rotikawin Posted July 21, 2016 Report Share Posted July 21, 2016 What the fish is true gay? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cutejack Posted July 22, 2016 Report Share Posted July 22, 2016 On Wednesday, July 20, 2016 at 9:19 PM, Guest Aaron said: I once responded to a ONS with a guy, met and had the entire package with him, and we then became "friends" on FB. A year later, I saw him putting up posts of baby images during (assumedly his wife's) pregnancy, with him singing praises of the baby girl. OMG, does that mean, I have drilled a married, presumably, straight guy? It didn't feel different because he responded positively to every kiss, touch, lick and push. Entire package sia.hahahaha Yr package inclusive of....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest closeted Posted July 22, 2016 Report Share Posted July 22, 2016 On Wednesday, July 20, 2016 at 9:19 PM, Guest Aaron said: I once responded to a ONS with a guy, met and had the entire package with him, and we then became "friends" on FB. A year later, I saw him putting up posts of baby images during (assumedly his wife's) pregnancy, with him singing praises of the baby girl. OMG, does that mean, I have drilled a married, presumably, straight guy? It didn't feel different because he responded positively to every kiss, touch, lick and push. Maybe artificial insemination by a closeted gay? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Desperately Posted July 22, 2016 Report Share Posted July 22, 2016 No pussy which always available due to women's nature, cock also can when men are desperately horny as in no food, water also can to survive. these act is natural in time of desperation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GachiMuchi Posted December 3, 2016 Author Report Share Posted December 3, 2016 The Rise of the ‘Bromosexual’ Friendship Save By JIM FARBEROCT. 4, 2016 Continue reading the main storyShare This Page Share Tweet Pin Email Photo Lucas Whitehead, right, and his roommate Ben Moss in Fort Greene, Brooklyn.CreditAndrew White for The New York Times A recent ad for the Bravo TV show “Shahs of Sunset” finds two of its male stars lazing on lounge chairs at the beach. Amid a scene of scantily clad sun worshipers, the best friends Reza Farahan and Mike Shouhed gaze at different objects of desire: Mr. Farahan at musclebound guys, Mr. Shouhed at voluptuous women. Their distinct lusts, which may have alienated gay and straight men from each other in the past, inspire the ultimate gesture of fraternal connection: a fist bump. “Mike and I are so similar,” Mr. Farahan said. “He has been a womanizer and I’ve been a player. In the ad, we’re having a moment, and it’s the same moment. The only difference is that I’m looking at men and he’s looking at women.” The bond strikes the Irish author Jarlath Gregory as fresh for the culture and familiar to him. His latest novel, “The Organised Criminal,” has at its center a brotherly friendship between a gay man and a straight man. Continue reading the main story Advertisement Continue reading the main story “That kind of easy relationship would not be credible to a broad audience 10 years ago,” said Mr. Gregory, 38, who is gay. “One of the things my publisher liked about my book was that this friendship was something we haven’t seen much before.” At least in pop culture we haven’t. Obviously, there have always been friendships between gay men and straight men, but only recently have they become more prominently, and comfortably, represented in TV shows, movies, books and blogs. There is often a traditionally masculine sense of familiarity at play in these portrayals, exuding a feeling particular enough to suggest its own term: bromosexual relationships. Their emerging representation contrasts with one that has become a cliché: the connection between a straight woman and her gay male best friend. The latest media reflection also takes a significant leap from one of its earliest iterations. From 2003 to 2007, “Queer Eye for the Straight Guy” presented gay men as magical beings who functioned as helpers to heterosexual men, schooling them in matters of fashion and home décor while keeping much of their own lives off-screen. By contrast, the last season of “Scream Queens” found the hunky Nick Jonas presenting himself as a gay frat boy who bonds over golf with his straight fraternity brother and best friend, Chad. Wing Men In the recent documentary “Strike a Pose,” about Madonna’s dance troupe from her “Blond Ambition” tour, a key plotline traces the arc of the lone straight dancer from homophobe to a man who becomes emotionally liberated by his many gay friends. Another Bravo series, “Manzo’d With Children,” prominently features the relationship between the heterosexual lead brothers and their gay best friend, who was previously their roommate. And that network’s most recognizable representative, Andy Cohen, who is gay, rarely misses an opportunity to toast his close kinship with the guitar hero and ultimate ladies man John Mayer. Mr. Cohen mentions Mr. Mayer no fewer than 14 times in his best-selling book “The Andy Cohen Diaries.” He also wrote an article for Entertainment Weekly last year chronicling their bromosexual exploits. In one outing, during gay pride weekend, they attended a concert by an incarnation of a band both men love, the Grateful Dead. Mr. Cohen wrote that a friend had texted him: “if I’d celebrated gay pride in any more of a straight way, I’d have had sex with a girl at the Super Bowl.” Another night, Mr. Cohen and Mr. Mayer went to a gay bar, where Mr. Cohen found that his heterosexual pal was the “ultimate wing man.” “Straight men are very good that way,” said David Toussaint, whose compilation of essays, “Toussaint!,” contains many humorous pieces about sexual identity. “If I’m walking down the street with this young, straight guy I know, and he sees a guy look at me, he’ll say, ‘Go get him!’” Vin Testa, 26, a math teacher in Washington, D.C., who is also an L.G.B.T. liaison for the district’s public schools, said the changes in relationships between straight and gay men have been so rapid that he sees a significant difference just since he graduated from high school. One of his greatest obstacles in coming out, he said, was something he thinks many gay men share: “the intense fear of losing those masculine friendships we have had.” As it happened, the main impetus for Mr. Testa to come out in college was discovering that friends from his high school football team were “the ones who most wanted me to do it,” he said. “They were honestly concerned for me.” Mr. Gregory, the Irish author, thinks that one connecting point for the younger generation is the proliferation of geek culture. “It’s technology, superhero movies, Pokémon Go and even some indie rock,” he said. “They’re all part of an often male culture that young gay guys feel part of, too.” For men of an older generation, there is more distrust to surmount. “Our traditional way of thinking of relationships with gay and straight men is that they are hostile, even bullying,” said Michael LaSala, 57, the author of “Coming Out, Coming Home: Helping Families Adjust to a Gay or Lesbian Child.” “For that reason, gay men have traditionally not felt comfortable in these relationships.” Mr. LaSala, who is gay, said he could not imagine being close friends with a straight man when he was in his 20s. In the last few years, however, he has formed a warm bond with Dr. Robert Garfield, 70, a straight man who wrote the book “Breaking the Male Code: Unlocking the Power of Friendship.” The two lecture together on the negative effects of homophobia on straight and gay males. “My relationship with Michael, and with other gay men, is wonderful for me,” Dr. Garfield said. “It expands me as a human being. There’s a playfulness in talking about sex that I don’t hear from my straight male friends.” A Balm for Old Wounds “There’s a sense of a reprieve,” said Odie Lindsey, 45, a straight fiction writer and gulf war veteran, whose new book of short stories, “We Come to Our Senses,” features several gay characters. “With heterosexual male friends, sometimes a subject comes up that will require a particular allegiance to what guys are expected to say and do. That can feel blustery and false. It’s nice not to have to listen to a chorus of people who feel compelled to act the same way.” For gay men, Mr. LaSala said: “friendships with straight men can be very healing. When you experience a close friendship with a straight guy and that person is very accepting, it’s a balm for some old wounds.” At the same time, striking contrasts exist in the two worlds. Gay men say it is common for their heterosexual male friends to be jealous of, or at least compelled by, the efficiency and seeming ubiquity of man-on-man hookups. “Straight guys complain, ‘You can just meet a guy and go home and have sex,’” Mr. Toussaint said. “One hot straight guy I know complains, ‘With a girl, I have to take her out and put on all these airs, when all I want to do is sleep with her and move on.’” In sex and dating, straight men also have to navigate complex power imbalances between the genders. Gay men can avoid that anxiety. On the other side, some gay men express jealousy over certain aspects of heterosexual male presentation. “Straight guys can let themselves go and no one cares,” Mr. Gregory said. “Gay men are judging each other worse than women in terms of body shaming.” If such contrasts create fascination, other distinctions can be damaging. The cliché and lingering suspicion that a gay man may harbor a crush on his straight friend potentially throws off the power balance and erodes trust. “A gay man can worry, ‘What if this guy thinks I’m coming on to him?’” Mr. LaSala said. “‘And what would that mean for the relationship?’” The writers of “Scream Queens” exorcised that anxiety through satire in a scene that gained traction on YouTube. It portrayed Mr. Jonas’s character conning his way into the bed of his straight best friend. “That kind of crush seems really antique,” said Lucas Whitehead, 29, a straight man who lives in a brownstone in Fort Greene populated by a revolving mix of heterosexual and homosexual males. Amid his milieu, he reports zero self-consciousness about having gay friends or roommates. Yet disconnects do linger, some of them concerning sex. “I’ll talk to gay friends about the before, not the after,” Mr. Whitehead said. It’s an attitude echoed by one of his gay roommates, Ben Moss, 25, who said: “I talk with straight guys about what surrounds the sex rather than what we’ve actually done.” According to Mr. LaSala, many well-meaning straight guys can feel awkward addressing subjects they know they don’t fully understand. He thinks it’s important for straight men to acknowledge the differences. He relates this to friendships between those of a different race. “Some of us who are white are rightfully accused of being ‘colorblind,’” Mr. LaSala said. “There’s an equivalent for straight men who can be ‘culture blind.’” Sometimes there is dissonance when one friend finds himself in a group dominated by those of another orientation, rather than connecting one to one. “Listening to bunches of straight guys together is like hearing a foreign tongue,” Mr. Toussaint said. “The language is so strangely impersonal: ‘dude,’ ‘brewskies,’ ‘the game.’ They must feel the same way about the things we talk about.” At the same time, many men find value in the distinctions. “I’m happy that I get to live around people who have a different life experience than I do, and I’m happy that they get to be around me,” Mr. Moss said. “A homogeneous experience in friendships isn’t good for anyone.” Continue following our fashion and lifestyle coverage on Facebook (Styles and Modern Love), Twitter (Styles, Fashion and Weddings) and Instagram. Quote http://gachimuchi2008.blogspot.