney cast of characters sized support when its just me.
There is another option that is rarely (if ever) mentioned: g0y.
A g0y relationship involves two men who consider themselves to be equals. The men may be married (to women), or single -- in any combination. No top/bottom. No dominant/submissive. g0y relationships follow Biblical standards -- what the Bible really says and not what so many people what it to say. The Bible only prohibits anal sex (even for m/f married couples). Men in a g0y relationship may exchange frottage, handjobs, and blow jobs.
g0y rejects casual anonymous no-strings-attached sex. A g0y relationship is a committed relationship.
There is another option that is rarely (if ever) mentioned: g0y.A g0y relationship involves two men who consider themselves to be equals. The men may be married (to women), or single -- in any combination. No top/bottom. No dominant/submissive. g0y relationships follow Biblical standards -- what the Bible really says and not what so many people what it to say. The Bible only prohibits anal sex (even for m/f married couples). Men in a g0y relationship may exchange frottage, handjobs, and blow jobs.g0y rejects casual anonymous no-strings-attached sex. A g0y relationship is a committed relationship.
I have only experienced it through the man who created it and some of the followers and... on the basis of that experience it is lovely for someone else but utterly not anything for me.
The problem here is that a) BDSM relationships in the traditional way they are structured do not proscribe that there is a power imbalance, except possibly skewed to the bottom. The goal of the roles in classic BDSM is to create a system that allows for free power exhange and therefore equality and the catharsis of one being, two men at the end. So the terms top/bottom and dom/sub don't refer to anything like what they are assumed to.
b) the bible doesn't forbid anal sex. This information comes from Rabbi Rutenberg who is an expert on the Levites (one of the tribes) and whose book of social rules, Leviticus has been a source of persecution of men for a long time. First, let's deal with the sin of "abomination". It's not a sin, its a social infraction and it's the lowest on the rung. Shrimp, polycotton, both abominations. So whatver it is that "thou shalt not lie down with a man as with a woman" means the worst thing this could be is social stigma and a wee bit shun from your circle. The important part here, and this is the same as with Onan, is the waste of semen in a socitey that believed that male sperm + intent to make a baby is how babies are made. So to lie down with a man as with a woman means you tried to make bum babies and that is wrong. Since heterosex at this time was so incredibly controlled by social stricture the rabbis and leaders came up with (she gets married and dies and makes a certain number of babies and they watch the birth, etc the fight is over the survival of the entire Jewish people.
She does the whole book and finds that all of the bad translations were either made or made worse in the 19th century. The things people think that book says about gay people or bi men or MSM it doesnt reflect the times of ancient Judeans... it represents 19th century Calvinist clap trap at its funky bunga best. The reality is that males in these conditions are going to massively be gay in deed cause no sex any other way. The prohibition for M/F anal is along the same lines.
The notion that anonymous or casual sex cannot have commitment and is somehow morally inferior to this version of a relationship (obviously temporal reasons alone), fouls up the process and implies a result for the goy monogamy that isn't realistic, success rate long term in this option is still 50%.
The issue I have is that the prohibitions they latch onto are suspiciously the ones that are the classic sources of homophobia, complete with the same mistranslations and misinterpretations. On either count this is bad theology and then bad moral philosophy. Maybe that makes happy people? Also, the problem of partiarchal society is that we are stratified in our power base and men end up in competition against each other and have been for years. Men do not arrive as equals and just saying it is so doesn't make it real. Funny enough, one of the reasons BDSM exists is to help men work through power dynamics in their lives and let go of them.
At the very bottom of my interaction was the kicker, a discussion about HIV that bordered on the completely unhinged. The structure of this way of life is based in part in extreme serophobia. and at a time when if you don't want HIV, you won't get it, gay men are no longer the highest demographic for infection and even less so active and communicable infection and have not for a decade, and the belief that if you just made yourself something other than a gay, none of the curses and sins that made them suffer would have happend. I would entertain it and will not get in the way, but at the same time there is a larger responsibility.
I am surprised that few guys in here come out as straight.Observation has it that most men in here are either NA, bi curious, bi sexual or gay.NA leads me to believe that a straight guy does not want to admit that he is straight and hasother tendencies. Being bi curious and bi sexual means there is an interest to suck anotherguys junk. In the gay world, a bi sexual is a guy who is afraid to come out as gay.Are there really guys that want it both ways with either a female or a male and is theresuch a thing as a true bisexual. I need to also add to this that most men whom try a same sexaffair, usually end up liking it the best. Those that talk negative of gay men usually are consideredas have gay tendencies themself. So, be careful whom you criticise.As a bisexual guy I find most of this to be complete nonsense and a fair bit of it outright offensive. If this is what you've determined from observation, damn, look again and make less assumptions. If this is what you've experienced because you're gay or bi yourself, damn, I'm sorry, because yikes, you must have had some pretty bad experiences or are still very confused about yourself.This post actually kind of pisses me off a bit.
Why though? You are not the person being referred to in this post. And just like every straight man in my department is "bi" so the women will speak to them (actually not, but i speak to the women), so do I have essentially gay friends who are "bi" for a whole bunch of reasons that are valid. You are not either of these men, So why get offended by what you are not being accused of? Here's the other thing. Being in the closet, unsure of your sexuality, and all the rest aren't bad things. We have all been through some aspects of most of them. I assume it was the tone of the post that set you and others on edge, I ignore incendiary tone becausen it is designed to pop a lid, and let's be very honest here, the number of men who lie to their sex partner or spouse or GF/BF all the time is not small. There are lots of people online who are leading a secret life and this place is no different. I am not remotely interested in making it a problem. That's what he was referring to, albeit rather bumpily, and I see the guys who are 100% on that tip all the time here. But its not my job to worry about that. It takes courage and honest to accept who you are. It takes even more to see that those like you, right next to you, and beside you are the men you need. But that as well ends up blurred in the rearview. And remember I did not make any accusations about anyone in here, nor is any of not knowing, being a work in rpogress or full on king kamehameha gay a bad thing or bad things.
Actions
Back to TopicsReply to TopicShare this topic
Get paid just by sending us users/traffic.
Signup takes seconds, start now!
Signup as an affiliate!