Any of you plan to tune into this?

[down_to_business]

I would have liked to check out this show but I don't have DirectTV so I guess I won't. I like both Nick Jonas and Matt Lauria.

 

http://cdn04.cdn.justjaredjr.com/wp-content/uploads/pictures/2014/09/jones-lauria/shitless-nick-jonas-matt-lauria-kingdom-01.jpg

[Guest]

Oh, ffs, Unicorn, get off your high horse.

 

People assume that your thinking is binary (gay or straight, no in between) because of the vehemently black-and-white, yes/no way you express yourself. That's why no one believes your protestations that were not specifically referring to or thinking of bisexuality/polysexuality/pansexuality.

 

http://www.myastrologycoach.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/high-horse.jpg

 

Well, actually, anyone who knows me knows that when I say something, I mean it, and it's the absolute truth. So when I say that I believe that SOME of those who state they are bisexual are really aroused by both genders, and SOME are bullshitting, I mean it. As it so happens, I just hired an escort, and in our post-coital pillow talk, he admitted that he sometimes hires escorts himself. In fact, he said that he sometimes hires men and sometimes women. Since he's paying for both experiences, he obviously gets aroused by both genders (although he said he prefers men). What he certainly did NOT tell me was that he has no idea what turns him on. He knows, and, good for him, he gets turned on by both genders. On the other hand, I have definitely had men tell me that their previous claims of being bisexual were just charades; they were gay all along.

So I know for a fact that some men who say they are bisexuals are being truthful, and some are bullshitters, because I know men in both categories. As I have said repeatedly, I cannot know what percentage of those who claim to be bisexual are truthful and what percentage are not, since I'm not a mind reader. I do believe that is it physiologically impossible, however, for a grown man with normal anatomy to be ignorant of what gender or genders turn him on, barring unusual, rare medical conditions. It may be both, but it's got to be either male, female, or both. Are you willing to state, for the record, that you think it's possible for a man to ejaculate without knowing about whom he's fantasizing when he's ejaculating? If so, I want to hear you say it: "A man can ejaculate without knowing about whom he's fantasizing."

[Guest]

That's why no one believes your protestations that were not specifically referring to or thinking of bisexuality/polysexuality/pansexuality.

 

By the way, what is polysexuality/pansexuality? Is there something other than men and women that could get a man sexually aroused? I hate to imagine if there's something else... All right, I can think of maybe one high horse I'd like to get on...

http://www.freakingnews.com/pictures/106500/Real-Centaur-106759.jpg

[Guest]

Or is it this?

http://www.clumsycrooks.com/media/files18/funnyshirtmugshots/half_man___half_horse.jpg

[Guest]

Or this?

[+ FreshFluff]

Of course, the whole idea that a normal man could "question" his sexual preference is completely absurd to me. I mean if there's ANYTHING in this universe of which I have absolutely no doubt, it's to whom I'm sexually attracted. .

 

I get what Unicorn is saying. It could be that, it could be that some "questioning" people just don't want to identify as gay or bisexual because of the shame they associate with those labels.

 

But regarding the idea that men know who they're fantasizing about: Some men I know tell me that they fantasize about sex with a faceless person. Of course, they usually know the gender of the person. But let's say Joe Schmoe is somewhere in the middle of the Kinsey scale. Joe might fantasize about getting, say, a blow job from a faceless person with an androgynous body type. So not only would Joe not know the gender of the person in the fantasy, but he might actually get turned on by the fact that he doesn't know.

 

Sure, that description probably fits a very small segment of the population, but then, so does the "questioning" label.

[+ WilliamM]

I thought a long time about whether or not to include this New York Times article published today, entitled, "When Women Become Men at Wellesley College," in this discussion. I learned a lot, and perhaps others will also. Two quotes from the article: "Unlike previous generations, today's trans young adults don't consider physical transformation a prererequisite for identidy." and "Some trans men are attracted to women, some to men, some to both."

