You’ve clearly never tried it, or you wouldn’t talk such rot. IMO, if you haven’t tried it, you have no idea if you’re gay or not.
What you are describing are not inherent consequences of homosexuality- they are cultural roles created for homosexuals by our society.
The whole homosexual/heterosexual distinction is usually just so much bullshit in any case. People who are exclusively turned on by the other sex, and have never had any kind of sexual contact with the same sex, are actually relatively rare, or at least they were when the surveys in my book were carried out.
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
[quote]Derek542 wrote:
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Nah, he’ll get over it. It’s an immature expectation, nothing eternal about it. He will evolve past it when he finds someone who captures his attention and his heart. If anything, it’s inspiring because he’ll hold out a little longer and not settle for just anyone.
Perfect example just happened to a very close friend of mine. He was a bigger man whore than I was, if anyone can believe that! And last month he told me that he found “the one”. After years of wading through the dating cess-pool, he is in “LUUUUUV”. I met her and she’s a great chick - everything he was looking for. He found the white buffalo! That’s a GOOD thing! [/quote]
Is it just me, or have you returned from your hiatus down South more open to positive, fulfilling relationships with women?[/quote]
Uh did you miss the memo?
Check G+ I will not say what changed.[/quote]
Heeeey, no fair! I want to see what changed!
Derek, I knew you weren’t serious about drinks! I wasn’t either!
(Do the many exclamation points suggest too much coffee?)[/quote]
I believe I invited you to G+ before.
[/quote]
You posted about it once during the day (I’m not usually on during work, and don’t log in in the rare event I am, but am currently sent to my room to do paperwork in isolation, so here I am) but by the time I got home to mess with it on my computer your post was deleted. I was uncertain whether you’d changed your mind, so hesitated to ask.[/quote]
Nope look for testy1
[/quote]
Okay, did that today, so if you haven’t been notified something went wrong and I have a new friend who’s not you.
[/quote]
Not seeing anything. email address is in my hub on here.
[quote]csulli wrote:
[quote]theBeth wrote:
why do guys get so sensitive about the gay thing. Does anyone really care anymore? I mean, even the manliest Roman gladiators had their butt-boys. Seriously. I leave for a couple weeks and you guys are outa control.[/quote]
Just seems like an affront to manliness. Nothing against people who are gay obviously; I just don’t see them as masculine in the same way I don’t see women as masculine. It’s not right or wrong to be manly, it’s just something I personally would very much prefer for myself than the contrary.
And that goes for Romans and Spartans too. Sex with a man = soft no matter how much blood stains your blade.
Edit: I know there are notable exceptions, but still. For the most part there are certain traits inherent in gay people that straight people would be sensitive about being associated with just based off personal preference.[/quote]
Alexander the Great? Are you calling him soft?
[quote]Der_Steppenwolfe wrote:
You’ve clearly never tried it, or you wouldn’t talk such rot. IMO, if you haven’t tried it, you have no idea if you’re gay or not.
What you are describing are not inherent consequences of homosexuality- they are cultural roles created for homosexuals by our society.
The whole homosexual/heterosexual distinction is usually just so much bullshit in any case. People who are exclusively turned on by the other sex, and have never had any kind of sexual contact with the same sex, are actually relatively rare, or at least they were when the surveys in my book were carried out.[/quote]
You can have sex with the same sex without being homosexual. Furthermore, why do we need such definitions? It’s some kind of innate need for society to define gender/sexual roles.
Well Fuck society, man.
Ok. I’m ok. Carry on.
Sure. But I’d like to make one final point if I may. If you look at the available surveys, and play about with the figures, allowing for a bit of underreporting and so on… …let’s see, allowing for the incidence of infidelity, and the probably number of men who occasionally or habitually experience sexual feelings or actual sexual contacts with other men…
…it turns out homophobia isn’t hatred at all. It’s not even fear. No, it seems what homophobes really are covering for is what they perceive, or know, to be their own infidelity. It’s guilt.
There are a lot of things I do not need to try to know they are not for me.
Each spring I sit in my car and nod “that one” and “that one” and “that one” which is a bit puerile I guess but not once is “that one” a totally dreamy guy.
No, all female, waddayougonnado?
[quote]theBeth wrote:
Alexander the Great? Are you calling him soft?[/quote]
Yes. He was a great man, but he was also a soft momma’s boy who loved cock.
[quote]csulli wrote:
[quote]theBeth wrote:
Alexander the Great? Are you calling him soft?[/quote]
Yes. He was a great man, but he was also a soft momma’s boy who loved cock.[/quote]
The Spartans, Thebes elite warriors, all soft?
You know that those were drilled for decades, right?
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]csulli wrote:
[quote]theBeth wrote:
Alexander the Great? Are you calling him soft?[/quote]
Yes. He was a great man, but he was also a soft momma’s boy who loved cock.[/quote]
The Spartans, Thebes elite warriors, all soft?
You know that those were drilled for decades, right?
[/quote]
Yea I’m sure they all got drilled nice and hard.
[quote]There are a lot of things I do not need to try to know they are not for me.
Each spring I sit in my car and nod “that one” and “that one” and “that one” which is a bit puerile I guess but not once is “that one” a totally dreamy guy.