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GachiMuchi Posted December 20, 2016 Author Report Share Posted December 20, 2016 The Phenomenon of ‘Bud Sex’ Between Straight Rural Men By Jesse Singal Photo: Hero Images Inc./Getty Images/Hero Images A lot of men have sex with other men but don’t identify as gay or bisexual. A subset of these men who have sex with men, or MSM, live lives that are, in all respects other than their occasional homosexual encounters, quite straight and traditionally masculine — they have wives and families, they embrace various masculine norms, and so on. They are able to, in effect, compartmentalize an aspect of their sex lives in a way that prevents it from blurring into or complicating their more public identities. Sociologists are quite interested in this phenomenon because it can tell us a lot about how humans interpret thorny questions of identity and sexual desire and cultural expectations. Last year, NYU Press published the fascinating book Not Gay: Sex Between Straight White Men by the University of California, Riverside, gender and sexuality professor Jane Ward. In it, Ward explored various subcultures in which what could be called “straight homosexual sex” abounds — not just in the ones you’d expect, like the military and fraternities, but also biker gangs and conservative suburban neighborhoods — to better understand how the participants in these encounters experienced and explained their attractions, identities, and rendezvous. But not all straight MSM have gotten the same level of research attention. One relatively neglected such group, argues the University of Oregon sociology doctoral student Tony Silva in a new paper in Gender & Society, is rural, white, straight men (well, neglected if you set aside Brokeback Mountain). Silva sought to find out more about these men, so he recruited 19 from men-for-men casual-encounters boards on Craigslist and interviewed them, for about an hour and a half each, about their sexual habits, lives, and senses of identity. All were from rural areas of Missouri, Illinois, Oregon, Washington, or Idaho, places known for their “social conservatism and predominant white populations.” The sample skewed a bit on the older side, with 14 of the 19 men in their 50s or older, and most identified exclusively as exclusively or mostly straight, with a few responses along the lines of “Straight but bi, but more straight.” Since this is a qualitative rather than a quantitative study, it’s important to recognize that the particular men recruited by Silva weren’t necessarily representative of, well, anything. These were just the guys who agreed to participate in an academic’s research project after they saw an ad for it on Craigslist. But the point of Silva’s project was less to draw any sweeping conclusions about either this subset of straight MSM, or the population as a whole, than to listen to their stories and compare them to the narratives uncovered by Ward and various other researchers. Specifically, Silva was trying to understand better the interplay between “normative rural masculinity” — the set of mores and norms that defines what it means to be a rural man — and these men’s sexual encounters. In doing so, he introduces a really interesting and catchy concept, “bud-sex”: Ward (2015) examines dudesex, a type of male–male sex that white, masculine, straight men in urban or military contexts frame as a way to bond and build masculinity with other, similar “bros.” Carrillo and Hoffman (2016) refer to their primarily urban participants as heteroflexible, given that they were exclusively or primarily attracted to women. While the participants in this study share overlap with those groups, they also frame their same-sex sex in subtly different ways: not as an opportunity to bond with urban “bros,” and only sometimes—but not always—as a novel sexual pursuit, given that they had sexual attractions all across the spectrum. Instead, as Silva (forthcoming) explores, the participants reinforced their straightness through unconventional interpretations of same-sex sex: as “helpin’ a buddy out,” relieving “urges,” acting on sexual desires for men without sexual attractions to them, relieving general sexual needs, and/or a way to act on sexual attractions. “Bud-sex” captures these interpretations, as well as how the participants had sex and with whom they partnered. The specific type of sex the participants had with other men—bud-sex—cemented their rural masculinity and heterosexuality, and distinguishes them from other MSM. This idea of homosexual sex cementing heterosexuality and traditional, rural masculinity certainly feels counterintuitive, but it clicks a little once you read some of the specific findings from Silva’s interviews. The most important thing to keep in mind here is that rural masculinity is “[c]entral to the men’s self-understanding.” Quoting another researcher, Silva notes that it guides their “thoughts, tastes, and practices. It provides them with their fundamental sense of self; it structures how they understand the world around them; and it influences how they codify sameness and difference.” As with just about all straight MSM, there’s a tension at work: How can these men do what they’re doing without it threatening parts of their identity that feel vital to who they are? In some of the subcultures Ward studied, straight MSM were able to reinterpret homosexual identity as actually strengthening their heterosexual identities. So it was with Silva’s subjects as well — they found ways to cast their homosexual liaisons as reaffirming their rural masculinity. One way they did so was by seeking out partners who were similar to them. “This is a key element of bud-sex,” writes Silva. “Partnering with other men similarly privileged on several intersecting axes—gender, race, and sexual identity—allowed the participants to normalize and authenticate their sexual experiences as normatively masculine.” In other words: If you, a straight guy from the country, once in a while have sex with other straight guys from the country, it doesn’t threaten your straight, rural identity as much as it would if instead you, for example, traveled to the nearest major metro area and tried to pick up dudes at a gay bar. You’re not the sort of man who would go to a gay bar — you’re not gay! It’s difficult here not to slip into the old middle-school joke of “It’s not gay if …” — “It’s not gay” if your eyes are closed, or the lights are off, or you’re best friends — but that’s actually what the men in Silva’s study did, in a sense: As Cain [one of the interview subjects] said, “I’m really not drawn to what I would consider really effeminate faggot type(s),” but he does “like the masculine looking guy who maybe is more bi.” Similarly, Matt (60) explained, “If they’re too flamboyant they just turn me off,” and Jack noted, “Femininity in a man is a turn off.” Ryan (60) explained, “I’m not comfortable around femme” and “masculinity is what attracts me,” while David shared that “Femme guys don’t do anything for me at all, in fact actually I don’t care for ’em.” Jon shared, “I don’t really like flamin’ queers.” Mike (50) similarly said, “I don’t want the effeminate ones, I want the manly guys … If I wanted someone that acts girlish, I got a wife at home.” Jeff (38) prefers masculinity because “I guess I perceive men who are feminine want to hang out … have companionship, and make it last two or three hours.” In other words: It’s not gay if the guy you’re having sex with doesn’t seem gay at all. Or consider the preferences of Marcus, another one of Silva’s interview subjects: A guy that I would consider more like me, that gets blowjobs from guys every once in a while, doesn’t do it every day. I know that there are a lot of guys out there that are like me … they’re manly guys, and doing manly stuff, and just happen to have oral sex with men every once in a while [chuckles]. So, that’s why I kinda prefer those types of guys … It [also] seems that … more masculine guys wouldn’t harass me, I guess, hound me all the time, send me 1000 emails, “Hey, you want to get together today … hey, what about now.” And there’s a thought in my head that a more feminine or gay guy would want me to come around more. […] Straight guys, I think I identify with them more because that’s kinda, like [how] I feel myself. And bi guys, the same way. We can talk about women, there [have] been times where we’ve watched hetero porn, before we got started or whatever, so I kinda prefer that. [And] because I’m not attracted, it’s very off-putting when somebody acts gay, and I feel like a lot of gay guys, just kinda put off that gay vibe, I’ll call it, I guess, and that’s very off-putting to me. This, of course, is similar to the way many straight men talk about women — it’s nice to have them around and it’s (of course) great to have sex with them, but they’re so clingy. Overall, it’s just more fun to hang out around masculine guys who share your straight-guy preferences and vocabulary, and who are less emotionally demanding. One way to interpret this is as defensiveness, of course — these men aren’t actually straight, but identify that way for a number of reasons, including “internalized heterosexism, participation in other-sex marriage and childrearing [which could be complicated if they came out as bi or gay], and enjoyment of straight privilege and culture,” writes Silva. After Jane Ward’s book came out last year, Rich Juzwiak laid out a critique in Gawker that I also saw in many of the responses to my Q&A with her: While Ward sidestepped the question of her subjects’ “actual” sexual orientations — “I am not concerned with whether the men I describe in this book are ‘really’ straight or gay,” she wrote — it should matter. As Juzwiak put it: “Given the cultural incentives that remain for a straight-seeming gay, given the long-road to self-acceptance that makes many feel incapable or fearful of honestly answering questions about identity—which would undoubtedly alter the often vague data that provide the basis for Ward’s arguments—it seems that one should care about the wide canyon between what men claim they are and what they actually are.” In other words, Ward sidestepped an important political and rights minefield by taking her subjects’ claims about their sexuality more or less at face value. There are certainly some good reasons for sociologists and others to not examine individuals’ claims about their identities too critically. But still: Juzwiak’s critique is important, and it looms large in the background of one particular segment of Silva’s paper. Actually, it turned out, some of Silva’s subjects really weren’t all that opposed to a certain level of deeper engagement with their bud-sex buds, at least when it came to their “regulars,” or the men they hooked up with habitually: While relationships with regulars were free of romance and deep emotional ties, they were not necessarily devoid of feeling; participants enjoyed regulars for multiple reasons: convenience, comfort, sexual compatibility, or even friendship. Pat described a typical meetup with his regular: “We talk for an hour or so, over coffee … then we’ll go get a blowjob and then, part our ways.” Similarly, Richard noted, “Sex is a very small part of our relationship. It’s more friends, we discuss politics … all sorts of shit.” Likewise, with several of his regulars Billy noted, “I go on road trips, drink beer, go down to the city [to] look at chicks, go out and eat, shoot pool, I got one friend I hike with. It normally leads to sex, but we go out and do activities other than we meet and suck.” While Kevin noted that his regular relationship “has no emotional connection at all,” it also has a friendship-like quality, as evidenced by occasional visits and sleepovers despite almost 100 miles of distance. Similarly, David noted, “If my wife’s gone for a weekend … I’ll go to his place and spend a night or two with him … we obviously do things other than sex, so yeah we go to dinner, go out and go shopping, stuff like that.” Jack explained that with his regular “we connected on Craigslist … [and] became good friends, in addition to havin’ sex … we just made a connection … But there was no love at all.” Thus, bud-sex is predicated on rejecting romantic attachment and deep emotional ties, but not all emotion. Whatever else is going on here, clearly these men are getting some companionship out of these relationships. It isn’t just about sex if you make a point of getting coffee, and especially if you spend nights together, go shopping or out to dinner, and so on. But there are sturdy incentives in place for them to not take that step of identifying, or identifying fully, as gay or bi. Instead, they frame their bud-sex, even when it’s accompanied by other forms of intimacy, in a way that reinforces their rural, straight masculinity. It’s important to note that this isn’t some rational decision where the men sit down, list the pros and cons, and say, “Well, I guess coming out just won’t maximize my happiness and well-being.” It’s more subtle than that, given the osmosis-like way we all absorb social norms and mores. In all likelihood, when Silva’s subjects say they’re straight, they mean it: That’s how they feel. But it’s hard not to get the sense that maybe some of them would be happier, or would have made different life decisions, if they had had access to a different, less constricted vocabulary to describe what they want — and who they are. Quote http://gachimuchi2008.blogspot.