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/19/magazine/when-women-become-men-at-wellesley-college.html?hpw&rref=magazine&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=HpHedThumbWell&module=well-region&region=bottom-well&WT.nav=bottom-well&_r=0

[Guest]

I get what Unicorn is saying. It could be that, it could be that some "questioning" people just don't want to identify as gay or bisexual because of the shame they associate with those labels.

 

But regarding the idea that men know who they're fantasizing about: Some men I know tell me that they fantasize about sex with a faceless person. Of course, they usually know the gender of the person. But let's say Joe Schmoe is somewhere in the middle of the Kinsey scale. Joe might fantasize about getting, say, a blow job from a faceless person with an androgynous body type. So not only would Joe not know the gender of the person in the fantasy, but he might actually get turned on by the fact that he doesn't know.

 

Sure, that description probably fits a very small segment of the population, but then, so does the "questioning" label.

 

I definitely agree that the shame with identifying themselves with a "label" is what causes a large number of people to bullshit when asked to pick a side. I suspect that another motivator, especially in many countries where one simply has to marry and have a family, is that if one says one is bisexual, it allows one to claim to love one's opposite-gendered spouse, while at the same time having sex with those of the same gender.

I will confess to be shocked to hear that you've had men tell you that they fantasize about sex with faceless people. I have never heard anyone tell me that. I guess that's difficult for me to comprehend or accept, but I guess that's theoretically possible. To truly not know what their sexual orientation is, however, these people would have to be thinking of faceless people during ejaculation almost all of the time, and NEVER have the experience of looking at a movie/television star and say "Wow, he or she turns me on!". Also, all of the sexual fantasies would have to be about blow jobs, because otherwise the other person's genitalia would be part of the fantasy.

I would almost be prepared to say that if someone were to identify himself as always fantasizing about faceless and genderless people, then I would have to agree that this person is truly questioning and confused. However, that would be hard to prove. The fact that the escort with whom I slept with last night has paid for sex with members of both genders proves to me that at there are at least some truly bisexual men. I'm not sure how a man could prove that he always fantasizes about faceless (let alone genderless) people.

http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/faceless-person-fitness-phisique-portrait-isolated-white-36280126.jpg

 

http://mjtexplorer.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/faceless_composition_by_larafairie.jpg

 

http://www.featurepics.com/FI/Thumb300/20100806/Faceless-Person-1628912.jpg

 

http://stephenarcher.eu/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Faceless-Person.jpg

[+ FreshFluff]

I definitely agree that the shame with identifying themselves with a "label" is what causes a large number of people to bullshit when asked to pick a side. I suspect that another motivator, especially in many countries where one simply has to marry and have a family, is that if one says one is bisexual, it allows one to claim to love one's opposite-gendered spouse, while at the same time having sex with those of the same gender.

I will confess to be shocked to hear that you've had men tell you that they fantasize about sex with faceless people. I have never heard anyone tell me that. I guess that's difficult for me to comprehend or accept, but I guess that's theoretically possible. To truly not know what their sexual orientation is, however, these people would have to be thinking of faceless people during ejaculation almost all of the time, and NEVER have the experience of looking at a movie/television star and say "Wow, he or she turns me on!". Also, all of the sexual fantasies would have to be about blow jobs, because otherwise the other person's genitalia would be part of the fantasy.

 

I had one men tell me this directly and inferred it from other guys. The guy I was talking to seemed surprised about that. I told him that women don't work that way. I assumed it was a male thing, hence the appeal of glory holes.

 

It doesn't resonate with me either. I always know whom I'm fantasizing about--not just his looks but other details about him, what he's thinking about me, etc.

[Steven_Draker]

But regarding the idea that men know who they're fantasizing about: Some men I know tell me that they fantasize about sex with a faceless person.

 

It makes sense to me. Back in the days when I was a teenager, I was fantasizing about the male body. I knew I was very attracted to a naked male body.

 

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_uBJ7fIWjqDQ/S7OsQglqw4I/AAAAAAAAAEU/sOmcfe4lM1w/s1600/Calvin_Klein_Body_Stretch_Trunk.jpg

 

http://31.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_liy5vpLH3K1qc7pgmo1_500.jpg

[Guest]

It makes sense to me. Back in the days when I was a teenager, I was fantasizing about the male body. I knew I was very attracted to a naked male body.

