Would you ever experiment with your sexuality?

[Murky]

Not gay, so HELL NO!

 

[Cutlass]

I've had the opportunity. Not interested. Pass.

 

[Narz]

Religion teaches shame, not nature. They may be shameful, but I will not.

Seems like all cultures have some form of shame regarding certain expressions of sexuality so the emotion itself must be innate.

 

[Disgustipated]

I can't believe this thread is still open.

I once had a gay dream. Though it wasn't a good dream, more of a nightmare. I dreamed I was being beaten and raped. but the rape wasn't anal, the guy was giving me oral. Yet it was still rape. Really strange dream. Later in the dream the guy was replaced by a girl. I'm not sure what that means. I've always been of the opinion dream don't mean anything.

I have touched a guys's you know what as a kid as I mentioned earlier. I'm not sure what kind of experimentation is "normal". I was only 10. Even back then before I even hit puberty, I knew I liked naked women. I looked at every playboy I could get my hands on. Playing with that "thing" wasn't a horrible experience, just not something I liked.

edit: I want to mention one additional thing straight couples can do gay men cannot. It's kind of tough to do here without getting too graphic. But it involves a woman's mammary glands. I love these glands very much, and sometimes it's nice to put certain things in between them with some lube and squeeze them together. But even sucking on them is quite nice. Beat that gay men!

 

[downtown]

I'm not a hater, but not a cheerleader either.

I sometimes find it awkward to be the receptive participant. I've got some friends that feel the same way. It's the disjointed reciprocity. Sure, it'll be your turn before after or in between, but I don't want to take my turn without you. Sometimes it works, but not always.

I know exactly what you mean. I can't go into detail obviously, (and I hope we can continue to use enough restraint to keep this thread open), but there are ways to fix that problem.

 

[Cheetah]

You mean to tell me you've never known or heard of a person realizing they were gay?

Actually, I have.

I still find it strange though, for from my perspective, there is no way in the multiverses that I could ever want to have sex with men. I'm hardwired to be heterosexual, and I can't fathom how anyone does not know what they are interested in.

Have to put it up to suppression of desires, or brainwashing by regular culture or something I suppose?

And transsexualism sounds weird to me, but that's how some folks are.

That's simply a different level/mix of hormones and such that make the mind opposite of what the body was supposed to be, isn't it?

As such, it is simply a disease where the most effective cure is probably to change the body.

Thinking of the mind and sexuality as existing on a scale and not distinct points makes it easy to accept that such things can happen.

Well of course if you're her husband you do. Point is most people consider that affair to be very different from if she ran off with another man.

Two things. First, the "leaving men for women" comes after the business with the men, which I thought I implied came after business with women. Second, I'm not so keen on women that have relationships with men calling themselves lesbians, but lesbians having sex with men is not very weird.

Again, from my perspective: I, as a heterosexual, could never have sex - and much less a romantic relationship - with the same sex. If you really like both, then you are closer to the middle of the heterosexual-homosexual scale than strictly heterosexual/homosexual people.

I'm pretty stern on divorce too.

Which probably sounds like it contradicts my stance on lifelong monogamy, but I don't think it does. What proportion of people that live more than a decade or two have only one partner throughout their entire lives? I don't know the number but it's a safe bet that it's even lower than the proportion of people that die married to their first spouse. And both are very, very rare. Most people aren't living up to that "ideal" of lifelong monogamy, I don't see why they should, and I don't think we should expect it.

I think, and I'm ripping this off wholesale but it's damned accurate, that if you do intend to make a marriage work, and to spend the rest of your life sleeping with one person, and in love with one person, you need to accept and even embrace the fact that you're not biologically wired for that, and that being sexually attracted to the milkman is not some sort of failure. Your spouse being sexually attracted to the milkman is not some sort of failure. You're going to want to sleep with other people and you're going to have to live with that. It's stupid to get married because you think you're never going to be interested in any other people ever again.

Should we strive for it? Sure, why not. I think I will some day. I don't begrudge anyone who won't. Is it going to be a fairy tale? Hell no. Is it anybody outside the marriage's place to judge? Also no.

Kinda morphed into a rant there again I guess.

Rants have never been a problem on CFC-OT I think.

I wasn't talking about absolute, biological monogamy, where one stays with the first person one has sex with. My objection is that if you promise someone to stay with them, whether that is through marriage or simply through a promise, that actually means something. I've never promised anyone a lifelong commitment, but I have been in relationships and of course you don't stop being attracted to other people. I was still finding other girls I saw extremely attractive even while I was walking hand-in-hand with my girlfriend. That's not the point. One should stay with ones word.

And don't you dare tell me who or what not to judge! I judge everything and everyone all the time! Judging is necessary, judging is good and judging is right!

It's often dismissed as fence-sitting the same way agnosticism is. Folks allege you have to make a decision but don't accept the decisions of "both" or "neither". (Incidentally, my decisions, respectively.)

