Savage Love Letter of the Day: 100% Straight Guys Who Also Love Sucking Dick


What it comes down to is that it really doesn't matter. Why do you care how they identify?
A 100% straight guy who sucks cock is 100% in denial.
@ 1 - Having (unknowingly) had sex with a few of those "100% straight" guys, having been propositioned by many more and having even been threatened with physical violence because I didn't want to have sex with one of them, I'd say they're a pretty annoying bunch. If you do have sex with them, they generally don't want to use condoms (coz "they're not like that", so "obviously" they can't get HIV), and they make extremely disparaging comments (or worse) afterwards. If you don't, they get angry and can get physically intimidating.

So yeah, I care how they identify. If a guy is obviously interested in having sex with me but doesn't identify as gay or bi, I run. Coz his head is fucked up, and my safety's at stake.

(Please note that I've never been in prison or on a pirate ship, so I'll concede that the dynamics may be different there.)
Maybe the LW listens to too much King Missile.
@3: Yeah, I imagine people who may encounter deceptive, potentially toxic, and irresponsible "100% identifying" in the wild have a pretty good reason for concern.
Why is it that if a straight identifying man who is may sleep with a guy is given shit about being straight but a bi woman is seen as faking her sexuality? Or experimenting? Why do people think that men are the only ones worth sleeping with?
Who may sleep*
Small editing bit here: LW identified as follows:

she's a straight female, I'm a 2-Spirited one

Which implies to me that LW identifies as female. Thus, Dan's reference to "Straight girls who lecture gay men and 2S guys about how homosexuality works" seems odd, as this situation is a straight girl lecturing a 2S gal, yes?
Somebody educate me on what this two-spirit stuff is. I'm having trouble keeping up with all the jargon.
I identify as a hetero man who also likes to have sex with men. It's pretty common, it's called "being on the down low," and I see a lot of it in the Bay Area. I'm rarely attracted to mens' bodies; I'm super attracted to womens' bodies. What I'm attracted to is cock - I like to say that I've done everything I can with my own cock, so I want to play with other peoples'. And besides, sucking cock is fun! Why should women and gay men have all the fun? For more on this, check out the Kinsey scale:…
My ex husband declares himself %100 straight despite having dizens of affairs with men... no women, just men. He's now remarried to another woman and feels entitled to label himself straight without disclosing the rest of the story. Anyone who labels him "gay"or "bi" is "abusive" and/or "homophobic," according to his family, his church, and his Therapists. Yeah, he can call himself 100% straight but I can call him a closeted sociopath.
Well, that got as boring as I thought it would. Where is the old double space and increase font size when you need it?
^^ Erp, that's @9 of course, not talking to myself
I personally don't think anyone is 100% anything. People are too complex to be stuck in a little folder labeled Straight, Gay, or Bi. If your healthy, happy, and consensual, move along!
@10 I'm pretty sure "being on the down low" is when an apparently straight man hides his man-on-man sex from his female partner(s). I see straight men who have sex with other men under particular circumstances (group sex, kink situations) call themselves "heteroflexible" but if it's all above board then they don't call it "being on the down low."
@15: I agree to some degree, but there are helluva lot of 99.99999999999% folks out there.
As a bi-dude, are you fucking kidding me. You can identify as whatever you want, I don't have to believe it in practice.
Depends on where you draw the line at straight vs bisexual. If you enjoy trans women porn, probably get to keep your straight card without qualification. Take an occasional blow job from gay men while fantasizing that it is a woman, got some flex in you. Engage in sexual activity with men when they are not stand ins for women but still have lots of sex with women, you are bi or closeted.
@10, soulcrusader. Identifying as a hetero man is not the same as identifying as 100% straight. Not sure what Dan was on about, because I agree with the LW. A male person who sucks cock is not 100% straight.
And thank you for validating a theroy of mine. That cis men get erotized by their own cocks thru masturbation and sex, in a way women don't with their vaginas. We don't see our pussy during arousal, unless we get a mirror. Then you said it, you'd done enough with your own cock and wanted to explore other cocks, because you love cock. Yours , theirs, cock.
So my theory goes that I believe most men have erotic feelings around others' cocks because they have them around their own. As they continually see their own cocks during arousal. Those who accept it, and enjoy the play and feel no self hatred, like @10, no problem. It's the men who can't accept any level of homoerotic feeling, the homophobes, they are the violent ones.
My bi attraction is to women's breasts. Not fussed with pussy and as much as I love women's insights and warm hearts, I am a hetero cis woman.
' Being on the down low', that sounds a bit homophobic and denigrating, @10. Not fully accepting this part of your sexuality is as hot as your hetero part.
Depends on your definition of 100 percent.
@21: Well, we'll never know someone's "true soul" but "100% straight" as far as it is understood necessarily excludes non-straight romantic and sexual practice by definition.

I understand the "down-low" identification for whatever reason but less so the need to cling to that 100% pure status when it's not at all the life they live. Seems a lot closer to the toxic, limiting and oppressing definition of masculinity.
"Straight girls who lecture gay men and 2S guys about how homosexuality works" What's so weird about that? Men have been doing the same thing for eternity; we call it "mansplaining" nowadays. The diff being that women will just sit there and "take it" from men, but men won't take it from women.
I thought this was a fake letter trying to get Dan to come off as anti-trans by drawing out exactly the sort of language he used: that "objective reality" is different from how people identify, and it may be "their truth" but it's not "the truth," and so on.
In the 80s, my college boyfriend's first sexual experience was with an older male friend. He told me that's how he knew for sure that he was straight (boy was so pretty most people assumed he was gay or at least bi). I liked how matter-of-fact he was about it: no embarrassment, no excuses, no anger. It was a positive memory, but didn't need repeating. I'm hoping that's how things will be in the future- more people will feel freer to experiment without shame or stigma.

