off topic: just a queer thought

Hi atm,
Well, I must say that your wish is a bit selfish. As usual, the majority has plundered the landscape and taken what it desired.

I feel fortunate to have profited from all the advice from my brothers who are gay. I'm able to pursue many of those gems of wisdom directly and blend others into facets of my str-8 activities. Regrettably, I've not been sufficiently experienced in all the ins and outs of the male body and mind to have returned as much as I've received. Thanks for all you contribute and, cheers bro ...rook

It does make you wonder how it came about, what evolutionary value could it possibly have?
And unless someone had a Eureka moment and decided to stick a finger up his ass for an extended period of time, you'd expect homosexual men to be the sole beneficaries of this. So why then exactly does God hate fags?
Perhaps this was God's way to make up for the excruciating loss gay men must feel for missing out on the 'joys' of breeding.
Or perhaps God is a homosexual
(hope I haven't offended too many religious ppl with my statements 😉

hey Rook, your right, my wish is a bit selfish, but I'm quite happy with the fact that my wish wont ever be true, and for helixer, haha I couldnt stop laughing when I read this, God has vagina (clitoris included), a penis, and a prostate, this is why god is perfect and ever so loving, imagine all the that pleasure at once from all three of those organs, maybe that would be not a super O, nor a Hyper-O but the Divine-O. Sorry if I offend any one, please dont listen to me..

mmm, so where can I find this 'God'?, this is the lover I've been looking for all my life 😉

So why then exactly does God hate fags?
Perhaps this was God's way to make up for the excruciating loss gay men must feel for missing out on the 'joys' of breeding.
Or perhaps God is a homosexual

Wow, Helixer, I just have to get in on this one, man. As a philosophic Christian (and by that I mean I love God/Jesus, but hate the church) this is very intriguing.

My first thought to share is (and anyone is welcome to disagree/dialogue/whatever) that God simply IS. Moses had it right in the beginning when he wrote that God's name is I AM. God (no reference to gender...I steadfastly refuse to categorize God as "he" or "father") as a result of just simply BEING, is asexual. If one believes in "intelligent design" of some kind, and one is rather drawn there as both the wonder and complexity of not only the human body but creation in general would lead an intelligent individual to think that it's got to be more than chance that started this whole thing, then sexuality of the human ANIMAL is a foregone conclusion.

But, again, theologically speaking, God has given man a free will. Evidence the way mankind has fucked up this world if you don't believe that! And as such, our will and our sexuality is, by extension, our choice. Some will posit that sexuality is predetermined, i.e. in our genes, or one can allow that at some point attraction to another human, male or female, is also a free will choice. And so, with a huge chuckle, here, assuming the omnipotence of the great I AM, homosexuality is God's huge joke on the unenlightened homophobes (i.e. human authors of holy writ) of history.

So, does God (however one perceives) hate homosexuals? I beg to differ. God, as I understand God, actually loves mankind. It's just that that free will thing keeps popping up and screwing things up. God doesn't care about our sexuality...only man, (speaking of the origins of the Bible and other manifestations of Holy Writ) has "spoken" for God in the matter of homosexuality. Jewish Torah, Talmudic and other writings proscribed homosexuality, initially to make sure that enough offspring were generated, and later as a way of controlling every aspect of an individual's life. This same reasoning was incorporated in Islamic theology and amplified by the Koran. In later years, St. Paul, misogynist, homophobe and Jewish scholar, incorporated all is right wing crap in the writings in the New Testament as well (well OK, played off the Jewish traditions of the new Christian converts).

It's no wonder to me where homophobia and hatred for homosexuality arose. It's been inculcated in our human psyche by religion for millennia.

So, to insinuate that God hates homosexuals is, I believe, to say that God hates mankind. God gave us our wonderful, mysterious and complex bodies for us to enjoy, whether that be alone or with another person, regardless of gender. I thank God (I must as I moan, "Oh God" in the middle of Super O sessions) for the wonder that is my responsive sexuality. I thank God for Aneros, actually, for it has opened my mind to all kinds of wondrous worlds of imagination, understanding and responsiveness to others, both here and in my "real" life.

ATM853 is absolutely right. God has a vagina, penis and prostate.

Cockadoodle

Cockadoodle, Thanks for adding to this, I liked what you said about thanking God for aneros, as I too have no choice but to say oh GOD!!! as my body begins to have some great sensations!! hahaha oh GOD!!! p.s my idea of a holy trinity has changed completely!

Wow, Helixer, I just have to get in on this one, man. As a philosophic Christian (and by that I mean I love God/Jesus, but hate the church) this is very intriguing.