I'm confused. You're attracted to both and neither sex?

No, that's not what I said, but I think what you said is probably true too.

Most men are heterosexual. Some men realize at some point in their lives that they're sexually attracted to men to some degree. That's not unusual.

I guess I'll agree. Seeing sexuality on the scale from 100% heterosexual to 100% homosexual, most people are close to the 100% heterosexual, but people can technically be all along the scale (Actually this scale is more multidimensional, but whatever).

Very few homosexual men - including men who lived as though they were heterosexual for a portion of their lives - discover a previously absent sexual attraction to women.

Well of course not, if they're homosexual they have (almost) no interest in the opposite sex.

That's in contrast to some women that identify as lesbians and later choose to sleep with men.

Then I wouldn't call them lesbians. Or at least not 100% lesbian...

I'm not a hater, but not a cheerleader either.

I sometimes find it awkward to be the receptive participant. I've got some friends that feel the same way. It's the disjointed reciprocity. Sure, it'll be your turn before after or in between, but I don't want to take my turn without you. Sometimes it works, but not always.

I know exactly what you mean. I can't go into detail obviously, (and I hope we can continue to use enough restraint to keep this thread open), but there are ways to fix that problem.

It's possible to do stuff to each other at the same time you know. There is even a number for that.

I can't believe this thread is still open.

I once had a gay dream. Though it wasn't a good dream, more of a nightmare. I dreamed I was being beaten and raped. but the rape wasn't anal, the guy was giving me oral. Yet it was still rape. Really strange dream. Later in the dream the guy was replaced by a girl. I'm not sure what that means. I've always been of the opinion dream don't mean anything.

Don't worry. Dreams mean nothing. They never have.

edit: I want to mention one additional thing straight couples can do gay men cannot. It's kind of tough to do here without getting too graphic. But it involves a woman's mammary glands. I love these glands very much, and sometimes it's nice to put certain things in between them with some lube and squeeze them together. But even sucking on them is quite nice. Beat that gay men!

Good point! +1 for heterosexuals!

 

[holy king]

performing fellatio is ok, but i dont enjoy kissing a guy.

 

[Tee Kay]

The only thing I can think of is that when gays have orgies they're attracted to everyone there, not just half the people. Same with threesomes (occasionally).

Spare a thought for poor bisexuals

And several straight people can't talk about sexual things the same way several gay people can.

Well, might be true for outted gays.

 

[Cheetah]

performing fellatio is ok, but i dont enjoy kissing a guy.

Please also include subject and object in your sentences...

 

[holy king]

dont really matter.

 

[Akka]

I pity you straight guys. You really have no idea what you're missing

We're not missing it out.
We're finding it into women.

 

[fishmonger]

Sure. I'll take what I can get.

 

[Luckymoose]

No cause God says its wrong. On a more serious note I would not ever do that. I would accept death before it. Women are better.

 

[Grisu]

Real men make their own rules.

word

 

[classical_hero]

Actually, to the gays who said earlier that we're missing out- what can't a straight couple do that gay can?

Actually we can do more, since there are breasts to kiss and fondle and if you really want, you can still get done by your lady, if you are into that thing, so really they are missing out, since they cannot do all the things we can do to women, since they have an extra hole for us, unlike men, with only one hole.

Religion teaches shame, not nature. They may be shameful, but I will not.

I disagree. The bible does say a lot about sexual pleasure, but only in the context of a marriage. That is really the only thing that people seem to want to look at, is the provision of marriage only sex. The book of Proverbs has plenty of practical advice on the subject of sex.

 

[Disgustipated]

No cause God says its wrong. On a more serious note I would not ever do that. I would accept death before it. Women are better.

death? Isn't that a bit extreme?

 

[Ekolite]

Actually we can do more, since there are breasts to kiss and fondle and if you really want, you can still get done by your lady, if you are into that thing, so really they are missing out, since they cannot do all the things we can do to women, since they have an extra hole for us, unlike men, with only one hole.


I disagree. The bible does say a lot about sexual pleasure, but only in the context of a marriage. That is really the only thing that people seem to want to look at, is the provision of marriage only sex. The book of Proverbs has plenty of practical advice on the subject of sex.

When I said you don't know what you're missing out on, no where did I say we can do more different things then you can. However doing these things with a man is a completely different, and in my opinion, better experience.

However if you want something more quantitative, on average men are better then women at pleasuring men because they know what feels good and have a greater understanding of the male body. Also, men on average tend to be a little more adventurous in sex.

Also, a minor point but I find any kind of nipple play with women too reminiscent of breast feeding to be at all appealing or attractive. With men this is different.

 

[classical_hero]

Well I am saying that you are missing out on things that we can do to women, that cannot be done to me, so you are missing out.

 

[Ekolite]

Well considering I'm bisexual I'd say I'm not really missing out on anything

 

[classical_hero]

Would you do a transsexual?