Head from a guy.

[Rooker]

But the thing is, we're pretty much the first major society who's tried to put such hard edge definitions on a person's sexuality, and it's not working well. Most societies revolved more around masculine and feminine energies and behaviors. Like I said, in many, possibly most societies, it wasn't considered unmasculine, unmanly, or in any way feminine to take head from a guy, and it was a pretty routine event. But now it's at least bi.

You interchanged masculine/feminine with gay/straight. Totally different things.

And I can't help but notice that the people who are most adamant that a BJ make someone at least bi are guys for whom it seems that the label of straight is super important to their identity. I mean, there's been a ton of comedy done on this where a guy presented as super open minded about labels and anti-homophobia, but then someone assumes that they are gay or bi, and they get super defensive.

You’re generalizing and that generalization is not applicable to everyone.

Also, I find it rather ironic that there's a lot of guys who consider themselves 100% straight who spend a lot of time on a site which is specifically about dicks. They're apparently of the opinion that they can have a fascination with dicks, but still be 100% straight.

Any dicks I see here are when people with kinks show them off in unexpected places. I would not assume that every woman that joined a “big breasts support group” was there because they like looking at breasts. That’s a silly notion.

I would argue that a guy getting a blowie from a guy while thinking about pussy can, in fact, be totally straight, but a guy who's looking at dicks, talking about dicks, and spends a lot of time in the dick department is clearly not 100% straight. In fact, there are a ton of guys who even suck cock who consider themselves totally straight because their interest is strictly about cocks, not men. I think that's BS because cocks are a pretty key part of being a man, but it just goes to show you how ultimately malleable labels can be with people.

Argue all you want. It is really easy to define straight as a sexual preference only for people of the opposite sex. What is wrong with allowing that space?

 

[douggie77]

You interchanged masculine/feminine with gay/straight. Totally different things.

I didn't. I said that most societies throughout history have not tried to define things as narrowly as people in this society, especially some people in this group. They based their ideas of identity more about masculine and feminine, many not even having any concept of straight or gay, like we do now. For example, Plato was "gay" in a world where being "bi" was the norm. And though that was odd because everyone was expected to basically be fully sexual in a lot of ways and to at least have a wife and family regardless of your sexual leanings, Plato didn't get shit about not conforming because he was a major stud and absolutely masculine. He was big ("Plato" is actually a nickname meaning broad shouldered), strong, handsome, a champion athlete, and a leader of men, so the fact that he was totally into guys wasn't something that any guy looked down upon because he was a man. The only thing that mattered was masculine identity, not physical activity. It's kind of hard for someone from one culture to actually get inside the mind of another, but again, the whole gay/bi/straight thing is not one shared by most societies over time. Those linear definitions didn't exist. They are a cultural invention, not something real.

Things just do not fit as neatly into the little boxes we have come up with in the last few decades as some people want to believe - this something that sex researches tend to very much agree with. Moreover, of those people who strenuously insist on 100% this or that, I would argue, and I think psychologists agree, that their insistence is pretty much about a particular identity that they cling to rather than anything truly about sexuality.

As to the comparison between a woman's big breast group and here, I find that ridiculous. Find me one of them. I have seen places where women discuss the problems with that - breast reduction, bras, social reactions, etc. but it in no way bears any resemblance to what is here. When guys are spending tons of time on a site all about dicks, they are not 100% straight. It's not like this is a urologist forum where the issues about having a big dick is the focus, 99% of the stuff on here is not exactly a support group kind of thing. I know a guy who has an enormous dick, and it's pretty crippling. He has sought out discussion group help to deal with the issues that come with it, but that is absolutely not the focus of this group.

I do not understand your last sentence but what I am arguing is basically what history has shown to be true, which as it happens, is also what sex researchers tend to find to be true - if you want to define things in the straight/bi/gay labels, those labels primarily relate to attraction, not to activity. And the thing of it is, if you flip it on the head and ask many guys who insist that any guy who gets head from a guy is at least bi, and ask if a guy who never had any attraction to women but who's had sex with them because they were forced into a marriage or something, those guys will be pretty sure that the gay guy is gay, not bi. Suddenly their definition switches from what you've done to who you're attracted to.