 

Well, at least you seem not to have been confused about your sexual preference, it seems. I'm curious to know, though: when you were jacking off, did you really not fantasize about any particular classmate, school jock, movie or TV star, or model? Was it just a generic, faceless hunky man?

[+ deej]

I assumed it was a male thing, hence the appeal of glory holes.

 

Ding. The lady gets it.

 

Glory holes and the blowjob wall in every bathhouse completely support your theory.

 

Most guys just want to get off and they don't much care where or how, and they're willing to suspend belief in reality for the duration. Yeah, sure, it's Pamela Anderson sucking away over there. Whatever. The frat boy that denies it is probably the most frequent visitor.

[Guest]

Ding. The lady gets it.

 

Glory holes and the blowjob wall in every bathhouse completely support your theory.

 

Most guys just want to get off and they don't much care where or how, and they're willing to suspend belief in reality for the duration. Yeah, sure, it's Pamela Anderson sucking away over there. Whatever. The frat boy that denies it is probably the most frequent visitor.

 

But whether it's Pamela Anderson of Stephen Amell, I'm sure most of the people who enjoy glory-hole blow-jobs aren't thinking of a faceless, genital-less person.

[+ deej]

But whether it's Pamela Anderson of Stephen Amell, I'm sure most of the people who enjoy glory-hole blow-jobs aren't thinking of a faceless, genital-less person.

 

I suspect you're wrong.

 

I used to try really hard not to think about what's on the other side of that plywood. (In fact I was usually thinking more about avoiding splinters.)

 

And if we're talking about the Amell family, I'd prefer Robbie. Now HIM I could fantasize about.

[Guest]

I used to try really hard not to think about what's on the other side of that plywood.

 

Well, that goes without saying. Now are you really sure you weren't thinking of Robbie Amell or the likes? http://www.emofaces.com/en/emoticons/w/winking-emoticon-animated.gif

[+ deej]

Well, that goes without saying. Now are you really sure you weren't thinking of Robbie Amell or the likes? http://www.emofaces.com/en/emoticons/w/winking-emoticon-animated.gif

 

Well, if he WAS over there I rearranged his tonsils a few times. But I'm hoping he wasn't. He's way too young to be there in those years.

[+ quoththeraven]

As for Questioning: A friend of mine knows a man who came out as gay, divorced his wife, and lived with a man for many years in a committed relationship, but after they broke up he married a (different) woman. Did he go from heterosexuality to gayness back to heterosexuality? You may think he was bisexual all along, and maybe he was, but he sincerely identified as gay in those middle years and the inception of the relationship with the woman he married just kind of snuck up on him.

 

Leaving aside Questioning for now,

 

1. Is fantasizing in fact a necessary component of jerking off or anonymous handjobs or blow jobs, or in at least some situations for some people is the physical contact and buildup enough?

 

2. Are all fantasies about a specific person? (Though I agree there will usually be clues as to his or her gender.)

 

3. The point I was trying to get at earlier was that we can think we're only attracted to one group of people and later find out that we are, or can be, attracted to an entirely different group of people, in which case the earlier fantasizing doesn't really prove anything. This is what happened to me. Up until I saw porn that included girl-on-girl scenes (and I didn't see any porn whatsover until I was in my mid-30s), I had never even contemplated women as sex partners. I'm still not as attracted to women as I am to men and have yet to do anything about it, but it's not non-existent, either.

 

Similarly, I wouldn't have realized I have any sexual interest in trans people (mostly trans women), intersex people, or in strap-ons until I saw porn of it.But all the porn did was bring desires that I didn't have the imagination to have knowledge of until I saw such people in sexual situations to light. It didn't create those desires.

 

As for what the terms polysexual and pansexual mean, pansexual means someone who is attracted to all genders and sexes, including those outside the binary (intersex, genderqueer, agender, androgynous, third gender, etc.) -- effectively gender and sex-blind. Polysexual describes someone who is attracted to many, but not necessarily all, genders and sexes. For example, someone who is polysexual might not be interested in butch ciswomen or intersex people.