A philosophic Christian isn't that a contradictio in terminis? 🙂 So where does the resurrection fit in? born of a virgin mother and countless other claims that have appeared in countless other myths and cultures over the ages.
But seriously first off: you love Christianity but hate the church? If you said I'm spiritual but I don't believe in any institutionalised religion it would make more sense to me. What do you mean? I thought the church preached what was preached in the Bible which in turn in different gospels recorded many decades after Jesu's supposed death preserved by oral tradition(chinese whispers) and eventually edited and selected by Rome centuries after.
So who's to know what the real Jesus was like. Anyway what do you mean by this?

My first thought to share (and anyone is welcome to disagree/dialogue/whatever) that God simply IS. Moses had it right in the beginning when he wrote that God's name is I AM. God (no reference to gender...I steadfastly refuse to categorize God as "he" or "father") as a result of just simply BEING, is asexual

So where does the 'making in God's image or likeness' come in?
Either way, I think there's no valid argument to make either way if there is or isn't a creator. And if there was it would be something beyond our comprehension. Sure by all means speculate, maybe start your own religion....my God has 20 dicks the size of the Mount Everest and 20 vagina's deeper and wetter than all the oceans on this planet....and titties.....oelala!

.

If one believes in "intelligent design" of some kind, and one is rather drawn there as both the wonder and complexity of not only the human body but creation in general would lead an intelligent individual to think that it's got to be more than chance that started this whole thing, then sexuality of the human ANIMAL is a foregone conclusion.

I don't believe in chance just incomplete information 🙂 But what do you mean by intelligent design? That life hasn't evolved but the Bible story (Adam and Eve etc)?

But, again, theologically speaking, God has given man a free will. Evidence the way mankind has fucked up this world if you don't believe that! And as such, our will and our sexuality is, by extension, our choice. Some will posit that sexuality is predetermined, i.e. in our genes, or one can allow that at some point attraction to another human, male or female, is also a free will choice. And so, with a huge chuckle, here, assuming the omnipotence of the great I AM, homosexuality is God' huge joke on the unenlightened homophobes (i.e. human authors of holy writ) of history.

You don't believe in chance but you do believe in free will? interesting.....explain please.
I'm not sure if it's genes or external influences on development but apparently homosexuals have a different hypothalamus than heterosexuals, more like that of females. So either genes or environment, where does the free will fit in?

So, does God (however one perceives) hate homosexuals. I beg to differ. God, as I understand God, actually loves mankind. It's just that that free will thing keeps popping up and screwing things up. God doesn't care about our sexuality...only man, (speaking of the origins of the Bible and other manifestations of Holy Writ) has "spoken" for God in the matter of homosexuality

True, primitive cultures aren't very openminded on anything that deviates from the norm. So of course when those cultures invent a God they'll have this God sharing their values. But I suppose you're doing the same, how can you ever know God doesn't care about sexuality? He created men that do and men that don't, so how can you know where God stands? I actually prefer the yin yang, instead of God is all good etc.
It's funny. Recently I've been reading this book on China. And just like western cultures have looked down on darker skin so has China. So when China adopted Buddhism they made the Buddha more like them, lighter skin...just like the Western Europeans did with Jesus, making him lighter and more Arian

. Jewish Torah, Talmudic and other writings proscribed homosexuality, initially to make sure that enough offspring were generated, and later as a way of controlling every aspect of an individual's life. This same reasoning was incorporated in Islamic theology and amplified by the Koran. In later years, St. Paul, misogynist, homophobe and Jewish scholar, incorporated all is right wing crap in the writings in the New Testament as well (well OK, played off the Jewish traditions of the new Christian converts).

It's no wonder to me where homophobia and hatred for homosexuality arose. It's been inculcated in our human psyche by religion for millennia

Again, see above. humans invent religion and assign their God with their values. Like it was a coincidence that the Jews are God's chosen people? Of course they are he was their God 😉

Yeah.... there are no special things for us gays. Which does suck... But if you want to feel better about it, 90 percent of straight males will never experience this pleasure because they are too closed minded to the idea.

Thank you cockadoodle. I felt a surge of tears when I read your comments about the nature of God. You have said in a few word all I have felt for many years. I was brought up a Catholic with all the oppressive and highly prejudisted ? attitudes which caused me so much spiritual pain in my youth.
DEUS CARITAS EST God is love. Unconditional totally. God does not concern Himself with where you shove your dick but how and why. Sex is a gift of God and nature. We can use it for pleasure, relaxation, relief, and the expression of love. We can abuse it too. Rape, violence, and downright selfishness.The latter, I leave to the religions to deal with. The former is mine and God's. Tomasheen.