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silva sought to find out more about these men, so he recruited 19 from men-for-men casual-encounters boards on Craigslist and interviewed them, for about an hour and a half each, about their sexual habits, lives, and senses of identity. All were from rural areas of Missouri, Illinois, Oregon, Washington, or Idaho, places known for their “social conservatism and predominant white populations.” The sample skewed a bit on the older side, with 14 of the 19 men in their 50s or older, and most identified exclusively as exclusively or mostly straight, with a few responses along the lines of “Straight but bi, but more straight.” Since this is a qualitative rather than a quantitative study, it’s important to recognize that the particular men recruited by Silva weren’t necessarily representative of, well, anything. These were just the guys who agreed to participate in an academic’s research project after they saw an ad for it on Craigslist. But the point of Silva’s project was less to draw any sweeping conclusions about either this subset of straight MSM, or the population as a whole, than to listen to their stories and compare them to the narratives uncovered by Ward and various other researchers. Specifically, Silva was trying to understand better the interplay between “normative rural masculinity” — the set of mores and norms that defines what it means to be a rural man — and these men’s sexual encounters. In doing so, he introduces a really interesting and catchy concept, “bud-sex”: Ward (2015) examines dudesex, a type of male–male sex that white, masculine, straight men in urban or military contexts frame as a way to bond and build masculinity with other, similar “bros.” Carrillo and Hoffman (2016) refer to their primarily urban participants as heteroflexible, given that they were exclusively or primarily attracted to women. While the participants in this study share overlap with those groups, they also frame their same-sex sex in subtly different ways: not as an opportunity to bond with urban “bros,” and only sometimes—but not always—as a novel sexual pursuit, given that they had sexual attractions all across the spectrum. Instead, as Silva (forthcoming) explores, the participants reinforced their straightness through unconventional interpretations of same-sex sex: as “helpin’ a buddy out,” relieving “urges,” acting on sexual desires for men without sexual attractions to them, relieving general sexual needs, and/or a way to act on sexual attractions. “Bud-sex” captures these interpretations, as well as how the participants had sex and with whom they partnered. The specific type of sex the participants had with other men—bud-sex—cemented their rural masculinity and heterosexuality, and distinguishes them from other MSM. This idea of homosexual sex cementing heterosexuality and traditional, rural masculinity certainly feels counterintuitive, but it clicks a little once you read some of the specific findings from Silva’s interviews. The most important thing to keep in mind here is that rural masculinity is “[c]entral to the men’s self-understanding.” Quoting another researcher, Silva notes that it guides their “thoughts, tastes, and practices. It provides them with their fundamental sense of self; it structures how they understand the world around them; and it influences how they codify sameness and difference.” As with just about all straight MSM, there’s a tension at work: How can these men do what they’re doing without it threatening parts of their identity that feel vital to who they are? In some of the subcultures Ward studied, straight MSM were able to reinterpret homosexual identity as actually strengthening their heterosexual identities. So it was with Silva’s subjects as well — they found ways to cast their homosexual liaisons as reaffirming their rural masculinity. One way they did so was by seeking out partners who were similar to them. “This is a key element of bud-sex,” writes Silva. “Partnering with other men similarly privileged on several intersecting axes—gender, race, and sexual identity—allowed the participants to normalize and authenticate their sexual experiences as normatively masculine.” In other words: If you, a straight guy from the country, once in a while have sex with other straight guys from the country, it doesn’t threaten your straight, rural identity as much as it would if instead you, for example, traveled to the nearest major metro area and tried to pick up dudes at a gay bar. You’re not the sort of man who would go to a gay bar — you’re not gay! It’s difficult here not to slip into the old middle-school joke of “It’s not gay if …” — “It’s not gay” if your eyes are closed, or the lights are off, or you’re best friends — but that’s actually what the men in Silva’s study did, in a sense: As Cain [one of the interview subjects] said, “I’m really not drawn to what I would consider really effeminate faggot type(s),” but he does “like the masculine looking guy who maybe is more bi.” Similarly, Matt (60) explained, “If they’re too flamboyant they just turn me off,” and Jack noted, “Femininity in a man is a turn off.” Ryan (60) explained, “I’m not comfortable around femme” and “masculinity is what attracts me,” while David shared that “Femme guys don’t do anything for me at all, in fact actually I don’t care for ’em.” Jon shared, “I don’t really like flamin’ queers.” Mike (50) similarly said, “I don’t want the effeminate ones, I want the manly guys … If I wanted someone that acts girlish, I got a wife at home.” Jeff (38) prefers masculinity because “I guess I perceive men who are feminine want to hang out … have companionship, and make it last two or three hours.” In other words: It’s not gay if the guy you’re having sex with doesn’t seem gay at all. Or consider the preferences of Marcus, another one of Silva’s interview subjects: A guy that I would consider more like me, that gets blowjobs from guys every once in a while, doesn’t do it every day. I know that there are a lot of guys out there that are like me … they’re manly guys, and doing manly stuff, and just happen to have oral sex with men every once in a while [chuckles]. So, that’s why I kinda prefer those types of guys … It [also] seems that … more masculine guys wouldn’t harass me, I guess, hound me all the time, send me 1000 emails, “Hey, you want to get together today … hey, what about now.” And there’s a thought in my head that a more feminine or gay guy would want me to come around more. […] Straight guys, I think I identify with them more because that’s kinda, like [how] I feel myself. And bi guys, the same way. We can talk about women, there [have] been times where we’ve watched hetero porn, before we got started or whatever, so I kinda prefer that. [And] because I’m not attracted, it’s very off-putting when somebody acts gay, and I feel like a lot of gay guys, just kinda put off that gay vibe, I’ll call it, I guess, and that’s very off-putting to me. This, of course, is similar to the way many straight men talk about women — it’s nice to have them around and it’s (of course) great to have sex with them, but they’re so clingy. Overall, it’s just more fun to hang out around masculine guys who share your straight-guy preferences and vocabulary, and who are less emotionally demanding. One way to interpret this is as defensiveness, of course — these men aren’t actually straight, but identify that way for a number of reasons, including “internalized heterosexism, participation in other-sex marriage and childrearing [which could be complicated if they came out as bi or gay], and enjoyment of straight privilege and culture,” writes Silva. After Jane Ward’s book came out last year, Rich Juzwiak laid out a critique in Gawker that I also saw in many of the responses to my Q&A with her: While Ward sidestepped the question of her subjects’ “actual” sexual orientations — “I am not concerned with whether the men I describe in this book are ‘really’ straight or gay,” she wrote — it should matter. As Juzwiak put it: “Given the cultural incentives that remain for a straight-seeming gay, given the long-road to self-acceptance that makes many feel incapable or fearful of honestly answering questions about identity—which would undoubtedly alter the often vague data that provide the basis for Ward’s arguments—it seems that one should care about the wide canyon between what men claim they are and what they actually are.” In other words, Ward sidestepped an important political and rights minefield by taking her subjects’ claims about their sexuality more or less at face value. There are certainly some good reasons for sociologists and others to not examine individuals’ claims about their identities too critically. But still: Juzwiak’s critique is important, and it looms large in the background of one particular segment of Silva’s paper. Actually, it turned out, some of Silva’s subjects really weren’t all that opposed to a certain level of deeper engagement with their bud-sex buds, at least when it came to their “regulars,” or the men they hooked up with habitually: While relationships with regulars were free of romance and deep emotional ties, they were not necessarily devoid of feeling; participants enjoyed regulars for multiple reasons: convenience, comfort, sexual compatibility, or even friendship. Pat described a typical meetup with his regular: “We talk for an hour or so, over coffee … then we’ll go get a blowjob and then, part our ways.” Similarly, Richard noted, “Sex is a very small part of our relationship. It’s more friends, we discuss politics … all sorts of shit.” Likewise, with several of his regulars Billy noted, “I go on road trips, drink beer, go down to the city [to] look at chicks, go out and eat, shoot pool, I got one friend I hike with. It normally leads to sex, but we go out and do activities other than we meet and suck.” While Kevin noted that his regular relationship “has no emotional connection at all,” it also has a friendship-like quality, as evidenced by occasional visits and sleepovers despite almost 100 miles of distance. Similarly, David noted, “If my wife’s gone for a weekend … I’ll go to his place and spend a night or two with him … we obviously do things other than sex, so yeah we go to dinner, go out and go shopping, stuff like that.” Jack explained that with his regular “we connected on Craigslist … [and] became good friends, in addition to havin’ sex … we just made a connection … But there was no love at all.” Thus, bud-sex is predicated on rejecting romantic attachment and deep emotional ties, but not all emotion. Whatever else is going on here, clearly these men are getting some companionship out of these relationships. It isn’t just about sex if you make a point of getting coffee, and especially if you spend nights together, go shopping or out to dinner, and so on. But there are sturdy incentives in place for them to not take that step of identifying, or identifying fully, as gay or bi. Instead, they frame their bud-sex, even when it’s accompanied by other forms of intimacy, in a way that reinforces their rural, straight masculinity. It’s important to note that this isn’t some rational decision where the men sit down, list the pros and cons, and say, “Well, I guess coming out just won’t maximize my happiness and well-being.” It’s more subtle than that, given the osmosis-like way we all absorb social norms and mores. In all likelihood, when Silva’s subjects say they’re straight, they mean it: That’s how they feel. But it’s hard not to get the sense that maybe some of them would be happier, or would have made different life decisions, if they had had access to a different, less constricted vocabulary to describe what they want — and who they are.