 

Some people consider bisexual to mean the same thing as pansexual, but the term was coined before today's level of awareness of the varieties of gender expression and meant attraction toward cismen and ciswomen. Attraction to trans folks and other gender and sex-variant groups wasn't something people thought much about then. It's also considered less appropriate because etymologically it reflects a binary view of gender; after all, the prefix "bi" means "two," so the root word means "attracted to two genders/sexes" -- in its original meaning.

 

Besides, gender -- even, at its margins, biological sex -- is a social construct. There is nothing objectively real or determinative about it, just as there is no one template for what body type, look, etc. different people are most attracted to.

[+ WilliamM]

As for Questioning: A friend of mine knows a man who came out as gay, divorced his wife, and lived with a man for many years in a committed relationship, but after they broke up he married a (different) woman. Did he go from heterosexuality to gayness back to heterosexuality? You may think he was bisexual all along, and maybe he was, but he sincerely identified as gay in those middle years and the inception of the relationship with the woman he married just kind of snuck up on him.

 

As for what the terms polysexual and pansexual mean, pansexual means someone who is attracted to all genders and sexes, including those outside the binary (intersex, genderqueer, agender, androgynous, third gender, etc.) -- effectively gender and sex-blind. Polysexual describes someone who is attracted to many, but not necessarily all, genders and sexes. For example, someone who is polysexual might not be interested in butch ciswomen or intersex people.

 

Some people consider bisexual to mean the same thing as pansexual, but the term was coined before today's level of awareness of the varieties of gender expression and meant attraction toward cismen and ciswomen. Attraction to trans folks and other gender and sex-variant groups wasn't something people thought much about then. It's also considered less appropriate because etymologically it reflects a binary view of gender; after all, the prefix "bi" means "two," so the root word means "attracted to two genders/sexes" -- in its original meaning.

 

Besides, gender -- even, at its margins, biological sex -- is a social construct. There is nothing objectively real or determinative about it, just as there is no one template for what body type, look, etc. different people are most attracted to.

 

Thanks for a wider perspective. I also read your earlier post closely. It led me to provide a link to the New York Times article on the Men of Wellesly in this thread. I wanted you to know now valiable your posts are to me.

[+ WilliamM]

I had one men tell me this directly and inferred it from other guys. The guy I was talking to seemed surprised about that. I told him that women don't work that way. I assumed it was a male thing, hence the appeal of glory holes.

 

It doesn't resonate with me either. I always know whom I'm fantasizing about--not just his looks but other details about him, what he's thinking about me, etc.

 

I agree mostly. I almost never fantasize about men in photos whom I do not know personally, and never about people I dislike no matter how attractive.

 

When you write "what he's thinking about me, etc," do you mean specific thoughts or more general? I am not sure it's an important distinction. But, I wonder if that may be a difference between men and women. Anyway, I really appreciate your ability to clarify the discussion in this thread and many others.

[+ quoththeraven]

Thanks for a wider perspective. I also read your earlier post closely. It led me to provide a link to the New York Times article on the Men of Wellesly in this thread. I wanted you to know now valiable your posts are to me.

 

Thanks, and you're welcome!

[+ quoththeraven]

I agree mostly. I almost never fantasize about men in photos whom I do not know personally, and never about people I dislike no matter how attractive.

 

When you write "what he's thinking about me, etc," do you mean specific thoughts or more general? I am not sure it's an important distinction. But, I wonder if that may be a difference between men and women. Anyway, I really appreciate your ability to clarify the discussion in this thread and many others.