God doesn't care about our sexuality...only man, (speaking of the origins of the Bible and other manifestations of Holy Writ) has "spoken" for God in the matter of homosexuality.

I agree that man has "spoken" for God on many matters, just as you are "speaking" for Him in your post. For what else can man do but project himself on his God(s)?

You say you hate the church, but where did you learn your notions of God? Aren't they simply a synthesis of all you've been taught by "churches" in the broadest sense, meaning preachers, teachers, holy men, theologians, philosophers, fakers, etc., throughout the ages, all the way back to the fanatics that tend to be so common in the early stages of any religion, none of whom KNEW any more about God than the humans who taught them? I'm not sure how anyone can discuss theology with a straight face and not recognize one's intellectual debt to some church or other.

I offer thanks to the legacy of the prophets, framers, writers and translators of the body of theological scripture. Thanks to this thread, I must also thank the dedication of the Sunday School teachers (church) who inculcated me in the verse and meaning of the Commandments, Beatitudes and Psalms. Those words have been the foundation for my sense of ethics and my moral values. I lean on them and taught my children to also lean on them.

I've not obeyed those words, having frequently caused death, destruction and suffering. On the earlier of those occasions, I went to chapel before my acts and prayed for forgiveness afterward. The repetitive pray-kill-pray cycle finally took it's toll and I had to get out of that lockstep.

Other life changing situations caused collisions with the dogma of church. The tendency of organized religions to be exclusionary of other belief systems has been a tough sell as I've aged. I've decided that the "perfection" of any belief system is, by definition too limiting and as a result, I'm left without a church.

If I'm reading Cockadoodle correctly, I fell of the wagon completely but he has managed to resolve many issues and remains a strong Christian.

In the course of my 'journey' I'm again sensing my connection to others and elements of the Universe. This has rekindled my lust for some common faith; but having been skewered by the merchants of organized religion in the past, I'm proceeding with great care. Eastern seems much easier for me now.

I don't regard the Super-O as sexual. It's far more spiritual than anything I've ever experienced. I used to feel OK with "infinity" but now think that it might be "limiting,"

I know many men stand by to tell me that I will "burn in hell" for taking this position; but, they should know up front that they won't be getting my Cherry.

Wow! I'm shocked and amazed by the responses to my addition to this thread. Maybe we should take it to the forum as a topic on it's own...nah...good enough here.

Helixer: I think maybe you said it better than I did, and I AM a spiritual person who does not believe in institutionalized religion. That is perhaps more correct. And of course, my view is certainly influenced by the way I have been raised, schooled and educated, much of my formal education has been within the confines (literally) of religious institutions. But I have absolutely no problem with my Christianity, despite the fact that all I know of Christ has been brought to me through my knowledge of the Bible. I see no contradiction here. I believe that the Bible is a concrete historical record, but unfortunately, it has been tainted by man's prejudices and hatreds, (e.g. Paul's view of women, historical views on homosexuality, racism, etc.) and therefore subject to doubt (for me) as to the nature of God, especially a God who, in the view of especially the OT writers) calls down so much death and destruction on people.

As to who Jesus was, I guess you're correct, it's difficult to really know, isn't it. OTOH, IF what is recorded in the Bible is even remotely accurate, then the picture we have of him suggests to me a man of great compassion, love for all humans, wisdom, patience, and willingness to suffer greatly for those that he loves. I guess that's what I'm going to hold onto and try to pattern my life after. Am I taking what I want and leaving the rest? I guess so, no apology for that. It seems to me that today's "church" is much more interested in how it can control it's members, suck the money out of their wallets and bank accounts, and grow itself, rather than helping people to be followers of Jesus. Read the Beatitudes (Matthew 5: 3-12) and then ask yourself if the modern "church" actually comes close.

Petard, am I speaking for God? Hardly. Isn't it OK to speculate regarding God's nature? I guess I should have started my whole post with an disclaimer: This is all my OPINION. Take it for what it's worth.

Helixer: Free will. Ok, maybe we can agree on the term with the understanding that I simply mean "innate human intelligence" or the ability to choose one's action (or lack thereof) for oneself. OK. Physical characteristics aside (and I don't know that your hypothalamus argument is real or not) I know that some people know they're gay from the start, and others actually choose the lifestyle for themselves. If this is not "free will" as I have defined it, what is? To each his own, eh?