I've had opportunities to sleep with the ladies, and sometimes I wish I'd done it just for the experience, but the honest truth is that it's just never really interested me. Like, at all. I love the dick. 100%.

And a big 'ol- yeah, no shit! Right? @23
Personally, I've never felt any sexual attraction to women. Not ever. Since childhood. Believe what you want, but I'm 100% homosexual. That doesn't make me any less complex as a person; it only means that my sexual orientation isn't. The rest of my personality can be quite complex nonetheless (I wouldn't pronounce myself on that, as I don't think I should be the judge of it - those who know me well could tell you).

I'm somewhat disappointed, though, that you seem to think human complexity is limited to people's sexual orientation.
That was directed @ 15.
Liberace was gay???
I dunno. I've had sex with lesbians, they were out lesbians before me and they're still out lesbians now. Is Dan not "100% Gay" because he boned a few girls back in HS?

I mean, the bigger more important thing is,
When you start being the identity police
Sooner than later, someone will identity police you.
If you aren't willing to bear it, I'd say, get out of the business.
Sportlandia , Dan is 100% gay now
In orientation and by the sound of it always has been. He followed convention and tried it on with females.
I have sexual responses with some music, labels are restrictive and I don't let them define myself or anyone else. As long as these men aren't hurting anybody, who really cares how they self define.
Must be a new Trumpian definition of "100%"...
Dicks are like goats.

A backpacker is traveling through Ireland when it starts to rain. He decides to wait out the storm in a nearby pub. The only other person at the bar is an older man staring at his drink. The man turns to the backpacker and says:

"You see this bar? I built this bar with my own bare hands. I cut down every tree and made the lumber myself. I toiled away through the wind and cold, but do they call me McGreggor the bar builder? No."

He continued "Do you see that stone wall out there? I built that wall with my own bare hands. I found every stone and placed them just right through the rain and the mud, but do they call me McGreggor the wall builder? No."

"Do ya see that pier out there on the lake? I built that pier with my own bare hands, driving each piling deep into ground so that it would last a lifetime. Do they call me McGreggor the pier builder? No."

"But ya fuck one goat.."
It's a free country, which means men are free to suck as many dicks as they want and call themselves straight, and I'm free to privately think that they're deluded. Then they can go on sucking dick (because somehow I don't think my opinion matters to them) and I can go on thinking they're deluded but not really caring because I don't have a dick that's involved in this discussion.

Yay freedom!
Just wanted to share this article:…

It’s easy for a straight guy to differentiate himself from the modern gay man, but how can he reassure himself that he is nothing like his bisexual counterpart?

The answer is obvious: He can equate male bisexuality with homosexuality.

The logic needed to balance that equation, Herukhuti explained to me, is disturbingly close to the racist, Jim Crow-era “one-drop rule,” which designated anyone with the slightest bit of African ancestry as black for legal purposes.

“For a male to have had any kind of same-sex sexual experience, they are automatically designated as gay, based on that one-drop rule,” Herukhuti said. “And that taints them.”

So, guys who occasionally have sex with guys feel that they have two choices. They are either "100% straight" despite behaviour to the contrary, or they risk being labelled as gay. Even Dan did it: "A straight guy can have sex with another man and still be a straight guy—even a 100% straight guy. Why? Because kissing/blowing/fucking a dude isn't gonna turn a straight guy into a gay guy. So if the guy wasn't gay before kissing/blowing/fucking a dude, he's not going to be after." Dan only mentions bisexuality -- the obvious answer -- at the tail end of the fourth paragraph. I'm not faulting Dan; he's merely reflecting the attitude prevalent in society that anything less than 100% straight equals gay.

I wonder if we started answering "Bullshit, dude, you're bi" instead of "Bullshit, dude, you're gay," we'd get fewer men falsely claiming to be 100% straight? Just a thought.
To me, Dan's answer is fair-minded but overcomplicated. A cock-sucking straight guy is usually a self-hating homophobe.
@24 But in some sense, that DOES apply to words like "trans." If I claim to be a transwoman but have never, ever attempted to live as a woman or given any indication that I would want to, is that not bullshit? Aren't the words "I am a transwoman" indeed contrasting with reality in this case (and making life harder for actual trans people, I might add), and don't you have the right to call me on my nonsense without being labeled transphobic yourself?

(Golly, this spellchecker sure hates any word that has the trans prefix....)
Soulcrusader @10: I'm wondering why you don't (or whether you do) seek to date trans women with penises. You like female bodies, you like cock, surely non-op trans women offer you the best of both worlds?

I also understand "on the down low" to essentially mean "closeted."

Lava @20: I'm glad to see your theory has been vindicated. I have met many women who are attracted to women's appearances, to their breasts, who like kissing them, but don't want to go near a vagina. Much to my disappointment.

Sportlandia @29: I have spoken at length about how difficult it is to get women to have sex with one, compared to how difficult it is to get men to have sex with one. I'm not surprised that some lesbians would be so desperate for any kind of sex that they'd settle for a man. In her mind, you were probably the equivalent of a vibrator with a tongue.

