We had Justin Bieber down for you, so I'm glad you mentioned it.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Why Straight Men Have Sex With Each Other
- Thread starter shadyspace
- Start date
- Status
But arousal must be achieved right? Or are they all popping viagra.
KibblesBits
Member
Close your eyes. There's a wet warm sensation on your cock. It feels pretty good. Take a peek and open them or just... let it happen.
Let's play... CHOOSE YOUR OWN ADVENTURE!
But I feel something brushing against my leg, is that a.......BEARD.
It's Hitlers moustache.
KibblesBits
Member
Turn to page 54...
Europe is saved.
I'm someone who has no sexual attraction to either gender but have had sex with one woman to see what the big deal was. Do I count as straight? Or is it possible a three choice trinary descriptive system is simply inadequate to encompass the full range of human experience in this instance?
I suppose if the opportunity presented itself I'd not be hugely adverse to giving it a go. I didn't particularly seek out the first encounter. Know any hot dudes willing, in the name of science?
I suppose if the opportunity presented itself I'd not be hugely adverse to giving it a go. I didn't particularly seek out the first encounter. Know any hot dudes willing, in the name of science?
KibblesBits
Member
Now go do a dude. A really hot one and report back.
If It Didn't Happen In A Sterile White Room It's Not Worth Considering.
actually theirs four choices, you are considered Asexual.
Wait that's wrong, their is also the people that are sexually attracted to objects. Have no idea what the name is.
charlequin
Banned
Why does being straight mean that you have to be repulsed by the idea of viewing someone in your own gender sexually? I mean, I don't really like watching period romance films but that doesn't mean I have to be repulsed by them. In the vast majority of situations, a straight man has complete control over whether they have to participate in any type of sexual activity with another person of the same gender. It's not something you have to worry about happening by accident or having to do in some situation you have no control over. You have every power to be in a room with two soapy guys getting frisky, go "eh, not for me," and go back to Candy Crush Saga.
scotcheggz
Member
I got an F on that Kinsey test, checked my answers, definitely an F. What now Kinsey??
I probably would identify as majority straight? Simply due to my sexual history more than anything else, in reality I'm not sure it's that simple though. I always kind of thought sexuality didn't really have anything to do with dicks and vaginas though. For example, if I'm attracted to someone then what's between their legs is sort of irrelevant. I've never looked at a vagina and thought to myself "gosh that looks a picture" and likewise for a dick too. When you're getting down, it's the mutual pleasure and connection that's getting me off not how it's achieved, unless it's some real kinky shit and then I suppose it plays a role but, in general it's not the other persons plumbing. I'd say that scores pretty low on a list of "things that I'm enjoying right now" when I'm having sex.
I've no idea what that makes me. I cant say I'm that fussed to label it either way.
I probably would identify as majority straight? Simply due to my sexual history more than anything else, in reality I'm not sure it's that simple though. I always kind of thought sexuality didn't really have anything to do with dicks and vaginas though. For example, if I'm attracted to someone then what's between their legs is sort of irrelevant. I've never looked at a vagina and thought to myself "gosh that looks a picture" and likewise for a dick too. When you're getting down, it's the mutual pleasure and connection that's getting me off not how it's achieved, unless it's some real kinky shit and then I suppose it plays a role but, in general it's not the other persons plumbing. I'd say that scores pretty low on a list of "things that I'm enjoying right now" when I'm having sex.
I've no idea what that makes me. I cant say I'm that fussed to label it either way.
Un huh, methodological rigor amounts to sterile white rooms. Tell me more about these "other ways of knowing" so popular on that part of campus. Heliocentrism wasn't 'accurate' from the 16th century Catholic church's perspective.
Monocle
Member
But science is hard, and also it's not really that important or reliable anyway, because postmodernism. Why should white men in lab coats get to tell all of us what to believe? We need a feminist science, a queer science, an ethnic science, a multicultural science, a liberatory science.
Really?
Really?
I mean like what sort of study could you even design to address this claim? It's simply true that sometimes dudes toss each other off. It's also true that such behaviors get shamed. Fourteen year old boys insult each other as "faggots" because they read "multiple biofeedback-based studies"?
The theory here isn't backed by Methodological Rigor but so what, it's making a soft claim. "See here this phenomenon that doesn't get exposure" doesn't require p-values. It's trivially true that this kind of sexual encounter has happened between otherwise straight men more than zero times, and I think it's intuitively true that such encounters and experiences don't get a lot of exposure or consideration.
It's a lot cheaper to write a theory book than perform a rigorous study. Lots of peer reviewed studies aren't rigorous. And it's dangerous to design an experiment without some intuitive or theoretical framework guiding you. Consider some department with access to funding for the kind of study that could possibly be useful reads this and decides it's worth investigating further.
Blanket slagging "that side of campus" is boring. This thing isn't representing itself as Science Undeniable. It's weird you'd frame women's studies as like the Catholic Church. The first says "hey this is worth thinking about" the second said "this is truth dissent from which is punishable by death". Terrible analogy.
You put in quotes something I didn't say.
Monocle
Member
Accurate labels can make life easier. You can go with a label that roughly fits, and get into the details later if the person you're talking to is worth that kind of time. That's what I do anyway.
Did you read the interview in the op at all?
Yeah for sure. Gay/straight/bi language is expedient. But people tend to broadly see them as prescriptive categories and often don't get to the complicated conversation you're alluding to. It's not clean to put on a dating site "I'm only interested in dating girls but I guess I could exchange nameless, meaningless BJs with a dude tonight" but I think lots of people don't even realize that such a specification might be an option.
