"Straight" men?

[Traveller]

RE: Really & truly everything?

 

>I still stand by the simple proposition

>that you ARE what you daydream about.

>

 

Hmmmm, it involves hermit crabs, bocci balls and pygmies.

 

Later.

 

PS. Does every LA bar have 4 letters? Next on Thurs., Here on Fri; altho Fubar on Sat. did have 5.

[Guest Joey Ciccone]

RE: I wouldn't shit ya!

 

>OK, assuming that this is still a serious exchange on the subject, I'd say that Joey's answer is actually a dodge.<

 

Oh it's serious, and I'm sorry to disappoint, but I've entertained (and in fact lived out) my pansexual fantasy on more occasions than you've insinuated someone's being untruthful. Just because you don't believe something doesn't make it a lie.

 

>The sort of pansexual-orgy fantasy he describes is perfectly plausible, of course; in fact, some form of it is common among 13 & 14-y.o. boys<

 

Well if you're going to cite clinical studies, just call me sexually and emotionally stunted and leave it at that.

 

>But before too long, a guy will start imagining very specific things--most notably the gender of the fantasy figures<

 

Not to refute this empirical data, but in fact support it, as "a guy", I've described the specifics, and the genders. It's the love and lust of those specifics and genders that brings them to mind. This is really basic stuff.

 

>what activities they're involved in, and with whom. From that point on, the jerk-off fantasy should be a pretty accurate reflection of his unmediated sexual desires.<

 

Right. A cross-gendered orgy. You're repeating me, and causing me to repeat myself.

 

>And with all due respect to Joey's wide-ranging tastes,<

 

Thank you for the respect, but my tastes aren't so wide. There's only two sexes. Why would it be impossible to be equally aroused by both?

 

>I honestly doubt that his jerk-off fantasies (assuming he does jerk off) are always of the sort of scene he describes, or that he thinks that there are guys out there like that.<

 

I not only think guys like that are "out there", I am one, I know some, I've had sex with many, and apparently many more would like to be one. That goes for chicks too. We exist, in spite of the fact that we don't fit into the pidgeonhole you'd have us conform to. You must learn to see us for what we are, and not label us as being false. As to whether I jerk-off off or not, sure. But no, I don't have that orgiastic fantasy every time, nor did I ever say I did. Sometimes I think of just a man, sometimes just a woman. Intimate-like.

 

>people who don't want to own up to their true sexuality (to themselves or to others) aren't likely to be fully candid in answering my little question.<

 

I own up to my sexuality every time I lick a pussy or suck a dick. I do either with equal relish, and therefore must stand in defiance of your "little question". Sorry, but it's hardly a question/answer worth lying about. I love cock, twat, tits, and ass. May my gay and hetero brethren damn me for it, but it's all true.

 

>I still stand by the simple proposition that you ARE what you daydream about.<

 

I've spoken of what I sometimes fantasize about while jerking off. Daydreams are a different story altogether.

[Guest]

RE:

 

>If you can tell me (truthfully) what a guy looks at and/or

>thinks about when he's jerking off, I'm pretty sure I can

>tell you whether he's gay or straight.

>

>That's it. No labels, no depth-analysis, no discussions of

>role-playing, no sociocultural theorizing. . .

 

That's 100% correct. No ifs, ands, or buts.

[Guest CZ]

RE: I wouldn't shit ya!

 

I'm sure you wouldn't, Joey, & I wouldn't shit you either. So let me say right off I couldn't really follow some of what you're saying. And I'm just as puzzled by the hostile--or, at least, huffy--tone of most of it.

 

In your first posting on this thread you said "it's what lies in your heart and mind, no matter who you're with. . .that determines a person's truest inclinations." Now this is pretty basic stuff (to use your phrase), and while my own first post followed exactly the same line of thought, it was very specific in proposing an easy way to determine it--i.e. by knowing what someone's jerk-off fantasies were.

 

But then, as if to refute it (your own formula in action!) you offered a two-line smorgasbord fantasy implying someone (you?) might be bisexual. And when I expressed doubts that many adult males would volunteer this as a typical of their fantasies, you apparently took it to mean that I didn't believe there was such thing as bisexuality. (This was the surface impression, anyway; the huffiness, I expect, had more to do with your thinking I didn't believe YOU were truly bisexual.)

 

I do believe in bisexuality. And I can say that I've known at least three guys (known them very well, that is, and over many years) who could be described as truly and incontestably bisexual. Whether you are such another, I have no way of knowing, of course. And I note that you are carefeul to avoid any such claim (or terminology), preferring to say "I'm certainly not straight, but I'm not gay either."