Traffic @33: I think this should be the definitive conclusion on the matter.
... To follow on from my note to Sportlandia @37, it now makes sense why some "100% straight" guys would have sex with guys but still consider themselves exclusively hetero. Other dudes are cheaper than female sex workers.
BDF @38 Good call. I have (occasionally) sex with trans women sex workers. Not interested in sex with men. But I've been thinking about "glory holes" as a possible cheap way to satisfy the occasional "cock urge". That way I could ignore the man attached to the cock.
Remember the old days when all the Tumblr kids would insist that you were whatever you said you were, and that everybody else had to respect that OR ELSE?…

And then along came Rachel Dolezal.
RE @39: This is actually an interesting concept to me as a bisexual. I'm aware that sometimes one's choices, when one can't find a partner one is attracted to, are masturbating or having sex with a partner one is not attracted to. Most people choose masturbating. But sometimes, masturbating just isn't enough and one settles for a partner one is not attracted to, just to experience another human body and all it can offer that hands and toys cannot.

I would have assumed that "not attracted to men" means "not attracted to men," and that male heterosexuals and lesbians would generally choose masturbation over a partner whose genitalia they were not attracted to. But this appears not to be the case for everyone. Sportlandia's tale is not the first I have heard of lesbians settling for male bodies when female ones aren't an option. And it looks like that's what these "100% straight" men are doing as well.

Which lends credence to Capricornius's redefinition of the Kinsey scale. A Kinsey 1, as he laid it out, would be one of those men who might choose sex with a man over masturbation if no women were available, but this might not be an indicator of any attraction to men, any more than masturbating with a dildo indicates attraction to silicone. A Kinsey 0 would never have same-sex sex no matter how desperate he got. If sexual orientation is defined by attraction rather than experience, a guy who has desperation sex with men he's not attracted to could argue that he's still 100% straight.

However, I would think that any cravings for male genitalia, as opposed to an "any port in a storm" attitude towards them, would impart some percentage of bisexuality. If you like trans women with penises -- as opposed to despite their penises -- but not cis men with penises? Straight with a penis fetish should cover it.
BDF @ 38 - "Other dudes are cheaper than female sex workers"

No matter what excuse you use so as not to question your sexual orientation or have it questioned - and so as not to lose the abundant social privileges that still come with being viewed as heterosexual -, if you desire sexual contact with genitals that pertain to one particular sex, then that is part of your sexual orientation, whether you admit it or not.

We've often discussed bi-erasure in this thread. Well, I can't think of a better example of bi-erasure than supposedly straight guys who enjoy cock but won't admit that it makes them bi, not straight. Those guys are the real culprits.

Always judge people by their acts, not by their words (that also goes for Republicans, religious believers, etc.).
BDF @ 41 - "MOSTLY straight with a penis fetish" should cover it.
BDF & Ricardo -- "penis fetish" is too strong, I have sex with penis-having transwomen too unfrequently for it to be called a "fetish" I'd say. Maybe twice a year? With weekly sex, that's about 4% of the total. And gloryhole-sex with men on the other side hasn't happened yet, and may very wel never happen.

Anyway. I never gave much thought to "how straight" I am. "Straight" (BDF) or "mostly straight" (Ricardo)? That depends on whether "occasional cravings for penis but not being attracted to men" counts as "gay" or not. I believe Dan calls it "straight with a penis fetish", like BDF. On the other hand, maybe a penis is so "male" that (as a man) having the occasional cock craving revokes the 100% straight card. That seems to be Ricardo's point of view.

If I have to give a "straight percentage" to myself I would say that the occasional cock cravings make me 95% straight or something like that.
Rereading BDF @41: "any cravings for male genitalia [...] would impart some percentage of bisexuality."

It seems that we are all in agreement after all.
Ricardo @43: If trans women are women (which they are), and they look like women, and the only difference is that some of them have penises, then I don't think a man who exclusively like cis men and trans women is "mostly" straight. He's all straight. He just also likes penis.

RE @44: "Penis fetish" may be too strong for you, but I was talking about people who are exclusively or at least primarily attracted to trans women who do have them.

RE @45: Yeah, I knew that phrasing would probably come back to bite me. Let me try to rephrase, "cravings for male genitalia on a male or a female body." You mentioned you liked cock and would possibly be willing to visit a glory hole. That means, to me, that you like cock, not that you like woman-cock, and would therefore not be 100% straight.

Personally, I think guys who like trans women should just identify as queer, but it's up to them. I won't argue that anyone who is never attracted to any masculine-presenting individual isn't straight.
RE @44: "occasional cravings for penis but not being attracted to men" counts as "gay" or not."

Speaking of bi erasure.
Ricardo @44: I do wish more of the guys who do have sex with men would identify as, at minimum, heteroflexible. That seems the best label, if one is to insist on one. For these guys to claim straightness basically says "I regularly have sex with people I'm not attracted to," which is a hell of an orientation!
BDF @47 I meant something like:

Occasional cravings for penis = "gay"; not being attracted to men = "straight"; combination of these two traits = "bi".

Sorry if it came across as "bi erasure".
R.E. @ 44 - "I would say that the occasional cock cravings make me 95% straight or something like that"

Or just a tiny bit bisexual.

BDF @ 46 - "He's all straight. He just also likes penis"

Personally, I see a rather sizeable contradiction there. The few men I"ve met who were into pre-op trans women (or crossdressers, for that matter) actually craved dick, but didn't want to be seen obtaining it from a man (which brings me back to my comment on the privileges of heterosexuality @ 42). The few pre-op trans sex workers I've had the chance to discuss this with (all three of them, admittedly a small sample) confirmed my conclusions: their clients are generally married man (with women) and mostly bottoms. Forgive me, but I call those "closet bisexuals"...

