Real straight guys vs straight identified.

[+ BenjaminNicholas]

This thread needs a gigantic tub of buttered popcorn to make it truly complete

[+ BigRic]

LOL. <Butt-head voice> "Uhhh huh-huh. He said, ". . . deeper analization." Huh huh." </Butt-head voice>

[Rudynate]

Hi Rudy. Your opinions are differing from the poster i was addressing. He seemed to imply that sexual orientation identity is solely based on how that person sees themselves or declares themselves.

 

Everyone does not know the nuances you seem to think they do. The guys on polar opposites of spectrum may be discernible but the gray areas require much deeper analization. Someone who is about to spend 2k with someone they think is a nqvy seql bqck from iraq doesnt want someone who bought a pair of camos at dicks sporting goods. This conversation is not one of relevance to you because you are not an upscale client if you were i promise it would.

 

 

That's a good point. I'm not an upscale client. If I had a serious fetish for "real" straight guys, I might be. I just adore men - all sorts of them.

[MikeBiDude]

This thread needs a gigantic tub of buttered popcorn to make it truly complete

I was going to suggest it’s the silliest post of 2018 and it’s only January 5th

[KS87]

LOL. <Butt-head voice> "Uhhh huh-huh. He said, ". . . deeper analization." Huh huh." </Butt-head voice>

 

Lol now that you pointed it out ill leave it as an innuendo instead of correcting the typo.

[KS87]

I was going to suggest it’s the silliest post of 2018 and it’s only January 5th

 

Hitting too close to home?

[MikeBiDude]

Hitting too close to home?

Explain?

[KS87]

Explain?

 

You obviously identify as bi and maybe you see it silly for anyone to look into the concept of self identification vs reality. Its a sore subject boring your ears in spite of the fact many ppl are chiming in and even private messaging me with words of approval.

[MikeBiDude]

You obviously identify as bi and maybe you see it silly for anyone to look into the concept of self identification vs reality. Its a sore subject boring your ears in spite of the fact many ppl are chiming in and even private messaging me with words of approval.

Lol

[KS87]

On a sidenote why are ppl in here whining? If topic doesnt interest you find one that does or create one you like. I would never go into a post to question why someone is talking about it. Imagine the amount of time you would need in your day to go around policing threads ad as unpaid moderator.

 

You hqve threads like " shit comes out when fucking a bottom" or "why wont you come in my ass?" You really think a dignified conversation about sociosexuality is underserving of the delis bandwith?

Edited January 6, 2018 by KS87

[+ BenjaminNicholas]

I was going to suggest it’s the silliest post of 2018 and it’s only January 5th

'And although the newspapers called it The Crime Of The Century, Goldman knew it was only 1906... And there were ninety-four years to go.'

[LivingnLA]

I like your very detailed reply. However i would like to ask if my distinction between the two types didnt resonate with you?

 

I try to be detailed when discussing complex topics. It's difficult to adequately cover the nuances of these topics in online forums because of the lack of contextual clues to decipher the meaning behind our posts.

 

The distinction you made between "Straight guy" and "Straight identified" seems to be conflating a few different things in a way that I believe is offending multiple forum members. I may be wrong, it happens far more than I'd like, especially when trying to communicate purely via text. But, let me see if I have it...

 

My sense from your distinction is that "Straight guy" is the "real" straight guy--for sake of clarity, say a Kinsey 1 or 2--while a "Straight identified" guy would be a Kinsey 3, 4, or 5. Note, I did not include a Kinsey 0 as such a man would be unable to engage in same-sex activity at all and would likely be emotionally/physically/psychologically repulsed by such activity. It's conceivable that a Kinsey 0 could engage in a purely non-sexual but erotic "worship scene" as the man being worshiped, but that would be about it.

 

Now, based on the decades of data we have about human sexuality and activity, it's okay to say generally speaking, human beings are biologically bisexual. Think in terms of a normal or Gaussian distribution. Humanity within +/- 2 standard deviations of the mean are biologically bisexual. In other words, 95% of humanity is biologically bisexual. So, in Kinseyan terms, 95% of humanity would be a Kinsey 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5. That means 2.5% for Kinsey 0 (100% hetero) and 2.5% for Kinsey 6 (100% homo).

 

That's biologically speaking, but as we know, human sexuality and activity are heavily influenced by environmental factors. From when specific hormones and their amounts are released in uetro to things like formative experiences in infancy, childhood, or even teenage years. This is where may "fundamentalist" heteros and homos get mad because it suggests an element of choice, but that's an uninformed misreading of the reality. Our genes are remarkably adaptable and seem to adjust to various environmental factors. We don't understand all of it, yet. I hope we get there in my lifetime, but I doubt it.