 

[Rooker]

I only skimmed that because reading five-hundred words that are close-minded and full of shit has its limits.

You absolutely interchanged it when you attributed a sexual act with a guy as “unmasculine”.

If you can’t even stand by the bullshit you say, what’s the point? If you don’t understand my last sentence, you are being willfully obtuse and close-minded. I’ll say it another way.

There is a “Gay Man” forum here for men who exclusively have sex with other men.

There is a “Bi Man” forum here for guys who have sex with both men and women like the old cowboy.

There is a “Straight Man” forum here for men who exclusively have sex with women as well, but you seem to advocate that we shouldn’t be able to have that space.

 

[1972_EGR]

Straight on Grindr i presume.
Each can identify as they want but if straight men have sex with both men and woman what's left for bi guys?
The one you seduce and invest time and resources to have sex makes the difference.
What's the drama to accept bi guys?

Very simple. It would mean that they can not convert straight guys into bi- or even gay. Can't comprehend there are men who are NOT interested in having any sexual contact with other men.

 

[wellingtonbate]

I didn't. I said that most societies throughout history have not tried to define things as narrowly as people in this society, especially some people in this group. They based their ideas of identity more about masculine and feminine, many not even having any concept of straight or gay, like we do now. For example, Plato was "gay" in a world where being "bi" was the norm. And though that was odd because everyone was expected to basically be fully sexual in a lot of ways and to at least have a wife and family regardless of your sexual leanings, Plato didn't get shit about not conforming because he was a major stud and absolutely masculine. He was big ("Plato" is actually a nickname meaning broad shouldered), strong, handsome, a champion athlete, and a leader of men, so the fact that he was totally into guys wasn't something that any guy looked down upon because he was a man. The only thing that mattered was masculine identity, not physical activity. It's kind of hard for someone from one culture to actually get inside the mind of another, but again, the whole gay/bi/straight thing is not one shared by most societies over time. Those linear definitions didn't exist. They are a cultural invention, not something real.

Things just do not fit as neatly into the little boxes we have come up with in the last few decades as some people want to believe - this something that sex researches tend to very much agree with. Moreover, of those people who strenuously insist on 100% this or that, I would argue, and I think psychologists agree, that their insistence is pretty much about a particular identity that they cling to rather than anything truly about sexuality.

As to the comparison between a woman's big breast group and here, I find that ridiculous. Find me one of them. I have seen places where women discuss the problems with that - breast reduction, bras, social reactions, etc. but it in no way bears any resemblance to what is here. When guys are spending tons of time on a site all about dicks, they are not 100% straight. It's not like this is a urologist forum where the issues about having a big dick is the focus, 99% of the stuff on here is not exactly a support group kind of thing. I know a guy who has an enormous dick, and it's pretty crippling. He has sought out discussion group help to deal with the issues that come with it, but that is absolutely not the focus of this group.

I do not understand your last sentence but what I am arguing is basically what history has shown to be true, which as it happens, is also what sex researchers tend to find to be true - if you want to define things in the straight/bi/gay labels, those labels primarily relate to attraction, not to activity. And the thing of it is, if you flip it on the head and ask many guys who insist that any guy who gets head from a guy is at least bi, and ask if a guy who never had any attraction to women but who's had sex with them because they were forced into a marriage or something, those guys will be pretty sure that the gay guy is gay, not bi. Suddenly their definition switches from what you've done to who you're attracted to.

The notion that society is more narrow-minded now because of this supposed drive to label everyone’s sexuality, particularly vis bi men, is backwards in its thinking, though. The previous societal examples that you give may indeed have not thought of a guy receiving head from a guy as bi or even gay. But the reason for this was the any hint of homosexuality was considered negative and therefore the society rationalised it so that receiving head from a guy was more ‘acceptable’ and didn’t make you anything other that straight.

So, the perceived ‘drive to label guys who receive head from other guys as bi’ is actually more open-minded because it is trying to get them to accept themselves for who they actually are and remove the negative connotations which centuries of societal stigma have placed on being in any way homosexual, to whatever greater or lesser degree. In a way, it’s actually an attempt at removing any labels altogether. Why think in straight/bi/gay if everyone can just enjoy themselves sexually (as long as they are not hurting others, of course) and not have to attach a label to it. If we want to look at previous societies, look at the male perspective in Ancient Greece: “women for business; men for pleasure”. There was no concern about labels but rather a recognition that sexual pleasure can be derived from both men and women, with women advancing the society by producing children and men playing a more ‘recreational’ role, sexually. There is obviously an inherent misogyny in this perspective but that’s not really the point of this discussion.