@ 48 - Although I otherwise agree with your post, the only men I've heard refer to themselves as "heteroflexible" behaved just like the "100% straight" guys I described @ 3. Forgive me, but I call those "closet bisexuals"... and "assholes", too.
RE @49: Exclusive cravings for penis = gay. Occasional cravings for penis = bi. Hope you now see how you were engaging in bi erasure?

It's a tricky tightrope here. Saying that if you like penis, but only when it's attached to a woman, makes you not straight, is saying that trans women aren't women, which is transphobic. But saying that you can't like any penis and claim to be straight is biphobic. Catch-22!
Sorry Ricardo, I mis-typed @46. My first paragraph should read:
"If trans women are women (which they are), and they look like women, and the only difference is that some of them have penises, then I don't think a man who exclusively likes cis women and trans women is "mostly" straight. He's all straight. He just also likes penis."

I guess for me the difference would be between liking penis and tolerating penis. As an example, I don't like big boobs. But if I met a girl I really liked who had big boobs, I might find her attractive in spite of one feature I didn't like. If that feature was a non-preferred set of genitals, then the person can possibly keep their straight card. If the genitals themselves are a turn-on, I'd go with heteroflexible or "a little bit bi."
Ricardo: I appreciate your point that a label is not just a label, that how someone identifies has a large bearing on their behaviour towards others. That's important and I do thank you for sharing your experience.

Your trans sex workers' experience doesn't prove me wrong, though. These men were seeking cock -- but they were seeking cock from people who looked like women. If they just wanted cock, they could see male sex workers, or get free cock from Grindr. But they paid trans women sex workers, why? Possibly because they're not attracted to men at all, despite wanting dick. Straight-with-a-penis-fetish is a possibility here.
BDF @ 52 - I interpreted it that way, anyway, and that's the interpretation I was responding to.

I'd go with "a little bit/somewhat/almost totally/totally" bi, depending on the intensity of one's attraction to the genitals and/or other sexualized bits of the non-preferred gender. (Remember that there are some totally gay people who are just tops or just bottoms, so you don't have to like every part of a man to be totally into men.)

The thing is, as I've stated above, I'm 100% gay. On a strictly sexual basis, for me, women may be beautiful to look at, but so are cats, sunsets on the coast, art deco buildings and Jaguar E types, and I have no desire to have sex with any of those. When I see a vagina, I see... a piece of the female anatomy, nothing more; it's not sexual to me in any way. Neither are breasts. Or feminine curves. Let me be clear: I'm not disgusted by the female anatomy. I've slept next to a couple of naked women. I go to nude beaches, and not exclusively gay ones. I've watched tons of straight porn because the guys are hotter as far as I'm concerned... but I always thought the women in them were a distraction. The female form merely fails to resonate with me on a purely sexual/hormonal/visceral level.

That failure to find anything sexual in bodies of one of the genders is what I consider being 100% of something. It goes beyond "liking" or "tolerating", the distinction you make. I could never imagine myself having sex with a woman because there are no men around; nothing about it would be right.

So to me, if you're able to even tolerate what you're not really into, you're a tiny bit bi.
@9 It's a reclaimed native american (which tribes?) term that's supposed to represent a second gender for females (i guess technically there are male two-spirits, but i've never observed any discussion about them) that incorporates many traditionally "masculine" elements, such as being a member of hunting parties and such. It's the equivalent of a "Bad Bitch". I assume it's caught favor now because identities in the tumblrsphere are so commoditized that if too many people share your boring old "queer" identity, it gets played out. So you gotta stay one step ahead.

@10 Being on the DL is different - those guys are LYING about their orientation when pressed; they're real orientation, were they in a position to be open about it, is something other than 100% straight. Completely different.
@20 the "Down Low" is a specific term within the black community, but that word's been fully assimilated by now.
As far as my relationship to my eroticized penis... I suspect that's something only someone without a penis could possibly think :) I mean, yeah, you see it, but I've still never seen another man's erect penis with my own eyes (discounting walking in on parents/roommates having sex for a combined 1.2 seconds). I can't imagine being comfortable with it. I know guys who do, if it works for you, good on you. But I don't think it plays any meaningful part in guys who engage in homosexual sex who still identify as fully straight. It should be noted, that (anecdotally) in Latin American culture, only the bottom is considered gay; the top is not necessarily gay. And then there's "trade", straight guys who let gay guys blow them, and they generally identify as straight.


Generally speaking, I don't believe in "1 Drop" theory. I'm mixed. You get people telling you, "oh, yeah you're mixed but African blood is stronger", so, I become blacker in their eyes, even though amazingly my DNA doesn't change a bit. This feels similar. One drop of another man's jizz doesn't make you not straight. If he says he's straight, just let him be straight. It's not like he has to walk down the street with a straight badge on so people know he's straight, his orientation exists, literally, only in his own mind; it's not a social construct that depends on a shared reality between individuals.
@37 you know, you've been one my favorite commenters over the past 6 months or so, but these personal digs aren't very pleasant. But I guess it's nice you've come to agree that self-identity isn't sacrosanct.
BDF @ 53 - Thanks for getting that point. It really is important.

"These men were seeking cock -- but they were seeking cock from people who looked like women"

I would describe them as bi guys with a femininity fetish, then.

"If they just wanted cock, they could see male sex workers, or get free cock from Grindr."

