Straight Guys

[+ imagooddog]

This topic has been talked about to some degree before but turned

into a discussion of straight vs bisexual vs gay.

I am just wondering how many of you guys besides me gets really

turned on by sucking a stright guys cock? I can't explain why it is

such a rush for me, maybe because most are unattainable, but give

me a goodlooking straight guy with a nice cock that he likes sucked

and I am in heaven !!:9

When I lived in St. Louis I met a guy during lunch hour one day

who had just gotten married about 3 months before. He was about

6'3", great build, black curly hair, had played quarterback for a

state college football team, very masculine, extreemly good looking and the last person in

the world you would think would fool around. Well, we went to his

condo (wife was at work) and ended up having some great sex! He

was hung big and thick and cut, and loved having it serviced.

This was a great situation for both of us, no strings and no commitments, just sexually satisfying for each. We

ended up seeing each other at least everyother week, sometimes 2 or

3 times a week for about 6 years until I moved. Man, I sure do miss

that. This was my fantasy guy!

[Guest Thunderbuns]

>We ended up seeing each other at least everyother week,

>sometimes 2 or

>3 times a week for about 6 years until I moved. Man, I sure

>do miss

>that. This was my fantasy guy!

 

I agree - that sounded very hot. But, if it went on for six years, I would have to ask myself if he was truly straight or was he bi.

 

I know this has been argued here before and I guess there is no way of us really knowing. However, it sounds as if you had several hundred sessions with this hottie. Straight?????? Not in my books

 

Thunderbuns

[+ imagooddog]

Thunderbuns:

I have to agree with you that I believe he was a TRUE bi-sexual

but hell, I didn't care what he was, it was just hot as hell for

both of us since we both wanted the sex thing with no

commitments or strings attached. But I was affraid that this

posting would become a big arguement of whether he was straight,

or bi or gay.

I was just wondering if this type of setup turns on other guys or

is it just me?? And maybe others of you have some good stories

to relate! :)

[Rick Munroe]

>I was just wondering if this type of setup turns on other

>guys or is it just me??

 

Fuck yeah! One reason I became an escort was the possibility of sex with "straight" guys (OK, I like 'em gay, too...I'm just a whore)

[Rod Hagen]

Yes, please, let's rehash this bullshit fascination. Perhaps, in time, Skeptic may return to add his "Trade" Tales (and tails) to the pot.

[Rick Munroe]

>Yes, please, let's rehash this bullshit fascination.

 

Time to change your tampon, Rod. Why so nasty? You're not into it, so it's "bullshit"? Perhaps it's been discussed here before, but almost everything has been discussed here before. Suntan has only been a member here since January...how could he possibly know that you've been here for years and have seen it all and are jaded & tired of it all? The message center archives aren't readily accessible anymore, and even if they were, are we to expect all newcomers to research everything that's been posted before so that old-timers like you don't get bored and post cunty critiques of their posts? Sheesh.

 

Now, getting back to the topic (Rod, stop reading here)...Before I was an escort, I had a regular straight married fuckbuddy that I met on AOL...he used to come here a couple of times a week to fuck me. Straight guys fuck differently...like you're a woman. It's hard to describe but you definitely get that feeling, and it's a hot roleplay if you're a masculine guy being treated like someone's bitch. I think it turned him on even more than it did me when I would kiss his wedding ring as he was inside me.

[+ imagooddog]

Rod -

Sorry to have ruffled your feathers, but I did not realize that

this was old shit as far as a topic is concerned.

 

Suntan4

[Rod Hagen]

>Time to change your tampon, Rod. Why so nasty? You're not

>into it, so it's "bullshit"?

 

No it's bullshit because the fascination with fucking straight guys is demeaning to Gays, and a pointless pursuit given what the word "straight" means.

[Guest jizzdepapi]

breeder cock!

 

i'll weigh in.

 

i don't do this on a regular basis but i love sucking dick in porno booths or in woodsy areas in New Haven where evil but horny men hang out(summer's around the corner, the church ladies are singing already).

