Savage Love Oct 4, 2017 at 4:00 am

'Bate and Snitch


The gender stereotype ultimate compromise initiative:
Women wearing “silky nighties” pillow fighting while occasionally “exploring each other,” surrounded by naked men for whom “past a certain age the time hanging out would be better spent wanking.”
Lava- serious question for a change: what is "locking lips thru the duck feathers?"
It's a girl on girl fantasy, pillows have duck feathers in them..
A.J. @96: Why did Adam wait four years to tell his fiancée about his presumably not-at-all-gay mutual wank sessions with Steve? Because Adam knows full well that there is a massive social stigma against men doing anything sexual whatsoever with each other, and correctly anticipated that STEVED would query his sexual orientation. Attitudes like Capricornius's are no help; although their "you're not a Kinsey 0 unless you're repulsed by the same sex" stance may be intended to be positive and bi-inclusive, its actual effect is to spur men (far more so than women) to hide past sexual experimentation, as admitting to even an experiment whose result was to prove one doesn't actually like the same sex will get you branded "incidentally homosexual." Nothing wrong with being a little bit bi, but there's also nothing wrong with not being a little bit bi. And if Adam isn't "heteroflexible," why would he want to be labelled inaccurately?

So it makes perfect sense that Adam wouldn't want to risk having his sexuality questioned by making this disclosure to a mere girlfriend, but that disclosure was now necessary as he planned to make her his wife. If she is a homophobe, best to find that out before the wedding.

CMD @99: I am often sarcastic, but there was nothing sarcastic about my analogy. What about it came across that way? "That is news" was bitterness at having missed out on this so-called experience which, unsurprisingly, has featured in my fantasies as well...
Some anecdotal evidence from a guy regarding masturbating with other guys: I was in a boarding school when I hit puberty, and my buddy and I masturbated in the same room together. It was generally with the lights out when we were going to bed, but we were open with each other about it, comparing how long it took us, and what techniques we used. In my case it was just about sharing this exciting new discovery with someone else, combined with limited options due to lack of privacy. I can't say for certain how common this is, but I've certainly had other men tell me casually about jerking off with friends when they were younger.

I'd consider myself a kinsey 0, but it depends on how you define it. If Kinsey rating depends only on who you're sexually aroused by, then I'd say I'm a 0, as I'm not sexually aroused by men. If as some people in this thread seem to think, merely being comfortable being sexual in the presence of another male means you're higher than 0, then I'm probably a 2 or 3, since not only have I masturbated with another guy present, but I've experimented with having sex with a guy just to see if I could get turned on by it. In my case I found I couldn't really get turned on by it, but neither did it gross me out.
I've not commented on the Kinsey rating thing since I don't know enough about it to have an opinion on whether or not it's a valid thing - any quantitative scales that reduce human behaviors to numbers tend to make me suspicious. But I'd say that a willingness to explore your sexual side with someone of the same gender, even if it's just a curiosity and one that leads you to realize you aren't bi at all, must make your sexuality slightly more open than someone who is a 0 right? I often feel a real sense of sisterhood with other women, deep love for a few close friends, a sense of protectiveness for some younger women and girls plus respect/interest in women older than me who have badass lives that I'd like to emulate. I'm often mistaken for a lesbian when people first meet me (though I've been told that goes away the moment I start talking) but I have zero sexual attraction to women, and despite being a fairly horny person who can be open minded about sex, the thought of simply touching another woman's vagina really does disgust me. It's not just that I'm not turned on, but it's actually gross to me. It's weird because I don't think there is anything gross about vaginas in an abstract sense and I'm certainly quite fond of my own, and the existence/presence of other women's vaginas themselves don't disgust me- only the idea of putting my hands or face in them. It's not that I can't be physical- I can hug a woman or put my arm around her in a comradely way or offer her comfort and hang out with her while we change clothes or take care of her while she's sick or share a bed/dressing room /shower with her out of convenience/circumstance, and all this even if she's a lesbian so I don't think it's some insecurity- but the thought of doing something physically sexy with her disgusts me in a deep gut way. It's the exact same feeling as if I were to think about sex with one of my parents or siblings or a child. There's just a no no no no no no no no no response that, if I force myself to consider anyway, feels like revulsion. This is what it's like to be completely totally straight, what I'm guessing is a Kinsey 0, and the flip side is similar too so while I love men and find them beautiful and interesting, I also just think dicks are hot. So while I'm not sexually aroused by overweight or out-of-shape or 60+ men, for example, I have had sex with all of those b/c of either curiosity or circumstance or just plain generosity, and though I didn't really get turned on by it, it didn't gross me out either as the situation was such that it just worked out and made sense in the moment. I would not be able to do the same with a woman.

Emma @106: There seem to be two different things at play here:
1. Sexual attraction
2. Sexual revulsion.

The Kinsey scale measures sexual attraction. This is why I keep saying someone with zero attraction to the same sex -- like MrBAJ @105 -- is a Kinsey 0.