No, because then they'd have to admit to themselves that they actually like men. A lot of men go to great length to maintain plausible deniability, and not only for others - they've internalized homophobia to such an extent that their whole self-image would crumble if they were to accept, even if no one else ever knew, that they actually like men.
Sportlandia @ 55 - "It should be noted, that (anecdotally) in Latin American culture, only the bottom is considered gay; the top is not necessarily gay"

That's changing, and very fast, at least in urban areas. When guys come up with that line nowadays, they mostly get laughed at.
@55, Sportlandia. Hi Hum. What a predicable response. Yes, I don't have a penic, but I do have a brain .
I wondered why cis men got into such rage about homosexual men. Rage which leads to murder. Women don't get all crazy about lesbians, their existence doesn't threaten straight women in any way. Not enough we go round bashing them up or killing them. Maybe some bogan mouthing off.
Then it occurred to me that men see their erect cock repeatedly, when they are in an erotic state, that image is all caught up in their visuals around sex, along with the aroused female parts.
To be cont. friend needs help
A bit late to the party, but
Firstly, bi guy here, and this discussion about penises is weird. You know there are more attractive parts of men that are not penises, right?
I know some straight-identified guys who are really into, let's call it, mutual muscle worship.

@1 "Why do you care how they identify?"
Because identities and labels (contrary to what happens now, i know), exist not to be a political point, but to make things easier. Mostly easier for other people to interact with you.
For example, imagine if before any interaction you had to specifically ask every person on tinder about the set of genitals they possess, and a set of genitals they prefer and check whether it corresponds with the current setup. Instead of checking boxes next to "i am a A" and "show me B".
After all, despite all the modern social issues, this is what happens in absolute majority of cases, and apps exist for this sole purpose - facilitate these initial questions in form of filters, so you don't have to sift though people you aren't potentially interested in. I mean, it's more then a half if you are a straight person, and much more if you are not.

(And yeah, i know, trans* people - I'm not being transphobic, but trans* people are one in a thousand and these rare cases can be handled by writing a couple of lines in their bio, and in my experience this is exactly what they tend to do)

How is this relevant to the situation from the letter - i am openly bi and a part of a swinger couple and this shit is frustrating. Guys (and couples with guys) who identify as "100% hetero" ask us out, and every time we have to ask the same question with wildly different outcomes. Some hetero guys desire to be dressed in lingerie and fucked in the ass by a guy with a girl nearby. Some go on a homophobic rants about how they only want to fuck my wife, none of that faggot shit. And an endless list of variations between those two extremes.
Would it not be better to have some words for that, so not to waste everyone's time?
@59. Jesus. That's what happens when you don't read before posting.
*Ho Hum * penis
Then Sportlandia, the thought occurred to me that the rage some men get into about other men being homosexual is because unconsciously they are aroused by erect cock, that their erotic entanglement visually with their own erect cock, gets them all flustered and crazy when they think of other men fucking each other. Because on some level it arouses them.
Males often joke about sucking cock, straight males, like my sons and their friends. Women never do that.
Not suggesting all males want to suck cock, just that the erect cock is visually part of the male's experience of sex, unlike the aroused vulva with a woman.
I was trying to understand some straight identifying males rage about gay men. I don't see it's all about defending the patriarchy's view of masculinity. This rage seems far more personal.
You've got a cock, Sportlandia. What's your take on why some straight identifying males hate and rage on homosexual men, even murder them because they love and have sex with other men.
@58, yeah, I learned that maybe 15 or 20 years ago no (those ancient years around 9/11). Any particular reason for the shift?

@59 I didn't say it's a crazy one, but one that would be dispelled quickly by having a penis. My relationship with my dick probably isn't too different than your own with your breasts. Do you think your bi-tendancies and appreciation of other women's breasts come about because you play with your nipples during sex/masturbation? I think most kids develop their fetishes/preferences/fantasies before they even start masturbating; I know I fantasized about sex before I'd ever masturbated [I didn't start until I was 14, a bit later than most]; most of the things I found intriguing then that were outside of vanilladom are things I'm still into now. Nothing changed when I started spending a lot more time looking at dick.
I'm talking unconscious energies, Sportlandia.
The breasts are secondary sexual characteristics, you're changing the goalposts. And you didn't answer my question. Why is there such rage towards gay men?
It's either the strict adherence to the patriarchal definition of masculinity to the point of violence or it's something much more personal to the individual man. How many scandals do we read about where a priest/ pastor etc, speaks out against homosexuality and are caught going with rent boys? Too many clues point to some very complex erotic triggers.
@61 honestly man, I'm not sure. I guess it's the outside/non-conformity/non-assimilation threat. It's probably right that the most ardent gay-bashers out there are themselves not comfortable with their own sexuality, and anger is a pretty common coping mechanism among humans. If your right eye offends thee, cut it out; if that twink at the bar stirs up your own inner turmoil... well there you go. I mean I guess if you view someone as a threat to your social standing in a community, it doesn't take much imagination as to why you'd do whatever necessary to get rid of them. I suppose it's easy as a straight man to imagine gay men as completely sexually liberated, in that they can have sex without being ashamed of their desire or have to cloak their desire in chivalry and personal interest and a heartfelt connection, like you need to do with women; I may have imagined that at points in my youth. From there, the idea that a gay man might come on to you, to force himself on you, isn't that extreme - it's how women think about straight men, for example. And then, of course, how are you going to deny that you didn't want it, that you weren't in on the act? Better just remove those gay folks unless I get associated with them and ostracized. It's a story that's been repeated in our culture for 1500 years, I don't quite understand why folks find it so foreign. I guess that's a different defense mechanism at work, the "I don't see color" of the twenty-teens.