And I'll stick to my guns here, sorry, about God (assuming there is a God) not being concerned about our sexuality. If you subscribe to the notion of a creator God (i.e. intelligent design) it's my firm belief that God got things going, and pretty much left it to run by itself. If God took an active role in today's world (God forbid) why would God allow hurricanes, floods, oil spills, and right wing politicians and faux news? Ok, little humor there, but really, do you think that God cares about such trivialities? If one ascribes anthropomorphic characteristics to God, then yes, God wants us to love each other, not hate. To live in peace not war. To prosper and not fail. To live and not die.

Rook, you're correct. I feel a deep and life long connection to my Christian roots. I really don't want to let that part go. I have no problems with my anti-establishment views, and have no problem with Aneros as an extension of my God-given human body. I, too, have no church, per se, nor do I look for one. My spirituality had grown by leaps and bounds, and my previously held conservative views have been completely altered. I have developed a much broader view, encompassing Eastern religious thought, yoga, and other philosophic alternatives. I have come to realize a whole new level of what constitutes "normal" sexuality. I passionately defend the rights of others to love whom they wish, marry whom they wish, and live as they wish. Aneros (and this community, especially) have had a significant impact on my life, and I never want to go back to the other again.

I never intend my post to be anything but one man's take on why homosexuality is so abused by today's society, church and the "moral majority". The do-gooders, moralists and right wing Christians are hypocrites and liar, for the most part. I'm simply trying to shed some (unwanted) light on the shit they sling, and boost ideas on how to counter it.

Flail away, boys. I love the dialogue.

Cockadoodle

Certainly not definitive but still a fair survey of the literature:

-- Biology and sexual orientation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia --

The religious like to point out that without religion there would be no morals perhaps not even a judicial system. To the fallacy of this let me once again refer to the east. Confucianism is very preoccupied with morals and how a society can be harmonious. In contrast with Christianity and other monotheistic religions it's very much secular and is not enforced like in the west with eternal damnation, burn in hell or whatever but losing face/shame.

Confucius lived around 500 years before this joker that claimed to be the son of God was even born. Furthermore sayings that have been credited to the messiah were long before spoken by Confucius, like Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Many experts have written that Christianity is actually a mixture of Jewish and other eastern traditions, with IMO the emphasis on eastern tradition, after all where's the tollerance in the Jewish tradition?

Anyways....an accurate historical record?....resurrection, born of virgin mother???
Why do these miracles only happen in uncivilised illiterate primitive parts of the world?
Isn't it amazing that people in the civilized world can still believe these fables?
Or maybe not, Adolf Hitler understood the power of brainwashing children from a young age, he actually learnt that from Christianity, once learnt it'll be hard to unlearn later on even with mounting evidence of the contrary.. I guess that's a large part of it....like Creationism and now.....homosexuality is a choise, it's ridiculous!

On a philosophical level we can never know if there really is such a thing as free will, it's just as much a belief as the belief in a God, but on the practical level what we percieve to be free will IMO the only choise a homosexual has is to act it out or not. How can you choose what you're attracted to? I'm attracted to women when looking at it rationally I wish I wasn't, I can't help it.Luckily for me my 'orientation' is socially acceptable.

To me it's a disgrace that deviations from the norm are regarded as sick. IMO the sickness is the result. Besides homosexuals I'd even go as far as saying pedophiles aren't sick. It's not some kind of sick choise it's just their(natural) attraction.
It's also been found that the brains of serial killers/psychopaths are different from normal ppl. Sure not all of them act out or can somehow sublimate...But I really can't see how ppl can say it's their choise to be that way

I'm troubled by your response, Helixer. This community is all about tolerance and allowing everyone his/her own point of view. Your response is offensive, intolerant and mean spirited to those of us who choose a more spiritual/religious viewpoint. Your atheism is your decision. Your hostility toward things religious is visceral, and I certainly can't speak to that.

Your comment about pedophiles is over the top.

This is my last post to this dialogue. I'm sorry for the way you look at all this as it precludes any further exploration.

C

What's intolerant about my views?

What I was pointing out in the last bit was what science knows now should put religion in it's proper context. And yes I don't believe religion has a place in modern society just like the burning of witches, superstitions or blaming natural disasters on God's wrath.
IMO it's religions that breed intolerance and most of it can be traced back to what's in their holy books, providing divine justification to do evil things to ppl....so when I speak out against this backward primitive barbarism I'm the one being intolerant????