I did. It was interesting. I didn't know about the dudes having sex angle of the Hell's Angels and I hadn't heard of "elephant marches" before so it was interesting.
Are you going to articlate anything at all about why you think this article wasn't worth taking the time to read -- or why you think my understanding of it is so off base -- or are you just going to act superior?
sonikokaruto
Banned
has pepe been posted yet?
feelsgoodman.jpg
feelsgoodman.jpg
Ya all I was trying to do was contribute to the thread while I was at work. Please skip out on the attitude next time. It was completely 100% unnecessary. Cheers.
Nice one on trying to win the hyperbole olympics, btw. <3
Don't bitch at me because you shitposted and got called out on it. If you want to contribute to a damn thread, at least have read it first, not just the subject.
Also, my post was actually factual.. see, you couldn't even read the whole post to find out I wasn't being hyperbolic.
So I'm bi because I had sex with that chick that one time.
No.
BlueBadger
Banned
Dat hyperbole <3.
I'm not too offended anyway, after looking at your post history.
. Just try-hard sassiness in almost every post. Sad. Oh well.How hard would it be to just say "it's called the Kinsley scale"? hmm? Especially to someone who came in here to post without any malicious intent. It was absolutely, 100% unnecessary. I'm not one to tolerate passive-aggressiveness
.Its definitely interesting how labels apply to men in regards to sexuality, particularly bisexuality. I personally view the Kinsley Scale as more accurate but really think labels are something people try too hard to put on themselves.
The original post was so harmless and now you're just getting pointlessly aggressive over nothing. He forgot a name so all you had to just so was post the name, not act like a dick.
Oh for fucks sake shut up.
The original post was so harmless and now you're just getting pointlessly aggressive over nothing. He forgot a name so all you had to just so was post the name, not act like a dick.
BreezyLimbo
Banned
Yeah some answers are weird. Like, I can appreciate the male body. But I'm still straight yo.
A name that had been posted multiple times on several pages in this thread which shows he'd read none of the post previous to that. why would I post the same name that had been said a multitude of times (#nohyperbole) again to appease his lack of reading? Don't get mad at me for speaking the truth. Sorry dear, I don't play that.
Anyway shitposting isn't what this post is about so I'll keep my try-hard snark to myself for now.
Good. Now we don't have to listen to your shit posting and derailing over a misremembered name!
It will be nice if we can actually have a discussion now instead of passive aggressive posts over nothing.
Please feel free to quote my previous posts and answer the questions contained in them. I'm always happy to have more answers.
The problem with answering your previous questions is that it requires labelling people's sexualities while I believe sexuality is more complicated than just simple labels being thrown at someone. A lot of it comes down to self identification and I don't think you can just claim someone is a specific group without them saying they are.
It's also kind of hard because some people are so scared of labels that they force themselves into one while they might actually feel more like another.
But anyway your question is more towards people who are heavy on labels so that doesn't really apply to me.
That's why I asked them. As I said above, the dude would label me as bi. I'm not, I know that and you obviously know that, but someone else would All because I did something one time. So the questions are there to challenge them into actually thinking about what they're saying.
The hope is they'll also explain the rationale behind their thinking.
The content of that article is decent enough, and more talk about different kinds of sexuality is long overdue, but man, that title is hilarious and ridiculous.
Next up: Why Vegetarians Eat Up To a Pound of Meat a Day, followed by Why More People are Working and Getting High Salaries While Remaining Unemployed.
Next up: Why Vegetarians Eat Up To a Pound of Meat a Day, followed by Why More People are Working and Getting High Salaries While Remaining Unemployed.
The Illiterati
Member
A label means something. Sure, there's a spectrum, but if every man who has sex with men decides to call them selves straight and every man who has sex with women is gay, what's the point of the label?
Yes, this is some idiotic armchair philosophizing that leads everyone nowhere and ruins the ability of language to actually describe people's preferences.
Yes, this is some idiotic armchair philosophizing that leads everyone nowhere and ruins the ability of language to actually describe people's preferences.
Damon Bennet
Member
I once read that many straight men often google "huge cock" or something like that. The power of male genitals transcends the rules of straight attraction
zero shift
Banned
I wouldn't outright dismiss this. I work in a residential treatment center filled with teenage boys and it seems that every other week their is an "incident" between them.
CaptainGyro
Banned
Well one article says"Gay- and lesbian-identified individuals frequently view us as either confused or interlopers possessing a degree of privilege not available to them, and many heterosexuals see us as amoral, hedonistic spreaders of disease and disrupters of families" So it comes from stupidity and ignorance? I don't really know what this has to do with what i said or how it is at odds with your definition of " engaging in both same-sex and opposite-sex relations" or how that definition makes any relevant information about her gynephilia lost
To be honest I could just be completely stupid. I often have the habit of totally not getting people's points at all. And this thread is loooooooaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaadddddddddddddddddddddddddded with points I missed from pretty much everybody in here(or just thought were really bad)
Genetics play the fundamental role but I do think there's a fluidity to sexuality. Just like there is anything else about you.
The bottom line is personal identity. I would hope most can be sincere with themselves about that but in any case who you identify yourself as should be respected.
(this is probably just reiterating previous points but I just felt like dropping my two cents)
The bottom line is personal identity. I would hope most can be sincere with themselves about that but in any case who you identify yourself as should be respected.
(this is probably just reiterating previous points but I just felt like dropping my two cents)
- Status