 

Well, for what it's worth, I accept that self-description. (Why not? I have no basis for refuting it.) Moreover, I'm much more willing to believe your claim of dick-one-day/pussy-the-next fantasies than the smorgasbord one. (The bi-guys I know have all described this sort of compartmentalization, not orgy scenes.) But, then, why didn't you say so in the first place?

 

In any event, my rule of thumb (OK, rule of palm) in the str8/gay identity question is hardly confounded by the existence of bisexuality. As long as the reporting is truthful, it's bolstered by it. And please remember, I'm one of the few people posting here who believes that a straight guy can have sex with another guy (for pay or otherwise) and NOT be a closet case--or even bisexual. So what's your complaint about what I'm saying?

 

As for your having had (or acted out) 'omnisexual' fantasies more often than I've insinuated anyone here was being untruthful, I just re-read my two posts carefully, and am now left to wonder when you last had sex with anyone but a man.

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

RE: Really & truly everything?

 

Here is half of my two cents worth on this subject -- a penny for my thoughts if you will (and overpriced at that).

 

There has been a lot of back and forth here and IMHO most are at least a little right as they focus on the mainstream aspect of sexuality be it straight or gay. However, this thread seemed to focus on an unusual case as the premise -- a 'straight' husband to a drag queen. SO lets consider a perspective possibly appropriate to the 3 sigma case (i.e. statistical unusual).

 

IMO there exist those individuals that project a strong erotic presence be they male or female. And there are those that are perceptively tuned to such erotic signals. This leads to an attraction between SPECIFIC individuals that transcends gender preference. What is unclear to me is the duration of this phenomenon or erotic presence overtaking gender preference. Now I grant these cases are uncommon but that is what I believe this thread started to explore -- the uncommon situation.

[Guest WetDream]

RE: Not So Uncommon

 

TY: I don't think that the "straight husband to a drag queen" situation is all that rare. Maybe it is just that I have lived in big cities (New York, Chicago and San Francisco) all of my adult life (cities where there is a fairly liberal attitude toward the edges of the sexual world), but it seems to me that there has always been a large contingent of men that consider themselves hetrosexual that are attracted to drag queens and/or transexuals. While these guys aren't so noticeable in the buttoned-down, 9-to-5 middle-class world, they are out there.

 

Academics have published many works (for instance, "Gay New York" by George Chauncey), that show that how men define themselves sexually changes constantly. It is a fairly recent phenomenon (generally after WWII) for men who aren't effeminate to refer to themselves as homosexuals. And discussions on this and many other threads about who or what is "gay" shows that evolution keeps on happening.

 

All labels, by definition, are limiting. Sexuality is vast.

[Guest Joey Ciccone]

RE: I wouldn't shit ya!

 

>I'm sure you wouldn't, Joey, & I wouldn't shit you either.<

 

That's good to know.

 

>So let me say right off I couldn't really follow some of what you're saying.<

 

Well I'm no poet so it shouldn't be that tough. Not being a smartass, just don't know how to be any more succinct than stating clearly that I'm attracted to both men and women and sometimes entertain fantasies involving both sexes at the same time. Always have, probably always will.

 

>And I'm just as puzzled by the hostile--or, at least, huffy--tone of most of it.<

 

I'm sorry you took my post as being huffy. Maybe it was a bit on the defensive side, but after you'd claimed my post was a dodge (i.e. untrue), you then implied I was fantasizing like a post-adolescent, which technically I guess I am. You went on to doubt my conviction that other people like me exist, and that I'm in reality some asexual creature who may not even be capable of masturbation, which means I was lying about that too. So I gathered from your post that you think I'm either delusional or dishonest. Neither left me feeling very warm towards you, and you did it all as if I weren't even part of the discussion. With negativity on the rise around here once again, what you thought might be hostility on my part was really just tired exasperation with this whole fucking place. My apologies.

 

>In your first posting on this thread you said "it's what lies in your heart and mind, no matter who you're with... that determines a person's truest inclinations." ...while my own first post followed exactly the same line of thought, it was very specific in proposing an easy way to determine it--i.e. by knowing what someone's jerk-off fantasies were.<

 

That may be a specific method, but it has no specific result. It just tells what a particular person is thinking about at any one time. Not all people and not all of the time. I introduced the notion that your method is not foolproof, with my own experiences as a reference point. I did so in the portion you failed to include when you quoted me above. I finished by saying that the inclinations in some people's hearts and minds move up and down the scale of desire, which pretty much parallels what Tampa said in his post #29, although not as eloquently.