Anyway you can dismiss my valid questions as offensive or visceral, but I guess that's the only way one can believe.
Just keep on believing homosexuality is a choise, Adam and Eve, the Earth is the centre of the universe and was made in 6 days, the resurrection, the virgin Mary etc....I'm not saying you're not allowed to believe it ,which would be intolerant, I'm just saying you'd have to be really brainwashed to believe it in a developed modern world

[COLOR="#ffa500"]ATM,

As a bisexual male, I feel even more a minority than most. I question my sexuality a ton because everything is mainstreamed geared to be straight or gay. I know it's GLBT, but more often than not, lesbians and gays want lesbians and gays, not inbetweeners. It's confusing! It is for me as well. I'm with a wonderful woman right now. She is my world. Days come from time to time when I want to be thrown down, bent over, and just stuffed! I quiver at the thought of being utterly taken and enjoy whatever ride I get. I will say this, whatever our biological bodies do to make us attracted to one person or the next, or feel genuine love for one person or the next, is just natural in all regards. I know I'm bisexual for two reasons. I am sexually attracted to men. I must admit not as much as I am to women, but I still find myself drawn towards men from time to time. Truth be told, I'm a total bottom, love every aspect of it, but I seem to be most attracted to other bottom men. I think that's my attraction for feminine qualities. Another reason I know I'm bisexual, I can feel genuine love for men. I can see myself living the rest of my days with the right man. Keep in mind that right now I'm totally with the right woman. She is my world in every way. I've had to do a lot of self searching to learn this side of me.

So, what I want to say is this, as simply as I can. Our bodies may be nature, and who we are attracted to may be nature. But every single one of us here has made a choice. We choose not to limit our thinking. We choose not to be in a box that others say we belong in. We choose to expand male sexuality for every man out there. We choose to connect to our female sisters in understanding sexuality as a build up and genuine climax in every sense of the word. We choose to support and guide one another on the same road. If being in a total community with no boundaries, no expectations, no facades towards one another, and no judgment of one another isn't unique and a minority, what is?

Rikaaim,

Im glad you posted on here, and I really appreciate what you had to say about this, and I believe your right bisexuals are definitely in a smaller minority and I personally choose to put myself in the gay minority. One I feel exactly as you feel about the whole bisexual thing only reversed. I am with the guy of my dreams and he is my world and I do know that I love men in all aspects, more than women, however I do get attracted to them and have had some great times with some great gals and definitely loved fucking a woman. Im a total top when it comes to everything in bed, and not that im trying to be macho or anything but that's just what makes me feel most comfortable and sexy. Judgement is always going to exist, it is in our nature as humans. We all tend to do it at one point or another, unconsciously. we all have our boundaries/interpretations etc.. Im glad to hear though that Im not the only like myself out there and I really hope that whatever it is you choose or do or more importantly feel, that your true to yourself and that your happy!

I've wondered about bisexuality, like with the differences between the sexes. I'm not sure if I can speak for all heterosexual males, but generally speaking I'd say most find it a turn on seeing bisexual activity in women. On the other hand (correct me if I'm wrong) women find bisexual activity of men revolting.

Also when I looked up on wikipedia I found that the % of bisexual women is only slightly higher than the % of bisexual men. This is find somehow hard to believe, I would have expected the % bisexual women to be much higher than that of men.

I think the fundamental question is why do women find men fucking men repulsive and do men find women fucking women a turn on?

This is just a conjecture of mine, a presumption about bisexuality in men which seems logical....see, since the Aneros I've fantasized about being 'stuffed' as well as Rikaaim put it. But when I followed the line of thought it wouldn't be a turn on if it was done by a man. If it were pure the object(namely the cock fucking my ass and making me come)either male or female would do, but it's the femaleness that turns me on, the voice, her soft body, her beauty, her female touch.....
So for me it's the whole package(the subject) not just the sexual object.

I can understand however, if you were highly sexual you would only lust for the sexual object that made you come.
To me the package of the one excludes the package of the other; male/female they truely are opposites, that's why it seems logical that they would be objectorientated...perhaps they wouldn't even mind being fucked in the ass by a horse(no offense, just my conjecture)....

So why then would I expect there to be more bisexual women than men?
Several reasons actually.

It seems natural that women are orientated on themselves, passively receiving pleasure. For the men on the other hand are orientated on the women, why is it a turn on for males when women are orgasming when they're fucking them?In other words giving women as much pleasure as they can?
Apparantly when a women comes and a man ejaculates there is more chance that 9 months down the road she's gonna shit out a baby.....not that that's what most men are hoping for but that's evolution for you.

