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.
It's my understanding (and I've never seen this actually spelled out) that the g0y prohibition on top/bottom dom/sub is that the men take masculine/feminine roles -- a rough definition being something similar to: the male penetrates, the female is penetrated. Even flip/flop sex doesn't resolve that issue. Taking turns isn't the point. And although penetration does occur during oral sex, that somehow doesn't count as "penetration."b) the bible doesn't forbid anal sex.
It does forbid contact with human feces. Douching doesn't resolve this.The important part here, and this is the same as with Onan, is the waste of semen in a society 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.
People used to believe that an entire fully-formed but microscopic human was contained within the head of each individual sperm. That was disproved a long time ago and it didn't even arise until thousands of years after scripture was written. That was the motivation behind the Church's prohibition on masturbation -- not even vaguely related to scripture.She does the whole book and finds that all of the bad translations were either made or made worse in the 19th century.
Victorian Era.The prohibition for M/F anal is along the same lines.
Involves contact with human feces -- has nothing to do with wasted microscopic people.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.
This is one area where I am in complete disagreement with g0y. The g0y movement is not merely homophobic -- but openly state that they hate gays.
Did not mean to upset anyone by posting a thought on my observations which at this point in time my reading glasses are
still working. Just take a look for yourself and what do you observe?
I love gay people as well as those that are bi cause that is all I really know at least in this lifestyle.
In my conclusion, we usually see the comments from the same people. Boy it would be nice
to see them from younger gay and bi people.
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.
Or people out NA because they believe that their sexuality isnt relevant to their interest in naturism. After all I dont asked about my sexuality on the photography and other groups I am on. So why should it be important just because I am naked?
For me, someone's sexuality is more a matter of curiosity. That is, I don't bother even asking until I've known the person for a while.Or people out NA because they believe that their sexuality isnt relevant to their interest in naturism. After all I dont asked about my sexuality on the photography and other groups I am on. So why should it be important just because I am naked?
Regardless, I cannot see any relevance or association between nudity and sexuality. Certainly, it makes sense on the sister site: True Swingers. But that site is about sex, not nudity.
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.
This is one area where I am in complete disagreement with g0y. The g0y movement is not merely homophobic -- but openly state that they hate gays.
Yeah I just made fun of them when they tried to bust out the unvarnished homophobia. To me, what really defines a man's character is his willingness to step away from the petty and the puerile and invest energy in things that deliver positive results from building people up. And in this case, they were going full homophobe and I was just dropping hot potatoes in their laps.
Here's the thing about human feces
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.
Oh how true is your last sentence as I only like to be with males, both sexually, nude and in general company, so I'm labelled as gay, I'm fine with that, but it's labels in general that get in the way of some who bounce around both sexes and aren't sure where they lay in the label game.
No more labelling, if one feels they have in interest in of a person of their same gender then that should be it, No need to label others or yourself if you are gay or straight or anything. Just go with the direction.
Such labels didn't exist until the1800s when science decided to study sex. "Sexuality" got categorized.
Before science, there was religion... I'll spare everyone the rant on the damage done there.
Since Stonewall, Gay is a label worn by some of us in Pride. As ActUp took the Nazi triangle and literally turned it on its head, so too the rest of the Community has taken the stigma to wear proudly.
The OP dances around the misconception that bi is a transition or less stigmatized version of gay. Of course, this is nonsense. Without buying into all the flaws of the Kinsey studies (research since has clarified things nicely in a perfectly muddied fashion) the basic points remain. Sexuality is fluid. Frequency, intensity, and priority of sex in a person's life fluctuates moment to moment. Basically, all men are bi. The placement of a man on the grey scale of 1 through 6 is constantly changing. It's the general, cumulative, overall placement on such a scale that creates the label... if one wants to have a label in the 1st place.
Personally, I choose & proudly accept the label of Gay as an active participant in this society. Politically & legally, there are inequalities that need addressing - this "bi isn't real" is one of them. Blaming gay men for HIV is another (37 states makes it a felony to knowing transmit HIV. No other virus or disease... just HIV). The masculine/feminine, dom/sub, top/bottom dichotomies are others that need to be addressed.
Sex is an activity, not a relationship. These labels, if they're good for anything, need to be used to describe relationships - romances, bromances, and others within the confines of whatever ethical structure a man lives. There is no need to use these labels to describe one's identity, but rather their relationships. A married "straight" man could have a gay relationship (with the wife's knowledge & agreement, of course, cuz I believe romance is based on transparency) without needing to describe himself as "bisexual." He could enjoy some healthy sessions of sex with both of these people in a 3-some and still need not change the label to his identity - though that was obviously some bisexual sessions he enjoyed. Maybe he never again has any desire to repeat the encounter or it is so infrequent and unimportant to him that he can rationally hold his identity as "straight."
Ooops, a bit side-tracked there.
Ideally, there would be no need for labels. Next best thing is men just accept they are all bi- and separate love & sex in their head since they are not the same thing - though experienced together is quite nice. Currently, labels are used to identify a self for social clarification of all sorts of things - things so no two people would be able to define the same way (so much for clarification).
I'm on board with you that ridding ourselves of labels as an ideal. However, they do still have their uses to the benefit of society. Until society gets over itself and all the restrictive mythologies we cling to, labels can be as helpful as harmful.Just I ask you all. am i making sense on what i just posted?
Of course. Just needed to tip my head to one side to read it correctly.
Did I?
There are many interesting and valid points of view in this thread as well as on the website mentioned. I believe labels should not be used as an identity. However you identify you are still a sexual being. Some broader than others but that really none of my business. I agree there is a huge difference between Sex and Love. I have a few close friends that I love deeply, in fact I consider them Brothers but that doesn't mean I'm interested in having a sexual encounter with them. From that website, the whole notion that if you are not penetrating, you are not having homosexual sex is confusing. Kind of splitting hairs isn't it? I've read the bible and lots of passages can to interpreted to mean anything you want. So I'm not certain their claims to be accurate. That's my 2 cents worth and that's probably overcharging. In any case it is very interesting to read all the different points of view.
I am surprised that few guys in here come out as straight.
I dont believe this site is representative of the general public or of nudists in general either. Men that are more comfortable with talking about it and sharing pictures of themselves are expected to be more open or honest in other areas as well.
With that in mind and the belief that most men have some level of attraction to other men (no matter in what way or how well suppressed) it shouldnt be surprising.
Men who dont subscribe to the social mores regarding nudity are more likely to reject a similarly narrow societal view of sexuality.
But never mind all of that, there are still plenty of men here who claim to be 100% straight.
And it also depends on your definition of "bi." Some might include "bi-curious" meaning a person who has not had a real sexual experience with someone of the same sex and is not actively seeking one, but might not turn down an opportunity if it presents itself. I think that a lot of the people who identify as "bi" on this site fall into that category.
FWIW, I identify as "straight" because I have actually had invitations for sex from other men, and I courteously turned them down, as the erotic content simply wasn't there for me. Of course, that was many years ago. Would I have the same response now? I don't know.
I have to wonder how many of the people who identify as "nudist" on this site have actually participated in nude activities with other people, or whether they simply like the idea of being thought of as a nudist or enjoy being naked in private. Again, it's a matter of definition.
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!