 

>But then, as if to refute it (your own formula in action!) you offered a two-line smorgasbord fantasy implying someone (you?) might be bisexual.<

 

Not just me, and what I did was offer an alternative perspective and point out a possible flaw in your orientation formula. I don't feel that it applies to me and thousands of men and women like me. I'm sorry.

 

>And when I expressed doubts that many adult males would volunteer this as a typical of their fantasies, you apparently took it to mean that I didn't believe there was such thing as bisexuality<

 

You're reading too much into my post.

 

>(This was the surface impression, anyway; the huffiness, I expect, had more to do with your thinking I didn't believe YOU were truly bisexual.)<

 

Correct. See above.

 

>I do believe in bisexuality. And I can say that I've known at least three guys who could be described as truly and incontestably bisexual. Whether you are such another, I have no way of knowing, of course.<

 

I think we just nailed down the problem here. You do have a way of knowing. I just told you.

 

>And I note that you are carefeul to avoid any such claim (or terminology), preferring to say "I'm certainly not straight, but I'm not gay either."<

 

I've said time and again on these boards that I'm bi. I deliberately avoided doing so here because we were discussing labels.

 

>Well, for what it's worth, I accept that self-description.(Why not? I have no basis for refuting it.)<

 

Thank you.

 

>Moreover, I'm much more willing to believe your claim of dick-one-day/pussy-the-next fantasies than the smorgasbord one. But, then, why didn't you say so in the first place?<

 

Because again, and for the last time, desire varies. I gave you a scenario that didn't fit your model. I did it for the sake of discussion, not to get under your skin. I feel that your questionnaire is too black and white and cannot be applied across the board. I know this from personal experience.

 

>So what's your complaint about what I'm saying?<

 

I've never complained to you, about you, or anything you've said. My own state of mind, the state of unrest around here, and the manner in which you said what you said all contributed to the tone of my previous post. The fact that you assume I'm dodging before assuming my trustworthiness also makes for a surly poster. I hope you can see that.

 

>I just re-read my two posts carefully, and am now left to wonder when you last had sex with anyone but a man.<

 

You callin' me a fag?

 

[Bilbo]

RE: I wouldn't shit ya!

 

Dear Joey, I don't at all think that CZ meant that you were asexual (and I've know some asexuals and they were among the most mellow, gentle people I've known) when he said he wasn't sure that you ever masturbated. Many fairly normal people when confronted with a sex god see someone who would never have to beat off because they could always find someone to help them whenever they were horny. However, even were that true, I'm sure that there are some wonderful things you can do when you're alone that don't really come off when you're with someone else. }> Love, Bilbo

[Guest Joey Ciccone]

RE: sex god status

 

>Dear Joey, I don't at all think that CZ meant that you were asexual when he said he wasn't sure that you ever masturbated.<

 

I'm sure you're correct. It's just that when I first read his post, it seemed to me that he doubted my veracity. I've already apologised for being somewhat snotty.

 

>Many fairly normal people when confronted with a sex god see someone who would never have to beat off because they could always find someone to help them whenever they were horny.<

 

Aw, now you're just teasing me. Although what you say may be true, I'm really only a demigod.

 

>However, I'm sure that there are some wonderful things you can do when you're alone that don't really come off when you're with someone else.<

 

It's true. Jerking off to (bisex) porno by the bluish glow of a television, then cumming all over my chest, stomach, and couch is often more fun alone. I'm also less inclined to impale myself on an upturned chair in front of the mirror when someone else is in the room.

 

Hey Bilbo, I see that the Baggins namesake graces the screen at last. Any thoughts on Lord of the Rings? Is that even where your screename comes from?

 

rentjoey@hotmail.com

[Bilbo]

RE: sex god status

 

It is and it isn't. It also sounds like my first name combined with the first letter of my last name. (I'm Irish and it takes two letters and an aposterphe to make my final initial.) Yes, Billow, would also sound like my name, but Bilbo is much more like my personality. (Pooh-ish.) Personally, I think and hope that it will be wonderful. I hope that it isn't overshadowed for the youngsters who need to discover the books by Harry Potter being only the month before. I agree with the Australian paper which said that the director looks more like a hobbit than any of the guys he cast as hobbits. Too young looking, too much like rock stars. However, maybe it did need that to drag the teenagers in. And some of the expressions in their faces bode well. And some of the other casting is absolutely right on. John Rhys-Davies as Gimli and our gay brother Ian McKellen as Gandalf, for starters. And some of the shots I've seen of the sets!!! Woof!