So, for the women it's about selfsatisfation, for men it's about satisfying the women. Logically then IMO women would be more object orientated while men would be more subjectorientated, this is why most men find women fucking eachother a turn on while most women find men fucking a turn off.
And because women are objectorientated(focussed on theirselves) why then would it matter who's fucking them? As long as they get pleasure who cares?
The way things are in general this being the case obviously it helps that bisexual women is an accepted phenomena, or better: an encouraged phenomena; (why else do so many actresses and singers come out for their bisexuality if not to help their career?).

[COLOR="#9acd32"]Helixer

Let me respond from experience to your question. Keep in mind this is nothing scientific, though I could pursue that route if need be. Many women that I've spoken too find bisexual men a huge turn on. One person in particular said that she was highly addicted to Euro twink porn. Her first anal experience was not with her husband, but with her gay best friend. She trusted him or was turned on by him more to give up her anal virginity. This was after she had been married for several years. As far as your speculation to percentages, I believe, again just my own thoughts and experiences, that women are more openly casual around other women. Slumber parties and sleep overs allow girls as teenagers, or younger, to just be friends. They change clothes in front of one another. Fix each others hair. Do each others makeup. Just think of all that personal, close contact that they are told is okay. If a man tried to play with his bust bud's hair, what kind of message does that man get? Not a positive one. So, I feel many men keep thier openness locked away because we've been conditioned to do so. I'm a Gleek. Proud to be one. I admit it at work. I get some crap from the guys around me, but I don't care. What I haven't done is openly admit to everyone that I'm bisexual. I know for a fact the things my guy co-workers say about the gays that come into our drug store behind their backs.

Some people do get keyed in on a purely sexual object and instant gratification. To be honest, at first, when I thought about sex with a guy, it was repulsive. I think that's my mind being conditioned to think that way. That wouldn't stop the erections from happeneing or the desire building. I had suspicions of my sexuality since I was a teen, but got more confirmation later. I was working one day and went to the front checkout of the store to get a drink. We had a new cashier, and he was with us for a few months at that point. He had a ton of piercings in his ear, an eyebrow, lip, etc... I just thought he was the most gorgeous thing ever at the time. He was complaining about how his girlfriend was sending him these crazy drawings she would make of herself naked. He was complaining! I can't explain it, but I started to lean in automatically like I was going to kiss him. I had to pull back and actually stop myself. He kinda looked at me a little strange, but didn't say anything. That's when I really had to take a hard look at my actual self and not just follow the religion that was drilled into me or the community beliefs around me.

I think women fully want to please their partner. To me it seems they want to do so on a full sepctrum level, meaning emotionally, physically, and spiritually. It's just easy for a woman to do that passively. A woman doesn't actually have to do anything to get a man to orgasm. She just needs to open her legs and provide a hole. Let's face it. When it comes to penile orgasm, most men are so easily stimulated that a ham sandwhich with some mayo and a warm slice of American cheese could almost do the trick. Assuming that a man likes to make love to cold cuts. :-/ A woman puts her effort into other areas for support and pleasure. I think that's all there is to it. Men are so driven to give women orgasms because porn says that's what a man does. Media, via commecials and product spam, say that men should do that. Buy this product for a bigger penis! Are you really satisfying your woman in the bedroom?! [COLOR="#ff0000"]Artform has it dead on with his wife. They enjoy each other. No matter what sexual product arises from their adding of each other. For sure bisexual women is more open in movies and media then bisexual or gay men. So, I'm not sure about that.

Thought I was getting a handle on this thread but I'm getting more confused as it marches onward.

Somewhere in my learnings I gathered that one of the tendencies in humans (and Penguins) is to establish life-long, bonded relationships. However, real-world stats show that Penguins are better at meeting the mark.

Early on, I learned from (supposedly) hetero women that most of them shun male bi's as unsuitable life-long partners. I had assumed that this aversion had to do with some monogamous nature in women (the "C-word" thing); and, that monogamous by definition ruled out bi behaviour.

To be harsh though, there may be no in-born monogamous tendency in humans. Perhaps humans are just trying to minimize uncertainty in their futures...particularly when the child rearing, meal ticket, defender of the nest issues are put on the table.

Counting my "glances" at other human beings as about 85% female objects and 15% male objects, I probably qualify as a bi-curious within the context of this group's poll. A year ago I answered as str-8. Now I have a better understanding of bi and bi-curious and realize that my glances at other guys probably fall along some spectrum of male behavior. However, I'm pledged, signed, sealed and delivered into the monogamous camp and tend to think of exploiting my bi-curious side as something akin to buying a Ferrari or Maseratti. (just don't go there.)

So the questions:
1. Is there a real tendency or desire on the part of gays and str-8s toward forming monogamous relationships?
2. Is "Bi" just a suppression of a supposed monogamous human quality?