As for women... they have their own ways of arranging and enforcing the social hierarchy that uses social 'violence' I suppose. But then again, women generally aren't pursuers in sexual relationships ("lesbian sheep syndrome") so a woman would have less to fear that they might accidentally become "tainted" by another woman's gayness. Although interestingly we allow girls and women much more intimate but non-sexual relationships with each other than men have with even their own partners, but it's not seen as a threat. I dunno. Maybe insertive sex is hard wired into our brains.
yasunori @60
You know there are more attractive parts of men that are not penises, right?

Yes, but (to me) only attractive in the way that Ricardo finds women (or cats, sunsets, etc.) attractive. So, not sexually attractive.
Just because gay bashing has gone on for ever doesn't mean modern secular intelligent people should just say, well that's it. If fear of being overpowered was a big concern, then straight men would just be careful around gay men like woman are careful around straight men, they wouldn't need to go to parks where gay men hang out with each other and bash or kill them.
Or throw them off buildings or cliffs.
Yes, our culture is much more accepting of close female relationships. They often sleep in the same bed evan as young adults, no one worries or thinks they are lesbian, just close female friends.

I pursued men, I'm sure a lot of women pursue men and are pursued or they pursue equally. Tainted by another woman's gayness, how does that work? I've got two really close gfs, tell them everything type women. One is a lesbian and the idea I would feel tainted by association is laughable. It's not an issue.

Yasunori @60: "You know there are more attractive parts of men that are not penises, right?"

Yes, and if you are attracted to those parts, you cannot claim to be a straight guy.

I personally agree -- that's why I'm flummoxed by dick pics. If your dick is the most attractive part of your body, you must be one ugly mofo.

Such a grey area between Kinsey 0 and Kinsey 1. Being bisexual is so much simpler ;)
@BDF, I'm a boring cis het ladyperson who has never dated/fucked a trans man (lack of opportunity, due to where I live) but if a nice trans man who checked the other boxes came along, I'd gleefully go on a date and/or hop in bed with him without a second thought.

But...there's a thing. He would have to have started hormone therapy, because it's the way dudes post-puberty smell that flips the switch for me. Trans women who have not started hormone therapy will flip that switch too. So have male-identified genderqueer people.

Would I ever describe myself as queer? Not in a million years. I'm a woman who likes men and people whose bodies have a specific sex characteristic that is common to adult male bodies. Just because those people come in a rwide variety of physical configurations--and that includes height, weight, eye colour, and so on, in addition to their genitalia--doesn't mean I'm not for all intents and purposes straight.

Along those lines, yes, I can totally see someone enjoying cock and wanting to play with cock because they like cock, not because they are necessarily interested in the human attached to said cock. And because they are not interested in dudes, only in cock, they round up to straight or truncate a few significant figures to bi.
Sportlandia, @64, re "I suppose it's easy as a straight man..."' you lie to women then, about feeling connected to them? " gay men are totally sexually liberated" because they don't have to cloak their desire, in pretend stuff, like you do with women.
To finish the thought. That's not cool Sportlandia and your assumptions , in my experience, are false. I fucked men based on desire, often, in my twenties. By late twenties, early thirties, yes, the needs shifted a bit. I was ready for a mate.
Women don't need to be lied to , to get into their pants. And that's a very adolescent attitude, not really fitting for a man your age. There are lots of women out there into acting on desire without complications, why do you pick women who want more? So you can lie to them, perhaps. It's such a deep assumption that you have to, or as shown in the weekly thread you have an aversion to slutty women, and you don't want to be with women who , like you, are cool to act on pure desire, no expectation. Like the gay men do.
You judge and reject the women who follow desire so the women left are the ones who wish for connection and you don't really feel that for them, because desire, so you lie. Bit of contradiction going on there. You see that?
Stop lying to women about how you feel. Be straight with them, they are not children. And if they are looking for a mate, you are wasting their time with your deception.
BDF @67
Such a grey area between Kinsey 0 and Kinsey 1. Being bisexual is so much simpler ;)

Being asexual would be even simpler. Not to mention less stressful and cheaper. I often wish I was asexual.
>Being asexual would be even simpler.

No it would not. Being something that is not what 90+% of others do is never "simpler". Unless you are also antisocial, i guess.
I mean, look at vegans. Despite what they say, it's harder and more expensive to be a vegan in a modern society, especially if you're not living in a large metropolis. And choice of partners is much smaller. Same for, say, atheists.

>Yes, and if you are attracted to those parts, you cannot claim to be a straight guy.

I'd say that if you are attracted to dicks, you can not as well. After some time this semantic acrobatics became kind of insulting to me, to be honest. Seeing all this effort and denial and even support of social justice people who theorize about how sucking a trans-man's dick is a super-straight thing and call people transphobes... all that just to not identify as bi, because that is somehow "bad". Weird.
Yasunori @72: I completely get your (and Ricardo's) point of view. It would be a lot better for everyone if the Kinsey 1's of the world just accepted that they are not completely straight according to the dictionary definition, and embraced it, rather than making a bunch of rationalisations of varying dubiousness. If you like (as opposed to tolerate) trans women, just call yourself queer.

Funny how we have opposite problems. Guys get men who want to have sex with them but won't admit they're bi, and women get girls who claim to be bi yet won't have sex with women.
@42. Ricardo. I feel there's still a deal of insidious homophobia in society, and as such merit for any gay or bi man (by actions or inclination) to walk the walk. I'd take this as a sort of responsibility towards other gays. As you say, the men-loving (hating? Fucking, at least) men who make that aspect of their sexuality no part of their public persona can be pathologically repressed and dangerously irrational or entitled in their behavior.
@66. LavaGirl. I would guess the psychic mechanism of gay-bashing is that the homophobic violence is a violent repression and repudiation of men's sense of their worthlessness ... their sense that their identity is abjected, rubbish. This sense of disavowed worthlessness doesn't have to be sexual in character, though it can become so. It’s more the sense of being left behind, being on the scrapheap, not being respected, of those in low-status jobs in run-down areas.
y @72
Being asexual would be even simpler.