No, all female, waddayougonnado?[/quote]
Oh, fair enough, but IMO the acid test is ‘can you get an erection?’
[quote]Der_Steppenwolfe wrote:
[quote]There are a lot of things I do not need to try to know they are not for me.
Each spring I sit in my car and nod “that one” and “that one” and “that one” which is a bit puerile I guess but not once is “that one” a totally dreamy guy.
No, all female, waddayougonnado?[/quote]
Oh, fair enough, but IMO the acid test is ‘can you get an erection?’[/quote]
Well if I could not, it would all be rather academic anyway?
[quote]csulli wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]csulli wrote:
[quote]theBeth wrote:
Alexander the Great? Are you calling him soft?[/quote]
Yes. He was a great man, but he was also a soft momma’s boy who loved cock.[/quote]
The Spartans, Thebes elite warriors, all soft?
You know that those were drilled for decades, right?
[/quote]
Yea I’m sure they all got drilled nice and hard.[/quote]
Quoting myself a la the unit.
I do wonder though how prevalent homosexual behavior actually was in these ancient civilizations. Most people I hear talk like 100% of Roman or Spartan soldiers had a cherubic butt buddy on hand 24/7. I just wonder at the true ubiquity of it versus what our perceptions are.
Speaking of ancient training, one of my favorites was where they would make would-be Roman legionnaires run across a river and climb a wall while their previously initiated brethren were firing actual arrows into them and actually wounding or killing the ones who couldn’t hack it.
You don’t see those kind of live fire training drills these days.
First time I’ve ever heard there was anything academic about fucking.
In all honesty? It was probably no more prevalent than it is today. Homosexuality predates christianity by a long time, but so does homophobia. Roman books are full of phrases that denigrate homosexuals, and even in Athens the relationship between men was supposed to be non-sexual. It wasn’t- not by a long way- but that’s not to say sexual relationships between men weren’t disapproved of.
As for me? Personally, my tastes are very much in favour of large women. Since my early twenties, I’ve rarely dated women that I can get overhead. I had a thing for a guy at art college, and we fucked. A lot. But the main thing I discovered during that relationship was that I’m not that gay. I find some men attractive, but I’m not into fucking them that much.
[quote]theBeth wrote:
[quote]Der_Steppenwolfe wrote:
You’ve clearly never tried it, or you wouldn’t talk such rot. IMO, if you haven’t tried it, you have no idea if you’re gay or not.
What you are describing are not inherent consequences of homosexuality- they are cultural roles created for homosexuals by our society.
The whole homosexual/heterosexual distinction is usually just so much bullshit in any case. People who are exclusively turned on by the other sex, and have never had any kind of sexual contact with the same sex, are actually relatively rare, or at least they were when the surveys in my book were carried out.[/quote]
You can have sex with the same sex without being homosexual. Furthermore, why do we need such definitions? It’s some kind of innate need for society to define gender/sexual roles.
Well Fuck society, man.
Ok. I’m ok. Carry on.[/quote]
No you can’t. Gay dudes that wanted to blow me used to say that all the time. My response- No. Thats gay.
We could use colors to describe sex too, but some of them would still be gay. You start doin the dirty all purply with sparkles and guess what? It’s gay.
I’ve discussed homo/hetero with a friend of mine who used to have a girlfriend in high school and did the whole closet thing. He is as turned off by the thought of having sex with a woman as I am about the thought of sex with a man. There isn’t anything about it that he likes, nor any circumstance that he can imagine in which he would.
[quote]Der_Steppenwolfe wrote:
As for me? Personally, my tastes are very much in favour of large women. Since my early twenties, I’ve rarely dated women that I can get overhead. I had a thing for a guy at art college, and we fucked. A lot. But the main thing I discovered during that relationship was that I’m not that gay. I find some men attractive, but I’m not into fucking them that much.[/quote]
Now that is too much information.
Prude.
[quote]Der_Steppenwolfe wrote:
You’ve clearly never tried it, or you wouldn’t talk such rot. IMO, if you haven’t tried it, you have no idea if you’re gay or not.
What you are describing are not inherent consequences of homosexuality- they are cultural roles created for homosexuals by our society.
The whole homosexual/heterosexual distinction is usually just so much bullshit in any case. People who are exclusively turned on by the other sex, and have never had any kind of sexual contact with the same sex, are actually relatively rare, or at least they were when the surveys in my book were carried out.[/quote]
That makes no sense. What you’re describing is called heteroflexibility.
Maybe so, but according to the figures in patterns of sexual behaviour, it seems that in the simplest possible terms, around 20% of us are homosexual in the strict sense of the term, about the same number are heterosexual in the strict sense of the term, and the rest are somewhere in between. In America, that is.
[quote]Der_Steppenwolfe wrote:
Maybe so, but according to the figures in patterns of sexual behaviour, it seems that in the simplest possible terms, around 20% of us are homosexual in the strict sense of the term, about the same number are heterosexual in the strict sense of the term, and the rest are somewhere in between. In America, that is.[/quote]
Given the heterogeneity of this country in particular, sample allocation is prone to flux, but whatever. I have no problem with it.