 

I've droned on about all of this to say, your distinctions seem kind of meaningless to me. I believe I understand what you're saying, but I push back on "essentialism" around human sexuality and activity. That's probably why I think highly of Klein's groundbreaking work on his grid. For me, identity is self-proclaimed because we're not going around with devices and testing people to reveal their "true" Sexual Orientation. Further, cultural norms are different across the world, so what stereotypically "defines" a "real man" in North America may or may not be true in other parts of the world.

 

I guess, to me, it boils down to acting in the sense of how real can the fantasy be when we hire someone? The whole notion of "gaydar" or the ability to "know a real man when we see him" are a combination of biological and cultural constructs based on norms and assumptions in different cultures. And all of that shifts over time. Take Millennials, they tend to be more open sexually than prior generations since the whole hetero/homo binary was created a little over a century ago. If you take a Kinsey 0 Millennial and take him back in time say even just 40 years, he would likely not be seen as a "real man" by many people.

 

In other words, all "straight guys" are "straight identified" because how else are they to be known as "straight" if they do not identify themselves as such? I've met gay men who are completely "straight" in their actions and manners and in some cultures around the world, a "gay man" is indistinguishable in public from a "straight man."

Edited January 6, 2018 by LivingnLA

[LivingnLA]

You had me until you told anplain old lie about most millienial men having received blow jobs from other men. ALL of those studies you cite would say that while it’s more likely versus older generations, it’s FAR from a majority.

 

It's not a "plain old lie" to say Millennial men have experimented more than earlier generations. That's clear in the data. But, thank you for catching that mistaken word choice on my part. I write these posts quickly and frequently when I'm multitasking and/or tired. Mistakes happens. You're correct. It isn't a majority, it's just more common for Millennials than it was for earlier generations. Though, some data suggests it may actually be regional changes that are driving the significant increase in same-sex activity for Millennials. Here's an article about one such study:

 

http://www.vocativ.com/324378/same-sex-flings/index.html

 

What really gets interesting, is when you compare the trends for number of "partners" between generations. Interestingly, Millennials have significantly fewer sex partners, which suggests they are less promiscuous even if they're more adventurous with a smaller group of "friends."

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/05/06/why-millennials-have-sex-with-fewer-partners-than-their-parents-did/

Edited January 6, 2018 by LivingnLA

[LivingnLA]

Nice post (#13), @LivingnLA--you "had" me until "a truly 100% straight guy would be unable to top well because he wouldn't be able to get hard without medical assistance." You seem to be saying that "medical assistance" and "top[ping] well" are mutually exclusive. Am I reading/understanding you wrong? If not (and that's what you're saying), FWIW (from personal experience) I'd tend to disagree.

 

Sigh. Yet another poor combination of words. I sometimes wonder why I bother trying to capture my streams of thought in text. I always miss something.

 

What I tried to say there was that a 100% straight guy (a Kinsey 0) would not be able to get hard for same-sex activity without "medical assistance." Topping is about a set of skills that aren't dependent on "medical assistance," if that makes sense. I believe it's entirely possible to top well with or without "medical assistance." My point was that a 100% straight man may be repulsed by such activity or not be able to perform such activity. But, as I said in an earlier post, Kinsey 0's are relatively rare. Hmm. I feel like I'm rambling again, so I'm going to stop. I'm exhausted after a long day and I suspect I'm muddying the waters, not clearing / filtering them. I'll check in tomorrow or Sunday to see if I can decipher my train of thought when I'm rested. Sorry

[SizeQueen16]

Sigh. Yet another poor combination of words. I sometimes wonder why I bother trying to capture my streams of thought in text. I always miss something.

 

What I tried to say there was that a 100% straight guy (a Kinsey 0) would not be able to get hard for same-sex activity without "medical assistance." Topping is about a set of skills that aren't dependent on "medical assistance," if that makes sense. I believe it's entirely possible to top well with or without "medical assistance." My point was that a 100% straight man may be repulsed by such activity or not be able to perform such activity. But, as I said in an earlier post, Kinsey 0's are relatively rare. Hmm. I feel like I'm rambling again, so I'm going to stop. I'm exhausted after a long day and I suspect I'm muddying the waters, not clearing / filtering them. I'll check in tomorrow or Sunday to see if I can decipher my train of thought when I'm rested. Sorry

 

 

I get your stream of thought. I use to know a guy that considered himself to be 100% straight. He was singularly focused on females. In my observation of him, women just naturally grabbed his attention constantly. It didn't come off forced or put on to prove his masculinity. It was just apart of who he was & what he liked. He however was not opposed to receiving oral from another guy. He called it a "bisexual act" but he was vehemently opposed to any type of intercourse with a guy beyond that point. I remember him saying that just the idea of it turned him off sexually.

[+ Awwshuck]

Thanks to the OP for this thread-fascinating. Slightly off topic, but I'm wondering how many of you who now identify as gay had regular sex (typically in the passive role anally or giving role orally) with that straight guy in adolescence or a bit beyond, then experienced a dramatic end to the sex once he had decided homosex was not the thing for him.