The Kinsey scale was not set up to measure sexual revulsion, yet Capricornius makes it a key factor in his scale. On a scale of revulsion, you're a Kinsey 0 and MrBAJ is a Kinsey 2 or 3.

If there were a scale that included both attraction and revulsion, I'm not sure where I would fall on it. I find far more women than men physically attractive, yet I tend to experience the strongest feelings of sexual attraction to a very small subset of men. I have always chalked this up to knowing the odds that a man will be mutually attracted are astronomically higher, so when I want sex instead of just appreciating beauty as an abstract, I focus my desires on dudes. Unlike yourself, I've been repulsed by partners of both sexes whom I've shagged out of curiosity or desperation or liking them as people (and not realising until the clothes came off that, example, the guy was covered in body hair). So I'm simultaneously more grossed out by (typical) male bodies, and have had far more sexual experiences with (atypical) male people. (No, I wasn't "raped a lot." I just have specific tastes.)

Just musing, as I've never really equated my "repulsed by certain physical characteristics but not others" to the concept of "repulsed by one gender but not the other." Interesting.
I'm like EmmaLiz, the thought of putting my mouth or hand to another women's fanny/ pussy, repulses me. Kissing them or touching their breasts, that would be enjoyable. I'd fail the Kinsey scale I'm sure. Just fail. Or I'd be a zero with a squiggle in it.
like the column very much, but often then not, Dan loses me with his attempt of wit in his responses...(
BDF @107, two things. First, the opposite of attraction is not "meh." It is repulsion...which in human psychosexual terms, is very close to revulsion. That's not my opinion, it's what the dictionary says. Hence the Kinsey scale DOES measure attraction and repulsion/revulsion, and EL @106 actually does show a typical Kinsey-zero attitude toward same-sex experience. Please note, as EL did so well, that a Kinsey-zero has no problem with OTHER people enjoying same-sex adventures; it's just not anything she even cares to experiment with.

Second, even though I apparently exhibit typically male attitudes in your opinion, I am truly not a "he" and I vastly prefer the pronoun "they," as I have repeatedly told you, as politely as I possibly can. Other commenters have been able to do me this small courtesy, and you actively defend the practice for Undead Ayn Rand, so I do hope you will try your best to do the same for me in the future.
Cap @110: I am sorry, yet again, for getting your pronoun wrong! It's not because you "exhibit typically male attitudes," far from it, but because you previously had revealed yourself to be biologically male, and my brain has somehow latched onto that. Mea culpa.

I think we are truly at an unsolvable impasse, but I do hope you've taken my comment @104 on board as to why I so adamantly oppose your view.
@108 I think this is a fairly common. My last GF was a self-proclaimed SLUG but couldn't bring herself to go down on another woman, but fantasizes all the time about breasts. I wonder if that's a biological thing or a western cultural thing?
I'm sure non western cultures have such a Freak Out about breastfeeding, that's my guess.
I'm sensually attracted to women, some men, then I'm sexually attracted to men. That's why this whole numbers routine to try and fit us all into just doesn't compute in my brain's understanding, or not, of modern western sexual/ sensual practices. In my fantasies, the woman's energy is much softer and caressing her breasts, and kissing her, has that double hit, XX meets XX.
Sportlandia @112: I have known straight men who couldn't bring themselves to go down on a woman, either. Guess there are vaginophobes as well as vaginophiles.
@BDF, I agree that it doesn’t make sense to conflate lack of sexual attraction with sexual revulsion; I don’t see any reason those two things have to be bundled together. In fact the attitude that they are necessarily bundled is what caused me confusion about my sexuality when I was younger. I had never felt turned on by men, but I did often feel like being affectionate with men I was friends with, and also didn’t feel repulsed about the idea of having sex with a man. This was at odds with how straight men were supposed to feel according to people I was friends with at the time, so I thought maybe I was just repressing sexual attraction to men because of some internal discomfort with the idea of me being gay or bi. It took being in some sexual situations with gay friends of mine to realize that even when I was totally comfortable with who I was with, and with the idea of me being gay, I just wasn’t turned on by a man.

Since then, I’ve also travelled in southeast Asia, and realized that the discomfort with straight males being affectionate with each other likely has a large cultural component. In Thailand especially, and to a lesser extend India, I found that it was common for straight men to be physically affectionate in similar ways to how straight women often are in the west. For instance it wouldn’t raise eyebrows if a guy on a bus fell asleep with his head on his male friend’s shoulder, and people were more open about acknowledging feeling affection and love for male friends without anyone assuming a sexual connotation. They were also more likely to share details about sexual encounters with each other. I think the “ick” factor associated with straight males being affectionate in the west can translate for many people into feeling repulsed at the idea of sharing any kind of sexual activity with a male, as opposed to merely not being interested.

    Please wait...

    Comments are closed.

    Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

    Add a comment

    By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.