Silva sought to find out more about these men, so he recruited 19 from men-for-men casual-encounters boards on Craigslist and interviewed them, for about an hour and a half each, about their sexual habits, lives, and senses of identity. All were from rural areas of Missouri, Illinois, Oregon, Washington, or Idaho, places known for their “social conservatism and predominant white populations.” The sample skewed a bit on the older side, with 14 of the 19 men in their 50s or older, and most identified exclusively as exclusively or mostly straight, with a few responses along the lines of “Straight but bi, but more straight.” Since this is a qualitative rather than a quantitative study, it’s important to recognize that the particular men recruited by Silva weren’t necessarily representative of, well, anything. These were just the guys who agreed to participate in an academic’s research project after they saw an ad for it on Craigslist. But the point of Silva’s project was less to draw any sweeping conclusions about either this subset of straight MSM, or the population as a whole, than to listen to their stories and compare them to the narratives uncovered by Ward and various other researchers. Specifically, Silva was trying to understand better the interplay between “normative rural masculinity” — the set of mores and norms that defines what it means to be a rural man — and these men’s sexual encounters. In doing so, he introduces a really interesting and catchy concept, “bud-sex”: Ward (2015) examines dudesex, a type of male–male sex that white, masculine, straight men in urban or military contexts frame as a way to bond and build masculinity with other, similar “bros.” Carrillo and Hoffman (2016) refer to their primarily urban participants as heteroflexible, given that they were exclusively or primarily attracted to women. While the participants in this study share overlap with those groups, they also frame their same-sex sex in subtly different ways: not as an opportunity to bond with urban “bros,” and only sometimes—but not always—as a novel sexual pursuit, given that they had sexual attractions all across the spectrum. Instead, as Silva (forthcoming) explores, the participants reinforced their straightness through unconventional interpretations of same-sex sex: as “helpin’ a buddy out,” relieving “urges,” acting on sexual desires for men without sexual attractions to them, relieving general sexual needs, and/or a way to act on sexual attractions. “Bud-sex” captures these interpretations, as well as how the participants had sex and with whom they partnered. The specific type of sex the participants had with other men—bud-sex—cemented their rural masculinity and heterosexuality, and distinguishes them from other MSM. This idea of homosexual sex cementing heterosexuality and traditional, rural masculinity certainly feels counterintuitive, but it clicks a little once you read some of the specific findings from Silva’s interviews. The most important thing to keep in mind here is that rural masculinity is “[c]entral to the men’s self-understanding.” Quoting another researcher, Silva notes that it guides their “thoughts, tastes, and practices. It provides them with their fundamental sense of self; it structures how they understand the world around them; and it influences how they codify sameness and difference.” As with just about all straight MSM, there’s a tension at work: How can these men do what they’re doing without it threatening parts of their identity that feel vital to who they are? In some of the subcultures Ward studied, straight MSM were able to reinterpret homosexual identity as actually strengthening their heterosexual identities. So it was with Silva’s subjects as well — they found ways to cast their homosexual liaisons as reaffirming their rural masculinity. One way they did so was by seeking out partners who were similar to them. “This is a key element of bud-sex,” writes Silva. “Partnering with other men similarly privileged on several intersecting axes—gender, race, and sexual identity—allowed the participants to normalize and authenticate their sexual experiences as normatively masculine.” In other words: If you, a straight guy from the country, once in a while have sex with other straight guys from the country, it doesn’t threaten your straight, rural identity as much as it would if instead you, for example, traveled to the nearest major metro area and tried to pick up dudes at a gay bar. You’re not the sort of man who would go to a gay bar — you’re not gay! It’s difficult here not to slip into the old middle-school joke of “It’s not gay if …” — “It’s not gay” if your eyes are closed, or the lights are off, or you’re best friends — but that’s actually what the men in Silva’s study did, in a sense: As Cain [one of the interview subjects] said, “I’m really not drawn to what I would consider really effeminate faggot type(s),” but he does “like the masculine looking guy who maybe is more bi.” Similarly, Matt (60) explained, “If they’re too flamboyant they just turn me off,” and Jack noted, “Femininity in a man is a turn off.” Ryan (60) explained, “I’m not comfortable around femme” and “masculinity is what attracts me,” while David shared that “Femme guys don’t do anything for me at all, in fact actually I don’t care for ’em.” Jon shared, “I don’t really like flamin’ queers.” Mike (50) similarly said, “I don’t want the effeminate ones, I want the manly guys … If I wanted someone that acts girlish, I got a wife at home.” Jeff (38) prefers masculinity because “I guess I perceive men who are feminine want to hang out … have companionship, and make it last two or three hours.” In other words: It’s not gay if the guy you’re having sex with doesn’t seem gay at all. Or consider the preferences of Marcus, another one of Silva’s interview subjects: A guy that I would consider more like me, that gets blowjobs from guys every once in a while, doesn’t do it every day. I know that there are a lot of guys out there that are like me … they’re manly guys, and doing manly stuff, and just happen to have oral sex with men every once in a while [chuckles]. So, that’s why I kinda prefer those types of guys … It [also] seems that … more masculine guys wouldn’t harass me, I guess, hound me all the time, send me 1000 emails, “Hey, you want to get together today … hey, what about now.” And there’s a thought in my head that a more feminine or gay guy would want me to come around more. […] Straight guys, I think I identify with them more because that’s kinda, like [how] I feel myself. And bi guys, the same way. We can talk about women, there [have] been times where we’ve watched hetero porn, before we got started or whatever, so I kinda prefer that. [And] because I’m not attracted, it’s very off-putting when somebody acts gay, and I feel like a lot of gay guys, just kinda put off that gay vibe, I’ll call it, I guess, and that’s very off-putting to me. This, of course, is similar to the way many straight men talk about women — it’s nice to have them around and it’s (of course) great to have sex with them, but they’re so clingy. Overall, it’s just more fun to hang out around masculine guys who share your straight-guy preferences and vocabulary, and who are less emotionally demanding. One way to interpret this is as defensiveness, of course — these men aren’t actually straight, but identify that way for a number of reasons, including “internalized heterosexism, participation in other-sex marriage and childrearing [which could be complicated if they came out as bi or gay], and enjoyment of straight privilege and culture,” writes Silva. After Jane Ward’s book came out last year, Rich Juzwiak laid out a critique in Gawker that I also saw in many of the responses to my Q&A with her: While Ward sidestepped the question of her subjects’ “actual” sexual orientations — “I am not concerned with whether the men I describe in this book are ‘really’ straight or gay,” she wrote — it should matter. As Juzwiak put it: “Given the cultural incentives that remain for a straight-seeming gay, given the long-road to self-acceptance that makes many feel incapable or fearful of honestly answering questions about identity—which would undoubtedly alter the often vague data that provide the basis for Ward’s arguments—it seems that one should care about the wide canyon between what men claim they are and what they actually are.” In other words, Ward sidestepped an important political and rights minefield by taking her subjects’ claims about their sexuality more or less at face value. There are certainly some good reasons for sociologists and others to not examine individuals’ claims about their identities too critically. But still: Juzwiak’s critique is important, and it looms large in the background of one particular segment of Silva’s paper. Actually, it turned out, some of Silva’s subjects really weren’t all that opposed to a certain level of deeper engagement with their bud-sex buds, at least when it came to their “regulars,” or the men they hooked up with habitually: While relationships with regulars were free of romance and deep emotional ties, they were not necessarily devoid of feeling; participants enjoyed regulars for multiple reasons: convenience, comfort, sexual compatibility, or even friendship. Pat described a typical meetup with his regular: “We talk for an hour or so, over coffee … then we’ll go get a blowjob and then, part our ways.” Similarly, Richard noted, “Sex is a very small part of our relationship. It’s more friends, we discuss politics … all sorts of shit.” Likewise, with several of his regulars Billy noted, “I go on road trips, drink beer, go down to the city [to] look at chicks, go out and eat, shoot pool, I got one friend I hike with. It normally leads to sex, but we go out and do activities other than we meet and suck.” While Kevin noted that his regular relationship “has no emotional connection at all,” it also has a friendship-like quality, as evidenced by occasional visits and sleepovers despite almost 100 miles of distance. Similarly, David noted, “If my wife’s gone for a weekend … I’ll go to his place and spend a night or two with him … we obviously do things other than sex, so yeah we go to dinner, go out and go shopping, stuff like that.” Jack explained that with his regular “we connected on Craigslist … [and] became good friends, in addition to havin’ sex … we just made a connection … But there was no love at all.” Thus, bud-sex is predicated on rejecting romantic attachment and deep emotional ties, but not all emotion. Whatever else is going on here, clearly these men are getting some companionship out of these relationships. It isn’t just about sex if you make a point of getting coffee, and especially if you spend nights together, go shopping or out to dinner, and so on. But there are sturdy incentives in place for them to not take that step of identifying, or identifying fully, as gay or bi. Instead, they frame their bud-sex, even when it’s accompanied by other forms of intimacy, in a way that reinforces their rural, straight masculinity. It’s important to note that this isn’t some rational decision where the men sit down, list the pros and cons, and say, “Well, I guess coming out just won’t maximize my happiness and well-being.” It’s more subtle than that, given the osmosis-like way we all absorb social norms and mores. In all likelihood, when Silva’s subjects say they’re straight, they mean it: That’s how they feel. But it’s hard not to get the sense that maybe some of them would be happier, or would have made different life decisions, if they had had access to a different, less constricted vocabulary to describe what they want — and who they are.
Specifically, Silva was trying to understand better the interplay between “normative rural masculinity” — the set of mores and norms that defines what it means to be a rural man — and these men’s sexual encounters. In doing so, he introduces a really interesting and catchy concept, “bud-sex”: Ward (2015) examines dudesex, a type of male–male sex that white, masculine, straight men in urban or military contexts frame as a way to bond and build masculinity with other, similar “bros.” Carrillo and Hoffman (2016) refer to their primarily urban participants as heteroflexible, given that they were exclusively or primarily attracted to women. While the participants in this study share overlap with those groups, they also frame their same-sex sex in subtly different ways: not as an opportunity to bond with urban “bros,” and only sometimes—but not always—as a novel sexual pursuit, given that they had sexual attractions all across the spectrum. Instead, as Silva (forthcoming) explores, the participants reinforced their straightness through unconventional interpretations of same-sex sex: as “helpin’ a buddy out,” relieving “urges,” acting on sexual desires for men without sexual attractions to them, relieving general sexual needs, and/or a way to act on sexual attractions. “Bud-sex” captures these interpretations, as well as how the participants had sex and with whom they partnered. The specific type of sex the participants had with other men—bud-sex—cemented their rural masculinity and heterosexuality, and distinguishes them from other MSM.
Ward (2015) examines dudesex, a type of male–male sex that white, masculine, straight men in urban or military contexts frame as a way to bond and build masculinity with other, similar “bros.” Carrillo and Hoffman (2016) refer to their primarily urban participants as heteroflexible, given that they were exclusively or primarily attracted to women. While the participants in this study share overlap with those groups, they also frame their same-sex sex in subtly different ways: not as an opportunity to bond with urban “bros,” and only sometimes—but not always—as a novel sexual pursuit, given that they had sexual attractions all across the spectrum. Instead, as Silva (forthcoming) explores, the participants reinforced their straightness through unconventional interpretations of same-sex sex: as “helpin’ a buddy out,” relieving “urges,” acting on sexual desires for men without sexual attractions to them, relieving general sexual needs, and/or a way to act on sexual attractions. “Bud-sex” captures these interpretations, as well as how the participants had sex and with whom they partnered. The specific type of sex the participants had with other men—bud-sex—cemented their rural masculinity and heterosexuality, and distinguishes them from other MSM.