 

and there's an amazing number of "straight "guys--bankers to maintenance guys--looking for some sucking action. i'm discriminating so don't use glory holes; too hard to check guys out. besides, glory holes always leave me with a sawdust taste when i try to rim through them. nothing like having a hot papi sitting on your face while you're sitting in a chair and he climbs up on top (careful of those cheap plastic ones). they usually don't get this kind of service from their wives or girlfriends so leave as very happy campers and come running when they see me arrive next time.

 

now, onto the gay-straight-bisexual thing. i think a lot of us think that the most liberated among us don't have labels for themselves and do whatever feels good or natural. so i don't worry too much about what i'm doing.

 

one of the most fun nights i had was when a good friend broke up with her lesbian lover and stayed with me in my last apartment--a studio with only one double futon. my friend threw off all her clothes and dove into the bed with me. she even laughed at my look of shock and shook her boobies at me. then she started hitting me with a pillow until i stripped naked too. so i got into bed with her and we cuddled and fell asleep in a little ball. i was so comfortable and so was she.

 

i think it would have been very natural for us to make love. she had a breeder past so it might have seemed a very natural act for her. i was too uptight and besides, i had decided i was gay. my loss, i would venture. oh, well. besides, i couldn't have gotten it up and wasn't naturally attracted to her but i felt so intimate with her and it might have been nice to have a way to express that. guess i need one of the Christian healer things.

 

something that has always occurred to me when discussing men having sex with men is whether or not both men are attracted to each other. i've been with some very hot numbers who wanted the experience of being with a man but, in fact, claim not to be turned on by a goodlooking man. i guess we could have two reactions to that: either decide the guy is dishonest or so deep in the closet he doesn't/can't recognize his attraction. or he could truly be straight (that is, attracted to women only) but has shed his labels and is able to enjoy sexual activities with the same gender. i don't really know or care too much; the analysts can figure it out for all i care.

 

that's my take,

jizz-de-papis-and-random-handsome-carpenters-of-any-persuasion

[Guest jizzdepapi]

>No it's bullshit because the fascination with fucking straight guys is demeaning to Gays...

 

with all due respect, i differ with this statement. to want to make it with a straight or bisexual guy is appealing to me; i also have sex with gay men. i haven't figured out why and am suspicious of blanket statements that condemn this. in fact, being gay means being a rebel, rejecting preconceived notions from the straight and the gay world. i'm also scared that statements like yours are just the beginning of condemning any number of sexual activities; i'm not saying this is true for you, but definitely would worry about that if i heard it from another source.

 

besides, what does your statement say about gay-for-pay escorts?

 

>and a pointless pursuit given what the word "straight" means...

 

see my "breeder cock" post for my response ot this statement.

 

best,

jizz

[Rick Munroe]

>...it's bullshit because the fascination with fucking

>straight guys is demeaning to Gays, and a pointless pursuit

>given what the word "straight" means.

 

Sounds like you have "issues"...I hope you and your therapist work it out. I'll be busy blowing somebody...

[+ deej]

Rod, you've always been a fairly gruff and curmudgeonly poster here, but the last day or so you've been particularly terse and hostile.

 

Is everything OK?

[+ SundayZip]

suntan4,

 

I'm totally with you on this. I love sucking attractive straight guys. Not that I don't also like sucking attractive gay guys, but there's a different kind of thrill going on when I go down on a hot, hunky straight guy. Maybe it's internalized homophobia and I secretly want to be the straight guy and by having the most virile and sexually identified part of his anatomy inside my mouth, I am subconsciously trying to assimilate his straight and more socially revered status. But I don't really care. I just want to have fun.

[+ deej]

RE: breeder cock!

 

Peter Dixon once explained to me his theory on this, which makes inordinate sense. (We were just having dinner folks, not an appointment!)

 

In his opinion, ANY two people can have satisfying sex (m/f, m/m, f/f, or any combination of 2 or more) if the situation is right and the mood is right. If two human beings are relaxed enough, horny enough, and self-aware enough there are no boundaries, just labels.

 

And labels don't matter when the circumstances are right.

[Rick Munroe]

>Maybe it's internalized homophobia

 

No, I think it's just a simple case of wanting to taste the forbidden fruit. :9

[Rod Hagen]

>>Maybe it's internalized homophobia

>

>No, I think it's just a simple case of wanting to taste the

>forbidden fruit. :9

 

No, it's internalized homophobia.