If we want to look at women’s sexuality, bisexuality amongst women has been more ‘acceptable’ throughout history. And we see the impact of this today with the number of M/F couples where the woman is bisexual (or at least more willing or societally encouraged) to have sexual contact with another woman while the man is considered entirely straight. Look at any app or site (consider fabswingers or Feeld) and you’ll see that instances of M/F couples where the man labels himself bisexual in some way and the woman labels herself straight are vanishingly rare. Yet, on both fabswingers and Feeld, I’ve had ostensibly straight guys messaging me saying how incredible my body and cock are and they ask about meeting up. I then query why their profiles says they’re straight and state that I don’t engage with guys who aren’t upfront/honest/authentic about their sexuality and every single one says they’re actually at least curious. So no matter how they present themselves, there’s still an element of bisexuality there and encouraging people to be comfortable in themselves about that is not narrow-minded.

Anyway, TL;DR: it’s not narrow-mindedness that’s causing people to say the guys who get head from guys are bi. It’s trying to encourage greater acceptance of the spectrum of sexuality that the majority of people exist on. Sure, there may be guys that are 100% straight but they would be totally unable to get hard unless it’s a woman that they’re being in any way sexual with.

Sorry for another book lol

 

[douggie77]

Very simple. It would mean that they can not convert straight guys into bi- or even gay. Can't comprehend there are men who are NOT interested in having any sexual contact with other men.

No, I think everyone gets that. The point is that you don't have to be attracted to something to get pleasure from it. Women aren't attracted to dildos and guys aren't attracted to Fleshlights, but they use them for pleasure and convenience.

I've only got a couple minutes, but let's put it this way - let's say that you don't like broccoli. Let's go even further and say that you have the AVI/PAV variation of the TAS2R38 gene which makes you particularly sensitive to the chemical in broccoli that makes it taste bitter. If there's anyone who hates broccoli, it's you. Well, you've gone all day without a meal and you are ravenous. Eating is all that you can think of. And you come upon a situation where you suddenly have a couple choices made available to you, an awesome meal that costs $1,000, or a nice bowl of buttered and spiced broccoli and rice which is free. Which one will you take? Most people who don't like broccoli will still take the broccoli just to get something in their belly and get on with their day. Does that make them suddenly like broccoli? Does it even make them broccoli curious? Or did they just take a practical solution to a pressing need? Did they make the best of a bad situation?

Guys by the truckload take the free broccoli. Some are broccoli curious but many are not. Who can say with total accuracy who is which? The fact of the matter is that there are a ton of guys who are not getting what they want and are unable or unwilling to deal with the hoops that many women put around it. Craigslist Personals, for example, was filled with guys in dead bedrooms who needed an easy way to get off and knew that guys were an easy answer to their problem. Some married guys found it to not really be cheating because there was no chance of reciprocity, romance, etc. Many were driven to affairs with women in the past, but the affairs were eventually outed due to the usual drama and it fucked up their marriage and they didn't want to make that mistake again. Many guys don't really see BJs as sex. There are a million and one reasons that make BJs from guys a viable option for a lot of guys who, as far as they know, have zero interest in men. That said, there are also a ton of guys who like getting BJs from guys for more reasons than just practicality. In that case, they're gay or some variation of bi.

The fact of the matter is that most sexual experts will tell you that attraction is what determines sexual orientation, not necessarily what you do with your bits. Moreover, they will also tell you that the terms of gay, bi and straight are only the crudest possible terms to define an extremely complex part of humanity. In fact, they are often exceedingly unhelpful and confuse an issue. Our language tends to make us think in certain ways which are not reflective of actual reality.

 

[cofrader]

The fact of the matter is that most sexual experts will tell you that attraction is what determines sexual orientation

Half of your post are on the section gay adults website. What does your expert tell you?
We could rename ask sections for you:
Straight men who only does woman.
Straight men who only does men.
Straight men who does both.
Straight men who does none.