This idea of homosexual sex cementing heterosexuality and traditional, rural masculinity certainly feels counterintuitive, but it clicks a little once you read some of the specific findings from Silva’s interviews. The most important thing to keep in mind here is that rural masculinity is “[c]entral to the men’s self-understanding.” Quoting another researcher, Silva notes that it guides their “thoughts, tastes, and practices. It provides them with their fundamental sense of self; it structures how they understand the world around them; and it influences how they codify sameness and difference.” As with just about all straight MSM, there’s a tension at work: How can these men do what they’re doing without it threatening parts of their identity that feel vital to who they are? In some of the subcultures Ward studied, straight MSM were able to reinterpret homosexual identity as actually strengthening their heterosexual identities. So it was with Silva’s subjects as well — they found ways to cast their homosexual liaisons as reaffirming their rural masculinity. One way they did so was by seeking out partners who were similar to them. “This is a key element of bud-sex,” writes Silva. “Partnering with other men similarly privileged on several intersecting axes—gender, race, and sexual identity—allowed the participants to normalize and authenticate their sexual experiences as normatively masculine.” In other words: If you, a straight guy from the country, once in a while have sex with other straight guys from the country, it doesn’t threaten your straight, rural identity as much as it would if instead you, for example, traveled to the nearest major metro area and tried to pick up dudes at a gay bar. You’re not the sort of man who would go to a gay bar — you’re not gay! It’s difficult here not to slip into the old middle-school joke of “It’s not gay if …” — “It’s not gay” if your eyes are closed, or the lights are off, or you’re best friends — but that’s actually what the men in Silva’s study did, in a sense: As Cain [one of the interview subjects] said, “I’m really not drawn to what I would consider really effeminate faggot type(s),” but he does “like the masculine looking guy who maybe is more bi.” Similarly, Matt (60) explained, “If they’re too flamboyant they just turn me off,” and Jack noted, “Femininity in a man is a turn off.” Ryan (60) explained, “I’m not comfortable around femme” and “masculinity is what attracts me,” while David shared that “Femme guys don’t do anything for me at all, in fact actually I don’t care for ’em.” Jon shared, “I don’t really like flamin’ queers.” Mike (50) similarly said, “I don’t want the effeminate ones, I want the manly guys … If I wanted someone that acts girlish, I got a wife at home.” Jeff (38) prefers masculinity because “I guess I perceive men who are feminine want to hang out … have companionship, and make it last two or three hours.” In other words: It’s not gay if the guy you’re having sex with doesn’t seem gay at all. Or consider the preferences of Marcus, another one of Silva’s interview subjects: A guy that I would consider more like me, that gets blowjobs from guys every once in a while, doesn’t do it every day. I know that there are a lot of guys out there that are like me … they’re manly guys, and doing manly stuff, and just happen to have oral sex with men every once in a while [chuckles]. So, that’s why I kinda prefer those types of guys … It [also] seems that … more masculine guys wouldn’t harass me, I guess, hound me all the time, send me 1000 emails, “Hey, you want to get together today … hey, what about now.” And there’s a thought in my head that a more feminine or gay guy would want me to come around more. […] Straight guys, I think I identify with them more because that’s kinda, like [how] I feel myself. And bi guys, the same way. We can talk about women, there [have] been times where we’ve watched hetero porn, before we got started or whatever, so I kinda prefer that. [And] because I’m not attracted, it’s very off-putting when somebody acts gay, and I feel like a lot of gay guys, just kinda put off that gay vibe, I’ll call it, I guess, and that’s very off-putting to me. This, of course, is similar to the way many straight men talk about women — it’s nice to have them around and it’s (of course) great to have sex with them, but they’re so clingy. Overall, it’s just more fun to hang out around masculine guys who share your straight-guy preferences and vocabulary, and who are less emotionally demanding. One way to interpret this is as defensiveness, of course — these men aren’t actually straight, but identify that way for a number of reasons, including “internalized heterosexism, participation in other-sex marriage and childrearing [which could be complicated if they came out as bi or gay], and enjoyment of straight privilege and culture,” writes Silva. After Jane Ward’s book came out last year, Rich Juzwiak laid out a critique in Gawker that I also saw in many of the responses to my Q&A with her: While Ward sidestepped the question of her subjects’ “actual” sexual orientations — “I am not concerned with whether the men I describe in this book are ‘really’ straight or gay,” she wrote — it should matter. As Juzwiak put it: “Given the cultural incentives that remain for a straight-seeming gay, given the long-road to self-acceptance that makes many feel incapable or fearful of honestly answering questions about identity—which would undoubtedly alter the often vague data that provide the basis for Ward’s arguments—it seems that one should care about the wide canyon between what men claim they are and what they actually are.” In other words, Ward sidestepped an important political and rights minefield by taking her subjects’ claims about their sexuality more or less at face value. There are certainly some good reasons for sociologists and others to not examine individuals’ claims about their identities too critically. But still: Juzwiak’s critique is important, and it looms large in the background of one particular segment of Silva’s paper. Actually, it turned out, some of Silva’s subjects really weren’t all that opposed to a certain level of deeper engagement with their bud-sex buds, at least when it came to their “regulars,” or the men they hooked up with habitually: While relationships with regulars were free of romance and deep emotional ties, they were not necessarily devoid of feeling; participants enjoyed regulars for multiple reasons: convenience, comfort, sexual compatibility, or even friendship. Pat described a typical meetup with his regular: “We talk for an hour or so, over coffee … then we’ll go get a blowjob and then, part our ways.” Similarly, Richard noted, “Sex is a very small part of our relationship. It’s more friends, we discuss politics … all sorts of shit.” Likewise, with several of his regulars Billy noted, “I go on road trips, drink beer, go down to the city [to] look at chicks, go out and eat, shoot pool, I got one friend I hike with. It normally leads to sex, but we go out and do activities other than we meet and suck.” While Kevin noted that his regular relationship “has no emotional connection at all,” it also has a friendship-like quality, as evidenced by occasional visits and sleepovers despite almost 100 miles of distance. Similarly, David noted, “If my wife’s gone for a weekend … I’ll go to his place and spend a night or two with him … we obviously do things other than sex, so yeah we go to dinner, go out and go shopping, stuff like that.” Jack explained that with his regular “we connected on Craigslist … [and] became good friends, in addition to havin’ sex … we just made a connection … But there was no love at all.” Thus, bud-sex is predicated on rejecting romantic attachment and deep emotional ties, but not all emotion. Whatever else is going on here, clearly these men are getting some companionship out of these relationships. It isn’t just about sex if you make a point of getting coffee, and especially if you spend nights together, go shopping or out to dinner, and so on. But there are sturdy incentives in place for them to not take that step of identifying, or identifying fully, as gay or bi. Instead, they frame their bud-sex, even when it’s accompanied by other forms of intimacy, in a way that reinforces their rural, straight masculinity. It’s important to note that this isn’t some rational decision where the men sit down, list the pros and cons, and say, “Well, I guess coming out just won’t maximize my happiness and well-being.” It’s more subtle than that, given the osmosis-like way we all absorb social norms and mores. In all likelihood, when Silva’s subjects say they’re straight, they mean it: That’s how they feel. But it’s hard not to get the sense that maybe some of them would be happier, or would have made different life decisions, if they had had access to a different, less constricted vocabulary to describe what they want — and who they are.
As Cain [one of the interview subjects] said, “I’m really not drawn to what I would consider really effeminate faggot type(s),” but he does “like the masculine looking guy who maybe is more bi.” Similarly, Matt (60) explained, “If they’re too flamboyant they just turn me off,” and Jack noted, “Femininity in a man is a turn off.” Ryan (60) explained, “I’m not comfortable around femme” and “masculinity is what attracts me,” while David shared that “Femme guys don’t do anything for me at all, in fact actually I don’t care for ’em.” Jon shared, “I don’t really like flamin’ queers.” Mike (50) similarly said, “I don’t want the effeminate ones, I want the manly guys … If I wanted someone that acts girlish, I got a wife at home.” Jeff (38) prefers masculinity because “I guess I perceive men who are feminine want to hang out … have companionship, and make it last two or three hours.” In other words: It’s not gay if the guy you’re having sex with doesn’t seem gay at all. Or consider the preferences of Marcus, another one of Silva’s interview subjects: A guy that I would consider more like me, that gets blowjobs from guys every once in a while, doesn’t do it every day. I know that there are a lot of guys out there that are like me … they’re manly guys, and doing manly stuff, and just happen to have oral sex with men every once in a while [chuckles]. So, that’s why I kinda prefer those types of guys … It [also] seems that … more masculine guys wouldn’t harass me, I guess, hound me all the time, send me 1000 emails, “Hey, you want to get together today … hey, what about now.” And there’s a thought in my head that a more feminine or gay guy would want me to come around more. […] Straight guys, I think I identify with them more because that’s kinda, like [how] I feel myself. And bi guys, the same way. We can talk about women, there [have] been times where we’ve watched hetero porn, before we got started or whatever, so I kinda prefer that. [And] because I’m not attracted, it’s very off-putting when somebody acts gay, and I feel like a lot of gay guys, just kinda put off that gay vibe, I’ll call it, I guess, and that’s very off-putting to me. This, of course, is similar to the way many straight men talk about women — it’s nice to have them around and it’s (of course) great to have sex with them, but they’re so clingy. Overall, it’s just more fun to hang out around masculine guys who share your straight-guy preferences and vocabulary, and who are less emotionally demanding. One way to interpret this is as defensiveness, of course — these men aren’t actually straight, but identify that way for a number of reasons, including “internalized heterosexism, participation in other-sex marriage and childrearing [which could be complicated if they came out as bi or gay], and enjoyment of straight privilege and culture,” writes Silva. After Jane Ward’s book came out last year, Rich Juzwiak laid out a critique in Gawker that I also saw in many of the responses to my Q&A with her: While Ward sidestepped the question of her subjects’ “actual” sexual orientations — “I am not concerned with whether the men I describe in this book are ‘really’ straight or gay,” she wrote — it should matter. As Juzwiak put it: “Given the cultural incentives that remain for a straight-seeming gay, given the long-road to self-acceptance that makes many feel incapable or fearful of honestly answering questions about identity—which would undoubtedly alter the often vague data that provide the basis for Ward’s arguments—it seems that one should care about the wide canyon between what men claim they are and what they actually are.” In other words, Ward sidestepped an important political and rights minefield by taking her subjects’ claims about their sexuality more or less at face value. There are certainly some good reasons for sociologists and others to not examine individuals’ claims about their identities too critically. But still: Juzwiak’s critique is important, and it looms large in the background of one particular segment of Silva’s paper. Actually, it turned out, some of Silva’s subjects really weren’t all that opposed to a certain level of deeper engagement with their bud-sex buds, at least when it came to their “regulars,” or the men they hooked up with habitually: While relationships with regulars were free of romance and deep emotional ties, they were not necessarily devoid of feeling; participants enjoyed regulars for multiple reasons: convenience, comfort, sexual compatibility, or even friendship. Pat described a typical meetup with his regular: “We talk for an hour or so, over coffee … then we’ll go get a blowjob and then, part our ways.” Similarly, Richard noted, “Sex is a very small part of our relationship. It’s more friends, we discuss politics … all sorts of shit.” Likewise, with several of his regulars Billy noted, “I go on road trips, drink beer, go down to the city [to] look at chicks, go out and eat, shoot pool, I got one friend I hike with. It normally leads to sex, but we go out and do activities other than we meet and suck.” While Kevin noted that his regular relationship “has no emotional connection at all,” it also has a friendship-like quality, as evidenced by occasional visits and sleepovers despite almost 100 miles of distance. Similarly, David noted, “If my wife’s gone for a weekend … I’ll go to his place and spend a night or two with him … we obviously do things other than sex, so yeah we go to dinner, go out and go shopping, stuff like that.” Jack explained that with his regular “we connected on Craigslist … [and] became good friends, in addition to havin’ sex … we just made a connection … But there was no love at all.” Thus, bud-sex is predicated on rejecting romantic attachment and deep emotional ties, but not all emotion. Whatever else is going on here, clearly these men are getting some companionship out of these relationships. It isn’t just about sex if you make a point of getting coffee, and especially if you spend nights together, go shopping or out to dinner, and so on. But there are sturdy incentives in place for them to not take that step of identifying, or identifying fully, as gay or bi. Instead, they frame their bud-sex, even when it’s accompanied by other forms of intimacy, in a way that reinforces their rural, straight masculinity. It’s important to note that this isn’t some rational decision where the men sit down, list the pros and cons, and say, “Well, I guess coming out just won’t maximize my happiness and well-being.” It’s more subtle than that, given the osmosis-like way we all absorb social norms and mores. In all likelihood, when Silva’s subjects say they’re straight, they mean it: That’s how they feel. But it’s hard not to get the sense that maybe some of them would be happier, or would have made different life decisions, if they had had access to a different, less constricted vocabulary to describe what they want — and who they are.