No it would not. Being something that is not what 90+% of others do is never "simpler". Unless you are also antisocial, i guess.

Lol. Believe me, in my case nobody would know the difference. Maybe that means that I'm antisocial.
@75. Harriet. Gay bashing runs right thru the culture(s), not just the working class. Many cultures react to it and punishes male homosexuality. Not female homosexuality, not in the same way. Why is that. Fragile male egos, lost male identity can't be the whole reason. And if lesbians don't cop the same level of rage it's not strict homophobia, rather homophobia in relation to men.

Sporty @56: If you don't like digs, then please refrain from digging at me, like you did late in last week's thread. That's only fair, right?
I wished to impart the double meaning that lesbians would desperate to sleep with men generally, not just you.
*would be desperate.
@ 73
>Guys get men who want to have sex with them but won't admit they're bi, and women get girls who claim to be bi yet won't have sex with women.

I know, right.
I guess it has something to do with how "i might have been experimenting with a partner of my gender sometime in the past" is viewed as an asset for girls and a red flag for guys. Oh well.
I'm late to the party this week, but it's a very interesting discussion. As a mostly-straight androgyne with all the sexual ambiguity that implies, I have enjoyed reading through this thread. Like Lava, I have always wondered why M-M sex is so much more taboo than F-F. It seems to be viewed by homophobes as potentially contagious, capable of spreading through society like wildfire if not actively suppressed. I don't have any theories for it, but it does seem to be cross-cultural. The obvious exception is Native American tribes, which have always accepted LGBTQ individuals as just one more aspect of the natural variation among humans - hence the non-native assimilation of the term "Two-Spirit" by some parties in the LGBTQ community in recent years.

BDF @41 yes, Ricardo would be what I define as Kinsey 6 (no interest in sex with women, ever, and would not ever consider experimenting, not even once in his life to see what it was like), and I agree with you that "100 percent straight dudes who like cock" are at least Kinsey 1. But speaking of self-identity, I have to repeat my request that you respect my choice of indeterminate pronouns, i.e., "they" rather than "he." I've let it go once or twice when I didn't have anything else to say, but it is just as important to me as fighting bi erasure is to you.
My main feeling about all of this is that maybe three sentences into that argument I'd be going "Yeah, OK, whatever" and changing the subject.

This seems to me to be something that might matter a great deal, as has been said above, when applied to a specific man, but that it's akin to debating the number of angels who can dance on the head of a pin, when applied in the abstract. It's the kind of argument that ends up with people's head being stuck up their own asses.

And what exact orientation would THAT be?
@77 "Why is that. Fragile male egos, lost male identity can't be the whole reason"

It's because what women do isn't seen as really mattering, it's only women after all.
@ 62 - The globalization of gay identity (as opposed to the former male (top) vs. female (bottom) distinction that used to apply) through the Internet. Also: with experience (most of my friends are 40 +, and sluts like me), you get to understand that when a guy tries to sell you this "I'm not really like this" BS, he's just pathetically refusing to admit what he truly is and want. In other words, not much of a man, even if he claims to be one.
Harriet @ 74 - I'm glad to see someone else's experience reflects mine.

Lava @ 66 - "Just because gay bashing has gone on for ever doesn't mean modern secular intelligent people should just say, well that's it."

No, but an explanation is not an excuse. I generally agree with Sportlandia's take; it explains the phenomenon, and it's true that we shouldn't be surprised by it. That doesn't mean we should stop fighting it - and understanding where it comes from is the first useful step for that.

There are plenty of interesting points being raised that I'd like to address, but I've got too much work to do. I'll keep on reading, though.
I always find it strange that the people who seem most concerned about labels are also the people who seem dead-set on making sure that the labels become ideographs with no stable denotation.
@1: Because language functions on the principle of mutual intelligibility, which we no longer have if words can mean whatever people want them to mean in any given context. Language and even identity itself are functions of mutual social systems, not personal preference; this is why power gets attached to language/identity category in the first place (if they weren't matters of social importance and truly were only a matter of personal preference/feeling, then they would have no implications with respect to social power relationships, and would cease to matter), but a lot of people mistake the sign (the particular label) for the signified (membership in a particular social category), often by essentializing the sign.
OK - verrrrry late to the party but wanted to chime in. I'm a guy who is attracted to other guys sexually, emotionally & physically - but I've got really no interest in dick. I like pretty much everything about sex with other men, and plenty of other parts of men's bodies turn me on; but dicks - no. They don't arouse me visually or conceptually, and there are plenty of other parts of a guy's body that I want to lick/suck/fondle/play with, but it ain't the penis.

Now I know this about myself, and know that I'm way off on one end of this particular bell curve so I do make sure I give the other guy's dick plenty of attention - because I want him to have a fun, pleasurable time, but I really get nothing erotic out of it. I do get erotic pleasure out of his enjoyment of what I may be doing, but that is different. I know that I'm in a minority, most of they guys I've had sex with say they really love to suck cock - so people are really all over the map.

And Lava - I think, from just reading through the whole thread, that Sportlandia did say his "lying to women" phase was when he was younger, not currently. But as someone who came around to finally admitting to myself that I preferred men over women sexually rather (pathetically) late in life; I can say from my statistically insignificant sample of one, it is much much easier to get a guy to have sex with you than a gal, IMHO, YMMV, etcetera.