 

Research indicates that women get off on being desired, which makes a lot of sense given that women are treated as and socialized to think of themselves as objects of male desire. (B.F. Skinner and operant conditioning, anyone?) So this makes a lot of sense to me. However, it's not completely universal. While it's something I appreciate IRL, it's not something I particularly fantasize about. For this and much, much more, see this 2009 Daniel Bergner article, which he expanded into a book of the same name:

 

What Do Women Want? (NYT Magazine)

 

Just for laughs and giggles, here are articles based on additional reporting from the book, including research that suggests long-term monogamy dampens female desire more than it does male desire:

 

Unexcited? There May Be a Pill for That (NYT Magazine)

When Women Pursue Sex, Even Men Don't Get It (NY Magazine)

 

The material the book covers is interesting, but the book meanders a lot, is sprinkled with a lot of anecdotal accounts that aren't tied together very well, and doesn't go into any depth in its assessments. I was left wishing that Bergner had handed his research over to someone else. But at least it doesn't have the smarmy, condescending tone that sometimes bleeds through the initial article.

 

Back to fantasies: I've fantasized about people plucked from my subconscious as opposed to people whose identity I know. This happens mostly in dreams; the first (and so far only) time I had a dream in which penetrative sex rather than frot or fade to black occurred, the guy involved, while not featureless, was a generic twenty year old, not someone I knew.

 

When my fantasies (both waking and sleeping) include women, they're always generic women, not anyone in particular. So while it may be uncommon, it's not true that women never fantasize about a generic individual, and in the absence of research, I'm not sure it's safe to conclude (as opposed to suspect) that men are more likely to fantasize generically than women are.

 

It is dangerous to make categorical statements based one's own experience, even on one's own experience and those of others. We each only know a fraction of the people in this world. It's highly likely that there's someone out there whose experience is different and thus contradicts any categorical statement.

[+ FreshFluff]

Research indicates that women get off on being desired, which makes a lot of sense given that women are treated as and socialized to think of themselves as objects of male desire. (B.F. Skinner and operant conditioning, anyone?) So this makes a lot of sense to me. However, it's not completely universal. While it's something I appreciate IRL, it's not something I particularly fantasize about.

 

QTR explained it well. But socialization is not necessarily required to explain the pheonomenon. Evolutionary biology theory says that women care more than men about whether their partner sticks around. That's consistent with women's tendency to be turned on by partners who are attracted to them.

 

As for me, being desired is not something I fantasize about per se. It's simply implicit in the fantasy.

 

Just for laughs and giggles, here are articles based on additional reporting from the book, including research that suggests long-term monogamy dampens female desire more than it does male desire:

 

But that could again be consistent with the hypothesis that women's brains are helping them to attract a long term mate. Once several years have passed and the male partner has shown that he's willing to stick around, the "turn on" signals in women's brains are dampened.

 

Oops, didn't mean to take this OT.

[+ quoththeraven]

QTR explained it well. But socialization is not necessarily required to explain the pheonomenon. Evolutionary biology theory says that women care more than men about whether their partner sticks around. That's consistent with women's tendency to be turned on by partners who are attracted to them.

 

Given the power of operant conditioning as demonstrated by Skinner and others, the idea that socialization has no bearing boggles my mind. In fact, I'd turn your statement around and say that socialization is a sufficient explanation in and of itself without reference to evolutionary theories. That doesn't mean that evolutionary theories have no bearing here, just that it's much simpler to demonstrate the effect of conditioning, in part because THERE IS NO RESEARCH PARADIGM I KNOW OF THAT CAN CONTROL FOR THE EFFECTS OF SOCIALIZATION. Without the ability to do that, there is no way to conclude that evolutionary theory alone is a sufficient explanation without a leap of faith that is inconsistent with how scientific research works.

 

Another important point to make here is that the brain is plastic and adapts to social conditions, so differences in brain structure, which are often used to "prove" gender differences, are not as meaningful as one might think.

 

In addition, so much of what passes for research into evolutionary theory (and this is evo psych territory, not evo bio) contains obvious biases, poorly-conceived and non-rigorous research and misinterpretations of the results and arrives at conclusions the research does not support. Further advances (I am hard-put not to put scare quotes around that term) then build on already tenuous conclusions, creating a house of cards ready to fall over at any moment.