Or, am I really out to lunch on this whole thing... just another str-8 that doesn't get it ? (I can be OK with that.)

Come on rikaaim, I think most know by their experience of the Aneros what it means to be passive. Sure some probably get the show on the road with erotic imagery, but when the pleasure inside builds, the attention turns inward to the pleasure and doing all to build this pleasure to mindblowing proportions. This to me is what passivity entails. Focussing inward on your own pleasure.Conversely focussing outward on the other's pleasure is what seems logical and natural to the active participant.
I think the phenomena of women faking orgasms says it all. This is because they know this turns men on for all the reasons I've mentioned above, it's also the reason it's in porn. There's something primordial about it, it's really got nothing to do with brainwashing by religion or media.
Women fake orgasms because they know it turns men on because men's attention is directed at the woman, doing all they can to satisfy. This is perhaps what you mean when saying women try to satisfy the man as well. You're right, but faking it is by definition unnatural, if a woman was true to her nature should be completely focussed inward on passively receiving the pleasure, then she'd be more likely to experience the pleasure which in turn would provide a geniune orgasm and turn on the man who's focussed on satisfying his subject.

Since this inward focus comes more naturally to women perhaps they can skip the preceding stages men experience with the Aneros. It's just more natural for men to at least initialy focus on the subject as men are by nature active. When our passive side then finally takes over then finally it's all about our own pleasure. This is the way it always is with women, the only reason IMO they stray from this is through unnatural conditioning by society and religion etc...not to be selfish, being the good wife, not to act like a slut etc.

I don't see any fault in this reasoning. Where I perhaps err is that opposite characterics, the characteristics I presume to be mutually exclusive by the fact they are opposites is wrong.
I was thinking if the reason you're attracted to softness is it's softness, you wouldn't be sexually attracted to roughness. Or if you're sexually attracted to the high pitched moaning of a women that would exclude the low grunting of a man.

It just seemed logical that if you were focussed on the subject, the sexually attractiveness of the one quality would exclude the opposite quality.
Whereas if you were just purely focussed on your own pleasure all these qualities wouldn't really matter.

Perhaps I was just rationalising my own sexuality

I honestly have to disagree with Helixer on the whole women being repulsed by men with men thing, I also personally have tons of straight girl friends who absolutely love it when guys are not afraid to be attracted to guys. Plus I have several friends guy friends who are married now, and totally play and kiss some of their buddies, using the entire married excuse so its not gay its just fun, which is a bit annoying, and with this subject, just like rook, I dont think there is anything really to get, it just is what it is, and there is no real definition or real numbers... thats just my thought

It's just my experience what women(ironically one was bisexual) have told me, but I guess then women depending on your sexuality tell you different things.( I know some women are actually attracted to gay men, but IMO that has more to do with the 'conversion'factor )
Still either way it still doesn't change the central thesis. Not all men and women are the same. It's more natural for women to be passive, it's more natural for men to be active whereby the feminine men and feminine women are more likely to be bisexual and the masculine women more likely to be lesbien. Since women are more likely to be feminine and passive receiving I'd say bisexuality would come more natural to them as well.

Perhaps every person can be bisexual or even paraphiliac. It's just harder for a masculine man to get into the passive role. I know I've had experiences with the Aneros that I was so out of my mind with lust and really into that passive role that I've thought at this moment I could be fucked by just about anything....at that moment I'm one with my dormant passive nature.
I can still see though how ppl who are naturally so inclined(feminine men or women)don't even need a transition to get to that state, for them it would be second nature, for me it would be third or fourth nature 😉

Helixer, it is interesting that you say your Aneros can give you such pleasure that your reaction is to take on a highly passive role and want to be taken and enhance that role even further. Perhaps I am slightly different. Normally, during sex, I feel completely passive. Even when I'm having sex with my girlfriend, and I'm on top, or any other position. I don't feel like I'm taking her. I feel like I'm holding back and cautiously ignoring my own pleasure to focus on hers. Now, there is a very practical reason for that! At this time in our life, we cannot have a baby! She cannot take birth control because of a blood condition. Condoms do very little in the way of her feeling pleasure, and she has a severe burning reaction to about 99.9% of all lube out there, including the lube on condoms. So, in that regard, our sex life is probably different than most. She loves riding my cock, but I cannot cum because she cannot get pregnant. I am the stereotypical version of the woman in this case. I sit there and please my partner, but I cannot enjoy any of the action myself. When she has been satisfied, then I can masturbate. It's very frustrating.