JH @86-87 - Any chance you could provide us with the Reader's Digest Condensed version of your thoughts, for those of us without a Ph.D. in Sociology or whatever arcane discipline you are clearly immersed in? I'm a native English speaker and I gave it my best shot, but I still have no clue what you mean about "the sign for the signified" and only a vague idea of your overall meaning.
I'm with you Capri @89, I got lost.
@88. MC5, then I'm sorry to Sportlandia if I read his comment wrong. Just not sure I did.
@77. LavaGirl. You're right that gay-bashing and homophobia against gay/bi men are different things. And some gay-bashers, like some British football hooligans, are well-off, apparently solid citizens indulging a 'Hyde' side to their personality. What motivates these men? There's the temptation to offer a completely non-sociological i.e. a psychological motivation and say something like 'gay self-hatred', 'trauma', 'repression'. I don't know whether this is right.

If these people are gay-bashers, acting suddenly and violently, strangers to themselves, I don't think they can get away with being overt homophobes in their professional contexts. (They could be private homophobes, and indeed hate gay people and resent the tolerance shown to us). But if we're talking where the cultures of homophobia are, when you can say something demeaning of gays and have all your friends slap you on the back and chortle and say 'too right', I think we are talking the working class. I would think that these people are expressing the aggressive neglect that has been visited on them; that at a certain level they know they're 'no good', losers or unfortunate, and are scapegoating gays as a defense mechanism.
@83. Agony. Why doesn't lesbianism arouse the same visceral hatred in homophobes as male homosexuality? The homophobes would be departing from a norm of chivalry in expressing violent intentions towards a woman. Chivalry is what secures male privilege--it's the man who's chivalrous towards a woman, not the woman who's chivalrous towards a man. And these guys are fragile and are very big on not sacrificing a jot of privilege.

There will be more to it, but that's what I roughly think.
89-90. The idea is that a word like e.g. 'straight' has to mean 'is attracted to / fucks people of the opposite gender' or it ceases to mean anything. It can mean anything the user wants, or attach to features of his (or her) situation, or way of acting, that are utterly particular ('ideographic' here means 'pertaining to unique features').

Then it's claimed that the people who most care about sexual labels (perhaps John Horstman is thinking of the more arcane labels like e.g. 'homoromantic'--well, arcane to some...) define those labels in ways that make them nearly specific to themselves. This has the effect of separating these people's self-proclaimed sexual identity (e.g. 'I am homoromantic') from their practical membership of a social group. It's easy to see how this is pertinent to the discussion of these supposed straight men who cock-ride (allegedly) round the Bay Area. What they say they are and what they do appear to be at odds.

Finally, John Horstman says that one's sexual identity (as straight, gay, asexual etc.) is not just a matter of private self-definition but of relative privilege and power. A gay person in most contexts, or a straight cis dude in very few, will be treated less favourably than someone with that setting's normative sexual-gender identity (or one of these identities). This, for John Horstman, makes people e.g. saying they're straight when they act gay even more of an imposture and self-deception.
@92, Harriet. Thanks, I got the point better in this post. Yes, scapegoating gays and Blacks and Muslims, women in the mix as well. Never the idiot representative they voted in, who does nothing to improve their lives, in truth the opposite.
Each group ( gays, Blacks,etc) satisfying a different aspect of their rage.
Homosexuality has been around since heterosexuality and asexuality. And like prostitution, in existence for as long, making it wrong or illegal denies reality. Consensual human
adult sexual behaviour, private business.
Harriet @94, thank you for the translation!
Capricornius @81: Please accept my apologies for misgendering you. Do give me additional slap-downs if I should forget in future.

MC5 @88: "I can say from my statistically insignificant sample of one, it is much much easier to get a guy to have sex with you than a gal". You are 100% correct. And this is why I've been convinced to possibly give a bit of leeway to horny guys whose efforts to find a woman to sleep with come up with zilch, so they turn to down-low sex with guys. It's a boat I've found myself in many times, and had limited success in explaining to this forum that it isn't evidence of a "preference" for men. It's a preference for whoever will put out. ;)

Harriet @93: "Why doesn't lesbianism arouse the same visceral hatred in homophobes as male homosexuality?" There seems to be a belief among many that unless it involves a penis, it is not "real" sex. Witness those men who attempt to "cure" lesbians by raping them.
@ 89-90 - To add to Harriet's explanation...

Sign : a word (for example)
Signified : the concept that is designated by that word.…
@66 "lots" of women don't pursue men. A very small minority do. The percent of women who are regularly pursuers is probably below 5%, in my experience. Even my current partner can't bring herself to say what she wants in bed, she asks me to run through a list of things which she can nod her head yes or shake her head no; I'd say in my experience that's more forward than most. I've only had maybe 2 or 3 partners will to say "I Like X" in bed, and I make plenty of space for them to lay anything they want on the table.

Anywho, "Lying" isn't the correct word. I'm not sure where that came in, I assume from the idea that one needs to put in work with a woman; all I really meant is that it's not like a bathhouse where you can simply nod at someone and start having sex. You've gotta do some wooing/seducing/courting/whatever. It can take a half hour, a few dates, months, depending. I don't consider this lying, unless you consider job interviews a form of lying, or the amount of cleaning you do before guests come over to be lying. It's simply highlighting the real parts of you that someone else wants to see.
@93: Cock-obsession, conservatives don't believe a woman can truly live without a man, and that "the right dick"/rape would cause them to become straight.