 

Those of you reading along, take a look at Cordelia Fine's Delusions of Gender for an examination of these issues. As she admits, this does not mean that nothing is hardwired and there are no evolutionary effects on behavior (in other words, some gender essentialism may be justified; in fact, I wouldn't be surprised if it was), but the evidence supporting gender essentialism is less meaningful than it's purported to be and coming up with good research design that actually gets at these issues in a scientifically rigorous way is difficult, in some cases impossible. Given all that, it is difficult for me and others who've looked at this issue not to see evo psych as a field whose purpose is to quiet any demand for change when it comes to gender. Research, observation, and experience all teach me that to the contrary, change is necessary when it comes to gender as well as sexuality if society is to be welcoming to and supportive of all its members, not just the privileged few.

 

But that could again be consistent with the hypothesis that women's brains are helping them to attract a long term mate. Once several years have passed and the male partner has shown that he's willing to stick around, the "turn on" signals in women's brains are dampened.

 

Another thing that is going on here is the time period over which evolution takes place. I don't dispute that women generally relied on men, and more specifically a long-term mate of some sort, for protection for them and their offspring, which involves that old exchange: sex for the ability to have and raise one's children in as secure an environment as was possible. (Gee, sounds a lot like a barter system for sex! I won't bring up of what that is an officially sanctioned version.) But that's no longer necessary, or as necessary, in technologically advanced Western societies that give lip service (or possibly better, in a few cases) to equality between the sexes. Mating theory no longer applies across the board once contraceptive availability makes purely recreational sex possible, since it's possible (indeed, highly likely) that those who are most prized for the purposes of recreational sex are not who are most prized for reproductive purposes. Besides, I'm not sure how one researches mating theory anymore when it's hard to tell ahead of time what's recreational sex and reproductive sex. Maybe wait nine months and see?

 

At any rate, that means that we should be able to look forward to an evolutionary change from the old "men protect and pursue, women let themselves get caught" modus operandi to a new one where both are free to assert sexual and social agency. It's already happening, but the underlying societal assumptions haven't changed that much. I don't know how long it'll take for them to change, but they should, not as a matter of justice but as matter of evolution. Since the conditions have changed, evolutionary theory says that humans will adapt in response to these changed conditions.

 

I felt the need to bring these points up so everyone understands where and why FF and I differ, but it's my intention to take any further discussion of the topic offboard via PM.

[+ FreshFluff]

Yes, I should have used the term "evolutionary psychology." That aside..

 

Don't have time to respond fully, but research in evolutionary psychology doesn't say much about what women can do or ought to do. It simply attempts to describe the world. Individual empirical studies should be assessed on their own. To talk about "what passes for research" is well-poisoning.

 

I said that socialization isn't required to explain the phenomenon you mentioned, not that it doesn't exist

 

In any case, this is a thread about men's sexual fantasies and I brought up an offhand point about how women's fantasies differ, in my view. Why do women's (empirically shown) tendency to fantasize about being desired mean that they can't or ought not to express sexual agency?

 

Well, I'm going back to my coding, I mean, homemaking.

[+ quoththeraven]

FF -- Looking back, I was more scornful than your remarks about social conditioning deserved. I read "socialization is not necessarily required to explain the phenomenon" as "socialization is not necessary to explain the phenomenon." I have no quarrel with evolutionary biology, but as you know from conversations we've had offsite I consider the claims made for evolutionary psychology overblown and that there are other more fruitful avenues of research. So whenever anyone invokes an evo psych explanation for gender differences, my patience wears dangerously thin.

 

That said, I still think you're coming at this from the wrong direction. It's clear and easily provable through research that holds up to scrutiny and doesn't have inherent biases that socialization plays an important role, a role that may well be determinative even if evo psych theories are or can be factored out. The role of evo psych and mating theory is less clear because (leaving aside my qualms about the quality of the research and its assumptions) there's no way to control for socialization. For those of you playing along at home, see this (scroll down to the discussion of gender essentialism, aka women are x way and men are y way and never the twain shall meet, pretty much) for a lengthier explanation of why socialization can't be factored out.

 

I'm not sure what made you think that I said women's tendency to fantasize being desired means that they can't or ought not to express sexual agency. I didn't make any such statement here or even a statement that could be reasonably read to imply as much.