 

Probably the most infurating delusionss I've witnessed in my nearly 3 years on this board and 2 on the muscle service, is this empty rhetoric that since the GLBT community is so diverse, and so maligned, that, and this is the retarded jump in logic, that we should not be concerned with, or argumentative about, lables; we should be BEYOND such narrow mindedness. A community, that has a name, and therefore a defined and recognizeable identity, should not be concerned with names. Ok, this makes sense on what planet?

 

Guess what, if you make allowances for everything, and everyone, you aren't a community, you're a population.

[Rod Hagen]

>besides, what does your statement say about gay-for-pay

>escorts?

 

They're fucking with you. Either that or they, like so many others out there, are confused, and therefore curious.

[Rod Hagen]

RE: breeder cock!

 

>And labels don't matter when the circumstances are right.

 

This is called making up the rules as you go along.

[Guest DevonSFescort]

>No, it's internalized homophobia.

 

Don't look now, but the desire for a straight man by a gay man is a homosexual desire, one which most people on this thread seem to be comfortable celebrating. Funny how the only one charging "internalized homophobia" also happens to be the only one who, for reasons yet to be articulated, is uncomfortable with this type of gay pleasure.

 

>Guess what, if you make allowances for everything, and

>everyone, you aren't a community, you're a population.

 

This sounds like the logic of people who complain that if gays are allowed to marry then the insitution of marriage won't mean anything. Also, it baffles me that you don't think we should make allowances for what is, after all, a virtually universal gay experience -- that of feeling desire for a straight man. Adults who, through fantasy (and sometimes action), connect with emotions that are intimately bound up with their sexuality, seem to me much healthier than those who seek to make their desires (and those of others) pass some political litmus test.

[marc anthony]

Rod has taken us to task for liking twinks, and now straight guys. Both of these are problems, but a guy paying money to have sex with another guy (so long as he's not a twink) is ok. I am reminded of the admonition delivered to the proverbial escort who lives in the glass house...

 

Personally, I think it's all good. If you have two consenting adults... 18 and up... even if they look twinky... and even if one of them may be straight... and they want to have sex... even if they want to pay for it... I got no problems. Maybe labels are actually ok, if you don't sit in judgement of them. And you know what, it makes my world a lot happier that way at least.

[guyinsf]

Just so Rod is not out on this limb by himself, and to counter your assertions, Devon, I submit the following:

 

- I don't know that desire for a straight man is a "nearly universal gay male experience." I certainly have met many gay men with this desire, but also many without. In the case of the latter, I don't think it was "repression" or avoidance of this fantasy; it just wasn't their fantasy.

 

- I may not choose the same words as Rod, but what troubles me about the initial description is this: The perception that one is having sex with an "unobtainable" "straight" man when, in fact, the sex occurred regularly for years. I think that what rings my "internalized homophobia" bell about this is that even though the married guy enjoys having sex with men regularly, some gay men find him "more desirable" if they think of the guy as "straight" versus bisexual or gay. What is it, exactly, that makes "straight" men more desirable? Could it be that because our culture repeatedly demeans gay men that some of us have incorporated that into our sexuality such that self-identified gay men are lower on the heirarchy than self-identified (or object-perceived) straight men?

 

I know it is politically correct to allow each person to choose his own labels, and I don't know what label this married guy would have chosen for himself. We know that the original poster labels him "straight," but sometimes married guys identify as bisexual (or even gay), even though they stay in the heterosexual marriage, with or without their wives knowing. (Yes, I've known one married man whose wife knew he was "gay," and they remained together even though they no longer had sex. I've also known guys who remained married, hid their sexual attraction to men from their wives, but self-identified as "gay.")

 

 

I don't expect anyone to give up his fantasies just because I or someone else reacts to them. But this is a place for an exchange of ideas. Those people who read this who still want to fantasize about straight men and think Rod and I are full of shit are free to do so. Perhaps someone else might read this or Rod's statements and find them illuminating.

 

I personally think that there are many manifestations of internalized homophobia in the gay community, but this isn't surprising to me given the extent of homophobia in our greater culture.

[+ deej]

RE: breeder cock!

 

>This is called making up the rules as you go along.