This leads to my reaction to your comment. Last night I had such a wonderful session with my Progasm that it actually felt like the days where I didn't have to worry about pregnancy and holding back. My cock felt so alive that it was as if I was full blown pumping in and out of a woman. It felt like sex and a blowjob and anal all at once. My hips did not want to stop thrusting. My masculine side growled back to life. It was almost like being a feral creature whose desires have finally be awaken. I used to feel that way during sex. So, I have to thank Aneros for letting me cut loose and take charge for a change! Like I said, not a knock against you or your situation. I just think it's intriguing how different people respond. Maybe I am more feminine because to be totally masculine during sex, and most aspects of life, I have to set aside a good portion of my passive feelings. I also know that I am no woman by any means, or the most feminine male either. That's what makes life so fun though! I love that this is a chance to learn about each other and how we view these feelings.

Holding back and trying to satisfy I'd say is active. Regardless if you can cum or not.Giving pleasure(active), your gf receiving(passive). I think most men hold back exactly because the focus is on the woman and trying to satisfy her needs. Íf you went for a worldrecord you could probably cum as soon as you penetrated, but you prolong, hold back to satisfy the passive woman....I'd say that's the definition of active what you're doing!
For me it took the Aneros to truely understand the passive role, it's also similar to the women's as it slowly builds( and although I've read of some forumusers that read a book or do their job using the Aneros I really can't understand this)and there has to be an inward focus on this pleasure to intensify it.

As to the second part; that's definitely one of the joys of the Aneros being able to experience both active and passive either seperately or simultaneously.
I know effeminate carries negative connotations, but as you say everyone's different and I'm certainly not judging I'm just trying to logically grasp the idea of how it works how seemingly opposite characteristics are at the same time as sexually attractive.
It feels a bit like saying I like to be around someone that's happy, but I equally like being around someone that's depressed.
What does that mean? To me that reduces the value of your liking or the characteristic itself. I'm not really sure how to explain it.(But that's probably due to the fact that at this very moment it's like I'm hearing a couple 'getting it on' but Holland beat Japan so I guess a footballmatch can turn some ppl on;)
Anyways seem like in the above example it's not them but you want someone or something they are an object instead of a subject
(fuck her moaning is making me horny as hell...fleshlight yes/no/maybe???)

Sexual characteristics in the same way.....curvy, hips, tits, ass, voice, soft, cunt, etc if you're sexually attracted value these characteristics that are distinctly feminine then it seems counterintuitive to also be sexually attracted to characteristics that seem the opposite unless it's not the characteristics but just the sexual. Object vs subject

Perhaps by using the Aneros somewhere along the road, by dilligent effort and frequent practice, the passive side will become my dominant side, who knows?
Perhaps the apex of my Aneros 'journey' is getting gangfucked in the ass by a line of horses

Nice stuff!

I've been so involved in plain prostate massage, going for intense orgasm, and some simple fun that I'd forgotten about the pure, 'make love to myself' sessions that I was enjoying four or five months ago.

Just pure passion. I was sort of blending together the feelings of the 'giver' and 'receiver' in those sessions, yet recognizing them as equals in the game.

Thanks Helixer -- will add those back into the mix. Damn, this is just one 'burden' after another. 🙂 8)

Helixer, I can think of only one truly passive sexual act that any man can receive, be he straight, gay, whatever. The blowjob. All a man has to do is sit back and enjoy a blowjob. Now, if he wishes to do some thrusting, a little hair pulling, whatever, then that's his choice. But, passive pleasure awaits him who sits still and enjoys.

IMO as a male there's only one way of truely getting fucked(passive) and that's up the bunghole.That's the only time that males come close to female receptivity and turn inward(partly coz that's where the pleasure is).
Even a blowjob isn't truely passive as the pleasure is coming from something outside the body, hence that's where the focus is and as you state yourself the proclivity to get active is there anyhow as you'd expect. If you'd follow that line of thought you could say that a woman that's taking initiative is fucking you, which to me sounds strange as you're always penetrating, so IMO fucking while the women is always being fucked(perhaps we mean the same but just a difference in semantics?). Just like I suppose you'd say if someone's holding a knife and a person tripped and fell on the knife that he'd be stabbed by that person.

In the same vein this is probably why a lot of aneros users when looking too much at porn while using the aneros(focussing atttention outward instead of inward)fall back to their active role and can't help masturbating.

I think that's the case with a blowjob, how unnatural does it feel to not focus attention on the person that's giving the bj and to start trying to deepthroat them or at least move the head(and thus the hole/mouth), but just to close your eyes and do absolutely nothing?

@Rook; nothing beats hermaphrodism 😉