As Cain [one of the interview subjects] said, “I’m really not drawn to what I would consider really effeminate faggot type(s),” but he does “like the masculine looking guy who maybe is more bi.” Similarly, Matt (60) explained, “If they’re too flamboyant they just turn me off,” and Jack noted, “Femininity in a man is a turn off.” Ryan (60) explained, “I’m not comfortable around femme” and “masculinity is what attracts me,” while David shared that “Femme guys don’t do anything for me at all, in fact actually I don’t care for ’em.” Jon shared, “I don’t really like flamin’ queers.” Mike (50) similarly said, “I don’t want the effeminate ones, I want the manly guys … If I wanted someone that acts girlish, I got a wife at home.” Jeff (38) prefers masculinity because “I guess I perceive men who are feminine want to hang out … have companionship, and make it last two or three hours.” In other words: It’s not gay if the guy you’re having sex with doesn’t seem gay at all. Or consider the preferences of Marcus, another one of Silva’s interview subjects: A guy that I would consider more like me, that gets blowjobs from guys every once in a while, doesn’t do it every day. I know that there are a lot of guys out there that are like me … they’re manly guys, and doing manly stuff, and just happen to have oral sex with men every once in a while [chuckles]. So, that’s why I kinda prefer those types of guys … It [also] seems that … more masculine guys wouldn’t harass me, I guess, hound me all the time, send me 1000 emails, “Hey, you want to get together today … hey, what about now.” And there’s a thought in my head that a more feminine or gay guy would want me to come around more. […] Straight guys, I think I identify with them more because that’s kinda, like [how] I feel myself. And bi guys, the same way. We can talk about women, there [have] been times where we’ve watched hetero porn, before we got started or whatever, so I kinda prefer that. [And] because I’m not attracted, it’s very off-putting when somebody acts gay, and I feel like a lot of gay guys, just kinda put off that gay vibe, I’ll call it, I guess, and that’s very off-putting to me. This, of course, is similar to the way many straight men talk about women — it’s nice to have them around and it’s (of course) great to have sex with them, but they’re so clingy. Overall, it’s just more fun to hang out around masculine guys who share your straight-guy preferences and vocabulary, and who are less emotionally demanding. One way to interpret this is as defensiveness, of course — these men aren’t actually straight, but identify that way for a number of reasons, including “internalized heterosexism, participation in other-sex marriage and childrearing [which could be complicated if they came out as bi or gay], and enjoyment of straight privilege and culture,” writes Silva. After Jane Ward’s book came out last year, Rich Juzwiak laid out a critique in Gawker that I also saw in many of the responses to my Q&A with her: While Ward sidestepped the question of her subjects’ “actual” sexual orientations — “I am not concerned with whether the men I describe in this book are ‘really’ straight or gay,” she wrote — it should matter. As Juzwiak put it: “Given the cultural incentives that remain for a straight-seeming gay, given the long-road to self-acceptance that makes many feel incapable or fearful of honestly answering questions about identity—which would undoubtedly alter the often vague data that provide the basis for Ward’s arguments—it seems that one should care about the wide canyon between what men claim they are and what they actually are.” In other words, Ward sidestepped an important political and rights minefield by taking her subjects’ claims about their sexuality more or less at face value. There are certainly some good reasons for sociologists and others to not examine individuals’ claims about their identities too critically. But still: Juzwiak’s critique is important, and it looms large in the background of one particular segment of Silva’s paper. Actually, it turned out, some of Silva’s subjects really weren’t all that opposed to a certain level of deeper engagement with their bud-sex buds, at least when it came to their “regulars,” or the men they hooked up with habitually: While relationships with regulars were free of romance and deep emotional ties, they were not necessarily devoid of feeling; participants enjoyed regulars for multiple reasons: convenience, comfort, sexual compatibility, or even friendship. Pat described a typical meetup with his regular: “We talk for an hour or so, over coffee … then we’ll go get a blowjob and then, part our ways.” Similarly, Richard noted, “Sex is a very small part of our relationship. It’s more friends, we discuss politics … all sorts of shit.” Likewise, with several of his regulars Billy noted, “I go on road trips, drink beer, go down to the city [to] look at chicks, go out and eat, shoot pool, I got one friend I hike with. It normally leads to sex, but we go out and do activities other than we meet and suck.” While Kevin noted that his regular relationship “has no emotional connection at all,” it also has a friendship-like quality, as evidenced by occasional visits and sleepovers despite almost 100 miles of distance. Similarly, David noted, “If my wife’s gone for a weekend … I’ll go to his place and spend a night or two with him … we obviously do things other than sex, so yeah we go to dinner, go out and go shopping, stuff like that.” Jack explained that with his regular “we connected on Craigslist … [and] became good friends, in addition to havin’ sex … we just made a connection … But there was no love at all.” Thus, bud-sex is predicated on rejecting romantic attachment and deep emotional ties, but not all emotion. Whatever else is going on here, clearly these men are getting some companionship out of these relationships. It isn’t just about sex if you make a point of getting coffee, and especially if you spend nights together, go shopping or out to dinner, and so on. But there are sturdy incentives in place for them to not take that step of identifying, or identifying fully, as gay or bi. Instead, they frame their bud-sex, even when it’s accompanied by other forms of intimacy, in a way that reinforces their rural, straight masculinity. It’s important to note that this isn’t some rational decision where the men sit down, list the pros and cons, and say, “Well, I guess coming out just won’t maximize my happiness and well-being.” It’s more subtle than that, given the osmosis-like way we all absorb social norms and mores. In all likelihood, when Silva’s subjects say they’re straight, they mean it: That’s how they feel. But it’s hard not to get the sense that maybe some of them would be happier, or would have made different life decisions, if they had had access to a different, less constricted vocabulary to describe what they want — and who they are.
lovehandle Posted December 20, 2016 Report Share Posted December 20, 2016 is that a better excuse for explore? or to hide? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
upshot Posted December 20, 2016 Report Share Posted December 20, 2016 This has been around for a long time.... It's religion that made it all go underground. heh.. and even today this is still the case but you have str8 and gay fighting over it's this or that but there really exist a 3rd option heheh... Quote ** Comments are my opinions, same as yours. It's not a 'Be-All-and-End-All' view. Intent's to thought-provoke, validate, reiterate and yes, even correct. Opinion to consider but agree to disagree. I don't enjoy conflicted exchanges, empty bravado or egoistical chest pounding. It's never personal, tribalistic or with malice. Frank by nature, means, I never bend the truth. Views are to broaden understanding - Updated: Nov 2021. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
upshot Posted December 20, 2016 Report Share Posted December 20, 2016 Read toward the end and you see this "time honored" practice in this tribe... http://www.orijinculture.com/community/masculinisation-dehumanization-sambia-tribe-papua-guinea/ capture here for those who again hate to read"? " for the Sambia it is a symbol of strength and his ability to sustain pain, which is a needed requirement of a warrior. Additionally, the act of performing fellatio and the act of ingesting semen is seen as an integral part of manhood because boys are unable to mature into men unless they ingest semen and they adhere to the notion that all men have, “eaten the penis”. According to Sambia belief, the semen of a man possesses the “masculine spirit,” which young boys will be able to attain through his ingestion of semen." Quote ** Comments are my opinions, same as yours. It's not a 'Be-All-and-End-All' view. Intent's to thought-provoke, validate, reiterate and yes, even correct. Opinion to consider but agree to disagree. I don't enjoy conflicted exchanges, empty bravado or egoistical chest pounding. It's never personal, tribalistic or with malice. Frank by nature, means, I never bend the truth. Views are to broaden understanding - Updated: Nov 2021. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kimochi Posted December 20, 2016 Report Share Posted December 20, 2016 Swallow my load~~ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GachiMuchi Posted December 23, 2016 Author Report Share Posted December 23, 2016 More and more straight guys are giving up “bro jobs” and engaging in “dude sex” What is dude sex? And how is it different from gay sex? Let’s find out… Tony Silva is a researcher at University of Oregon who recently did a study on the growing phenomenon and just published a paper called Bud-Sex: Constructing Normative Masculinity among Rural Straight Men That Have Sex With Men about it. Related: Straight Guys Are Giving “Bro-Jobs” And Hooking Up On The DL Using New App According to Silva, dude sex (or “bud-sex”) is when two guys, usually from a rural area and who identify as straight, hook up together in a discreet, NSA sort of way. They have wives. They have kids. They consider themselves to be heterosexual. But they’re also able to compartmentalize sex in a way that allows them to occasionally bump uglies with other guys without complicating anything. Silver interviewed 19 white, rural, straight-identifying men who say they’ve had dude sex. He found most of them on the pages of Craigslist’s M4M casual encounter ads. All of the guys came from socially conservative and predominant white populations in Missouri, Illinois, Oregon, Washington, or Idaho, and most of them identified as either “exclusively” or “mostly straight,” with a few identifying as “straight but bi, but more straight.” Related: He Hooked Up With His Straight BFF, Now He’s Not Sure What To Do Silva spoke with them for about an hour and a half each, and what he learned was pretty interesting. Many of the guys said they engaged in dude sex as a way of “helpin’ a buddy out,” relieving “urges,” or simply experimenting and/or satisfying curiosities without experiencing any sexual attraction for the person with whom they were experimenting. Silva also found that dude sex guides their “thoughts, tastes, and practices. It provides them with their fundamental sense of self; it structures how they understand the world around them; and it influences how they codify sameness and difference.” In other words: it helps them scratch a certain curiosity itch while simultaneously reaffirming their heterosexuality because, now that they’ve tried it, they realize that man-on-man sex isn’t for them… Or maybe it is… It’s all about learning and growing as individuals. Related: “Bro-Jobs” Author Talks Straight Man-On-Man Sex And “Repressed Homosexual Desire” One thing Silva noticed was that most of the men were seeking other men like them–straight-identifying, married, etc., etc. “This is a key element of bud-sex,” he writes in his study. “Partnering with other men similarly privileged on several intersecting axes—gender, race, and sexual identity—allowed the participants to normalize and authenticate their sexual experiences as normatively masculine.” By hooking up with guys similar to them, Silva noted, many of the men didn’t feel their heterosexual identities were threatened. But having sex with a gay man somehow made them feel more gay. In fact, a handful of subjects said they were turned off by “effeminate faggot type” or “flamin’ queers” who were “too flamboyant.” “If I wanted someone that acts girlish, I got a wife at home,” one subject said. Related: Has Gay Men’s Obsession With ‘Straight’ Guys Gone Too Far? “A guy that I would consider more like me, that gets blowjobs from guys every once in a while, doesn’t do it every day,” another subject said. “They’re manly guys, and doing manly stuff, and just happen to have oral sex with men every once in a while. So, that’s why I kinda prefer those types of guys.” Other reasons the men said they preferred to have dude sex as opposed to gay sex was because it happened quicker and didn’t involved lengthy email exchanges, or they felt there wasn’t the threat of the other man becoming emotionally attached to them. “I think I identify with them more because that’s kinda, like [how] I feel myself. And bi guys, the same way. We can talk about women, there [have] been times where we’ve watched hetero porn, before we got started or whatever, so I kinda prefer that.” Related: Curious Straight Guy Absolutely Cannot Stop Fantasizing About Experimenting With Another Dude Other men reported that they enjoyed the friendship part most, and that the sex was just sort of a naturally-occurring afterthought. “We talk for an hour or so, over coffee,” one guy said. “Then we’ll go get a blowjob and then part our ways.” “I go on road trips, drink beer, go down to the city [to] look at chicks, go out and eat, shoot pool, I got one friend I hike with,” another guy explained. “It normally leads to sex, but we go out and do activities other than we meet and suck.” “If my wife’s gone for a weekend,” a third guy said, “I’ll go to his place and spend a night or two with him … We obviously do things other than sex, so, yeah, we go to dinner, go out and go shopping, stuff like that.” You know? Stuff like that. upshot 1 Quote http://gachimuchi2008.blogspot.