 

And what's wrong with that? It's the way most people live their lives. (The flexible and cooperative ones, anyway.) Never heard the "rule" that rules were made to be broken?

[Guest jizzdepapi]

nature or naysay?

 

i guess the thing that bother's me about Rod's assertion is that it presumes that there is a "natural" attraction between men who BOTH admit to being gay AND enjoy having sex with each other. numerically, this would certainly be the case most often but doesn't preclude other situations.

 

to call those other situations homophobic, on their own merit without other evidence of homophobia, is presumptious and narrow-minded, i think.

 

the fact is that we are all rebels in this society, though historically that is not the case. from handballers to paid escorts to men who desire promiscious and anonymous sex to those who are engaged in long-term committed relationships, none of us is living out a life that some in this society would call "unnatural."

 

when we label one another unnatural, then we've opened the door to outsiders who consider all of us unnatural.

 

just a thought,

jizzdepapi

 

My barnyard motto--Any cock will doodle do!

[Guest jizzdepapi]

RE: nature or naysay?

 

p.s.: i'm turned off by personal ads that include references to "straight-appearing, straight-acting..."

 

it's the nellies that got us where we are today.

 

but there's something about a lumber jacket that smells of stinky cigars instead of Aramis.

[Guest DevonSFescort]

>- I don't know that desire for a straight man is a "nearly

>universal gay male experience." I certainly have met many

>gay men with this desire, but also many without.

 

I'm sure you've met many gay men who don't currently lust after straight men -- so have I. But I doubt you've met very many gay men who, growing up, were ONLY attracted to other gay boys and never looked at the straight boys (who would have been the overwhelming majority) in class, the locker room, etc. That's what I meant by universal experience. I should have said "males" instead of "men" because there are probably gay men, especially nowadays, who had honed their tastes to focus on gay men exclusively by the time they were adults. But even they probably faced themselves having sexual feelings for at least some boys who were straight when they were younger.

 

>- I may not choose the same words as Rod, but what troubles

>me about the initial description is this: The perception

>that one is having sex with an "unobtainable" "straight" man

>when, in fact, the sex occurred regularly for years.

 

Yes, but this relationship sounds like it was very much a product of its limitations: "a great situation for both of us, no strings and no commitments, just sexually satisfying for each." Yes, one could get into such a "great situation" with a gay man -- I have -- but there's nothing wrong with taking a special pleasure in the guy's having been straight. You don't necessarily want to move in with your fantasies.

 

>I think that what rings my "internalized homophobia" bell

>about this is that even though the married guy enjoys having

>sex with men regularly, some gay men find him "more

>desirable" if they think of the guy as "straight" versus

>bisexual or gay. What is it, exactly, that makes "straight"

>men more desirable?

 

I wouldn't say I personally find them MORE desirable, but they are desirable in their own unique way, just as twinks are desirable in their own unique way. I'd say it's a vibe they give off, which, yes, has something to do with masculinity but isn't totally about that. The straight guys I've fooled around with have just had this sweet dopey quality about them that I liked (which had nothing to do with intelligence or lack thereof). Also, they were fun partly because of the relative foreignness of gay sex to them -- a type of innocence.

 

>Could it be that because our culture

>repeatedly demeans gay men that some of us have incorporated

>that into our sexuality such that self-identified gay men

>are lower on the heirarchy than self-identified (or

>object-perceived) straight men?

 

Could it be? Sure. In many cases that may be exactly what's going on. But it's only one of an array of possibilities, and I think Rod took a pretty sweeping position which didn't take them into account. Also, it's worth mentioning that straight men are changing along with the rest of the world. Many are wonderfully open about sexuality, which includes a healthy curiosity. I remember a straight friend who told me how he loved the way I lit up when I saw him. For him, my being a gay man was part of what was special about our relationship, just as his being a straight man was part of its unique appeal to me.

 

>I personally think that there are many manifestations of

>internalized homophobia in the gay community, but this isn't

>surprising to me given the extent of homophobia in our

>greater culture.

 

Fair enough, but it's also too easy to dismiss positions one is at odds with as internalized homophobia, which, of course, allows the speaker to position himself as the more evolved homo. I don't think you were doing this, by the way, and you raised some interesting points. I do think that's what Rod was doing.