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cutejack Posted December 23, 2016 Report Share Posted December 23, 2016 Want to write juz write la.dont cancel cancel ok.lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Slang Posted December 23, 2016 Report Share Posted December 23, 2016 So they have given up dudette sex and taking up dude sex. Good for them! To differentiate myself, i declare myself to be engaging in man shag. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
upshot Posted December 23, 2016 Report Share Posted December 23, 2016 Nothing new just becoming more mainstream or in general people are coming to realise this since there are more studies now. Which to me is a good thing. It's more a resurgence then something new. Quote ** Comments are my opinions, same as yours. It's not a 'Be-All-and-End-All' view. Intent's to thought-provoke, validate, reiterate and yes, even correct. Opinion to consider but agree to disagree. I don't enjoy conflicted exchanges, empty bravado or egoistical chest pounding. It's never personal, tribalistic or with malice. Frank by nature, means, I never bend the truth. Views are to broaden understanding - Updated: Nov 2021. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelvin Lee Posted December 23, 2016 Report Share Posted December 23, 2016 Wanna try to sex with a straight guy. Anyone here? hairy40'sgindian 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lovehandle Posted January 11, 2017 Report Share Posted January 11, 2017 https://www.facebook.com/askmen/videos/10154312920678723/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest No gay Posted January 11, 2017 Report Share Posted January 11, 2017 On Wednesday, July 20, 2016 at 1:58 PM, emomomo said: Actually I think it's possible to be straight and have had sex with a man before. Sex is a physical act. Whether you're attracted to the other person is another question. Don't think it is possible to be gay and have sex with a woman though. I'll rather close my imaginative eyes and wank it off than sucking on a pussy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom88s Posted January 12, 2017 Report Share Posted January 12, 2017 he is a bi, most of the bi-married man like myself, we love to fuck lady, but we love to be fuck by man, so we can enjoy both end. hahaaa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melvinlam90 Posted January 12, 2017 Report Share Posted January 12, 2017 Bisexual is real. LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lovehandle Posted January 13, 2017 Report Share Posted January 13, 2017 23 hours ago, Damontan said: It is not difficult to trick straight guys into doing sexual stuff with a gay guy. In fact my BF and I have had non anal 3some with 3 purely straight guys recently. Even met 1 of them 3 times already. Why I know they are pure straight guys? Because they were extremely reluctant to meet up with us initially, it was under extreme careful persuasion plus lots of push factor that made them decide to try out fun with guys for the first time in their lives. 1 of them is even married and his wife was pregnant. I will not reveal my methods though, haha. Also had fun with a few straight boys before because they needed money. So it is possible to have fun with purely straight guys if you know how to fish them. in the very first place, damon, how does these straight guys know which platforms/apps to tap on? if they are so reluctant, how then did they............(not asking you to reveal your method), but more of sharing how did they? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lovehandle Posted January 13, 2017 Report Share Posted January 13, 2017 1 minute ago, Damontan said: They were not on any gay platforms at all. I found them elsewhere and it was not straightaway asking them to do gay fun, there were other workaround methods of mine that eventually brought up the topic of gay fun and all it needs is a little pushing and persuasion and then they were finally reluctantly willing to give it a try, only because they think they are getting something in return and it isn't money at all, can't reveal any further or I'll basically be revealing my methods already, haha. I got it , very likely need to know them first Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cutejack Posted January 13, 2017 Report Share Posted January 13, 2017 2 hours ago, gaysluttyme said: Most will do nothing except to be served by another guy.... Unless those in 50s will serve u instead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoyo74 Posted January 14, 2017 Report Share Posted January 14, 2017 Although i do not do anal sex, I also think that i am a 100% gay. I feel so uncomfortable when girls try to touch me and i always try to put a distance with any of them. I am not hard up on money or anything else so i guess there is no way a woman gonna have sex with me unless they put a knife on me lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoyo74 Posted January 14, 2017 Report Share Posted January 14, 2017 A straight guy can have sex with a gay guy due to money or items of vainity or even want to try out some feelings but if the so call straight guy enjoys the sex and had emotional attachment than he is definately not a straight guy. I found that many people confuse with the defination of straight guys. Just because they have a girlfriend or a wife does not mean that he is straight. They are most probably being forced to marry a wife or a bisexual if they still want to have fun with guys. There are also others so afraid of gay stuff and in deniel that they practically do not want to think about it, once they start to think about it and explore with guys, they finally realize their inner gay self which was not being open up previously. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gogreen Posted January 14, 2017 Report Share Posted January 14, 2017 On 12/01/2017 at 3:14 PM, Damontan said: It is not difficult to trick straight guys into doing sexual stuff with a gay guy. In fact my BF and I have had non anal 3some with 3 purely straight guys recently. Even met 1 of them 3 times already. Why I know they are pure straight guys? Because they were extremely reluctant to meet up with us initially, it was under extreme careful persuasion plus lots of push factor that made them decide to try out fun with guys for the first time in their lives. 1 of them is even married and his wife was pregnant. I will not reveal my methods though, haha. Also had fun with a few straight boys before because they needed money. So it is possible to have fun with purely straight guys if you know how to fish them. haha Teach me leh bro.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Desmond Posted May 11, 2017 Report Share Posted May 11, 2017 I love gay sex and I go to church after doing it. I consider myself still straight Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowball Posted May 11, 2017 Report Share Posted May 11, 2017 (edited) they can label what they like, i respect Edited May 12, 2017 by snowball Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terence550 Posted May 11, 2017 Report Share Posted May 11, 2017 Agreed s e x Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Denial Posted May 12, 2017 Report Share Posted May 12, 2017 7 hours ago, Guest Desmond said: I love gay sex and I go to church after doing it. I consider myself still straight U r in denial. Human's brain is complicated. we (including me) always try to convince ourselves what we did is correct. And later all reasons, excuses and comments will be generated by our brain and convince ourselves what we did is right. There are always exception, like u have been drugged, drunk or forced by another same sex prson. For str, so direct and so simple. u fxxk girl and deeply love the women u marry to. If u are Suxxked or being sxxked, fxxked or being fxxked by a men and wanting more, then part of you has the gayness. Please don't be in denial. sgboy84 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JoeS Posted May 12, 2017 Report Share Posted May 12, 2017 I don't think you can find a 100% st8 guy... there is always a percentage of gayness in them. If it's >50% then his orientation is gay Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgboy84 Posted May 12, 2017 Report Share Posted May 12, 2017 32 minutes ago, JoeS said: I don't think you can find a 100% st8 guy... there is always a percentage of gayness in them. If it's >50% then his orientation is gay Fully agreed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fab Posted May 12, 2017 Report Share Posted May 12, 2017 I know this guy. He thinks that as long as he is not emotionally involved with a guy, does not kiss him or touch a dick, and only does what a man do to women on bed, he is not considered gay. Quote 鍾意就好，理佢男定女 never argue with the guests. let them bark all they want. 结缘不结怨 解怨不解缘 After I have said what I wanna say, I don't care what you say. 看穿不说穿 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CKW Posted May 12, 2017 Report Share Posted May 12, 2017 2 hours ago, fab said: I know this guy. He thinks that as long as he is not emotionally involved with a guy, does not kiss him or touch a dick, and only does what a man do to women on bed, he is not considered gay. "I'm just looking at you and jerking myself off. As long as I don't kiss you or touch your dick, it's not gay. Understand?" A guy who says that is only fooling himself Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowball Posted May 12, 2017 Report Share Posted May 12, 2017 to me is just either great person or lousy person, great sex or bad sex Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dreamer08 Posted May 13, 2017 Report Share Posted May 13, 2017 Very thought-provoking and interesting article! Got me thinking about myself and the people I've met actually, a few times while reading. sman.sg 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yuquidam Posted May 13, 2017 Report Share Posted May 13, 2017 (edited) . Edited July 21, 2020 by yuquidam barocco80 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barocco80 Posted May 13, 2017 Report Share Posted May 13, 2017 5 hours ago, yuquidam said: This discussion brought to mind an encounter that almost got totally forgotten. When i was in Manila years back met a 20yo pinoy undergrad at a cinema. We were seated next to each othet at the movie. There were a number of straight sex scenes. Both the male and female leads were the epitome of sexy young things. Many patrons were making out around us - both male-male and male-female and groupies. Obviously it was hard for me to concentrate on the English subtitles. This undergrad started groping me and he did everything imaginable (except anal sex) to make me cum. We became friends and met up a few times for fun (not sex, according to him) in my 4 weeks' attachment programme. He had a gf and sometimes we had MMF fun but no penetration was involved even with his gf. He also maintained and believed in all sincerity that he was straight, not even bisexual let alone gay. A few yrs later he got married. As mentioned in my earlier posts in other forums, my first few sexual encounters (intercourse) in my life were with gals. But HJ were in secondary school, BJ in JC, and anal in NSF. So, first thot i was straight, then thot i was gay, now think i am bi. And got to know a few "bimarried" with kids from this forum some of whom do kiss, some don't; some give bj, some don't; some only hj and no other stuff; some btm, some top; most no anal, yet some do; most think they're straight; some think they're bi, but all believe in only NSA fun, which include kopi sessions without fun. It does seem that NSA fun with guys and also a desire to have sexual intercourse with gals distinguish them from "gays" or are they "gays in denial" (whom many like to label them) ?? Sheesh...if i do seem confused with what i am talking about it's bcos i am even more confused now. But, WTF, whether i am labelled gay, bi, gay in denial or straight who enjoys sex with both sexes, just enjoy lor...just be safe la!! LOL You've pretty much met guys across the sexual spectrum... For those who engage in sexual activity with man but still declare them as straight... chances are being straight is more socially acceptable and convenient... the word "gay" still carry a lot of stigma where ppl try not to associate with yuquidam 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest I Kissed A Guy Posted May 17, 2017 Report Share Posted May 17, 2017 We all know that blow job is one if the nicest thing ever. But nothing beats brojob in my opinion. The thought of 2 guys having a brojob is so damn sexy. Beats Katy Perry kissing a girl. Anytime. yuquidam 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yuquidam Posted May 17, 2017 Report Share Posted May 17, 2017 1 hour ago, Guest I Kissed A Guy said: We all know that blow job is one if the nicest thing ever. But nothing beats brojob in my opinion. The thought of 2 guys having a brojob is so damn sexy. Beats Katy Perry kissing a girl. Anytime. HAHAHA... bet many would disagree with you. But then again as many would agree with you totally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimlo777 Posted May 17, 2017 Report Share Posted May 17, 2017 I don't really care about compartmentalising humans into boxes and labelling them. A man can be married and still enjoy a blowjob from me. Doesn't matter to me if he is straight, bi or whatever you wish to label him. It never bothered me to find out either. In many cultures, it is normal to explore sex with the same sex before marriage because of strict observances of 'no sex before marriage' norms in straight relationship. So how do you think these young horny men can release their sexual tension? Usually I would refer to the man as 'married' if he spots a wedding band on his finger. I will refer to him as gay only when he professes to be one; otherwise I don't pursue the issue. For those who remember, it was like this in Singapore back in the early 60s right up to the 70s when most girls believe in preserving their virginity until wedding nights. We had dicks lining up for our services in many places just to unload their love juices lest they get blue balls. yuquidam 1 Quote Suck my tits and I'll lick your balls. Lick my arse and I'll suck your cock. All in sex is fair. The only bad thing about sex is that it doesn't last long enough. Read my blog - www.anasianjourney.blogspot.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
upshot Posted May 17, 2017 Report Share Posted May 17, 2017 (edited) HAVING SEX WITH ANOTHER MAN DOES NOT NECESSARILY MAKE ONE GAY. SEXUAL ACTS EXIST ALONG A WIDE SPECTRUM WHERE THE SEX ACT MAY HAVE NO RELATION TO A PERSON"S NORMAL LIFESTYLE OUTSIDE OF SEX. Edited May 17, 2017 by upshot go-geek, yuquidam and kimlo777 3 Quote ** Comments are my opinions, same as yours. It's not a 'Be-All-and-End-All' view. Intent's to thought-provoke, validate, reiterate and yes, even correct. Opinion to consider but agree to disagree. I don't enjoy conflicted exchanges, empty bravado or egoistical chest pounding. It's never personal, tribalistic or with malice. Frank by nature, means, I never bend the truth. Views are to broaden understanding - Updated: Nov 2021. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cutejack Posted May 17, 2017 Report Share Posted May 17, 2017 20 minutes ago, upshot said: HAVING SEX WITH ANOTHER MAN DOES NOT NECESSARILY MAKE ONE GAY. SEXUAL ACTS EXIST ALONG A WIDE SPECTRUM WHERE THE SEX ACT MAY HAVE NO RELATION TO A PERSON"S NORMAL LIFESTYLE OUTSIDE OF SEX. Is it?so im str8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shotup Posted May 17, 2017 Report Share Posted May 17, 2017 18 minutes ago, upshot said: HAVING SEX WITH ANOTHER MAN DOES NOT NECESSARILY MAKE ONE GAY. SEXUAL ACTS EXIST ALONG A WIDE SPECTRUM WHERE THE SEX ACT MAY HAVE NO RELATION TO A PERSON"S NORMAL LIFESTYLE OUTSIDE OF SEX. Why don't you stop capitalising your post you rude, deluded, obnoxious CUNT! Go suck on your micropenis first whenever you think of posting anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
upshot Posted May 17, 2017 Report Share Posted May 17, 2017 44 minutes ago, Guest shotup said: Why don't you stop capitalising your post you rude, deluded, obnoxious CUNT! Go suck on your micropenis first whenever you think of posting anything. SHUT THE FUCK UP PONDAN FANBOI STALKER OR MINE.... sometime if you have nothing good to offer mankind... you should keep your typing fingers up your asshole. Unless you want to make something of it. Coward little shit stain. Yas1950 1 Quote ** Comments are my opinions, same as yours. It's not a 'Be-All-and-End-All' view. Intent's to thought-provoke, validate, reiterate and yes, even correct. Opinion to consider but agree to disagree. I don't enjoy conflicted exchanges, empty bravado or egoistical chest pounding. It's never personal, tribalistic or with malice. Frank by nature, means, I never bend the truth. Views are to broaden understanding - Updated: Nov 2021. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shotup Posted May 17, 2017 Report Share Posted May 17, 2017 22 minutes ago, upshot said: SHUT THE FUCK UP PONDAN FANBOI STALKER OR MINE.... sometime if you have nothing good to offer mankind... you should keep your typing fingers up your asshole. Unless you want to make something of it. Coward little shit stain. Compensating for your micropeen by typing caps and loud histrionic jibberish, and you're the one salivating and licking at the end of said asshole. Seriously go have your brains checked out, bash your dumb head open against your keyboard and have a good look, then maybe we'd all be rid of your incessant 'nothing good' prattlings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
upshot Posted May 17, 2017 Report Share Posted May 17, 2017 6 hours ago, Guest shotup said: Compensating for your micropeen by typing caps and loud histrionic jibberish, and you're the one salivating and licking at the end of said asshole. Seriously go have your brains checked out, bash your dumb head open against your keyboard and have a good look, then maybe we'd all be rid of your incessant 'nothing good' prattlings. ya da ya da ya da... cry me a river. can you do better? Show me? You next comment.. let's have your view. You can't losers like you have little to contribute to anyone you know or not know. You only know how to cowbeh cowboo...that is your only shithole to 'fame'. Proof me wrong.. show us all how well you can offer something tht make sense to this topic. Old timer thinking like you only think today all caps means shouting. It has it's creative use of emphasis but I degress... proof me wrong.. write something to wow us on the subject. Quote ** Comments are my opinions, same as yours. It's not a 'Be-All-and-End-All' view. Intent's to thought-provoke, validate, reiterate and yes, even correct. Opinion to consider but agree to disagree. I don't enjoy conflicted exchanges, empty bravado or egoistical chest pounding. It's never personal, tribalistic or with malice. Frank by nature, means, I never bend the truth. Views are to broaden understanding - Updated: Nov 2021. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimlo777 Posted May 18, 2017 Report Share Posted May 18, 2017 15 hours ago, upshot said: HAVING SEX WITH ANOTHER MAN DOES NOT NECESSARILY MAKE ONE GAY. SEXUAL ACTS EXIST ALONG A WIDE SPECTRUM WHERE THE SEX ACT MAY HAVE NO RELATION TO A PERSON"S NORMAL LIFESTYLE OUTSIDE OF SEX. Fully agree. Quote Suck my tits and I'll lick your balls. Lick my arse and I'll suck your cock. All in sex is fair. The only bad thing about sex is that it doesn't last long enough. Read my blog - www.anasianjourney.blogspot.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shotup Posted May 18, 2017 Report Share Posted May 18, 2017 13 hours ago, upshot said: ya da ya da ya da... cry me a river. can you do better? Show me? You next comment.. let's have your view. You can't losers like you have little to contribute to anyone you know or not know. You only know how to cowbeh cowboo...that is your only shithole to 'fame'. Proof me wrong.. show us all how well you can offer something tht make sense to this topic. Old timer thinking like you only think today all caps means shouting. It has it's creative use of emphasis but I degress... proof me wrong.. write something to wow us on the subject. I still believe in netiquette as does many others in this forum you RUDE FAGOTTY PUS SACK and my contribution will be to make you contribute politely and with some semblance of humility. Go pinch off YOUR MICROPEEN with a tweezer if you want to be WOWed. And If you don't know how to use words don't act like a shameless know-it-all, go check a dictionary first or go ask your teacher from your special school, stop trying to be a literary genius when it's clear you are not, creative you are not too, ignorant and arrogant - YES! Your mom should have spat out into your dad's shithole and spared us all your inane ramblings you obnoxious TWAT. How's that for emphasis, PUS SACK? (Repetition is a form of emphasis, PUS SACK) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
upshot Posted May 18, 2017 Report Share Posted May 18, 2017 (edited) 4 hours ago, Guest shotup said: I still believe in netiquette as does many others in this forum you RUDE FAGOTTY PUS SACK and my contribution will be to make you contribute politely and with some semblance of humility. Go pinch off YOUR MICROPEEN with a tweezer if you want to be WOWed. And If you don't know how to use words don't act like a shameless know-it-all, go check a dictionary first or go ask your teacher from your special school, stop trying to be a literary genius when it's clear you are not, creative you are not too, ignorant and arrogant - YES! Your mom should have spat out into your dad's shithole and spared us all your inane ramblings you obnoxious TWAT. How's that for emphasis, PUS SACK? (Repetition is a form of emphasis, PUS SACK) Sticks and stone may hurt me but words???... typed words??!! So that's your contribution even after I challenged you. Instead you sink to new lower level. Well done. Here's one for you. You are born to your mom to punish her. Edited May 18, 2017 by upshot Quote ** Comments are my opinions, same as yours. It's not a 'Be-All-and-End-All' view. Intent's to thought-provoke, validate, reiterate and yes, even correct. Opinion to consider but agree to disagree. I don't enjoy conflicted exchanges, empty bravado or egoistical chest pounding. It's never personal, tribalistic or with malice. Frank by nature, means, I never bend the truth. Views are to broaden understanding - Updated: Nov 2021. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J0Boo Posted May 18, 2017 Report Share Posted May 18, 2017 I guess when it comes to sex or when you're really horny, your dick sometimes overpowers your heart and mind. So I feel that a guy having sex with another man does not necessarily mean that he's gay. yuquidam and Xal 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts