The Half In Method

Posted by: @divine_o

Yes you are right that there is a whole bunch of other pleasure to be had that isn’t orgasmic pleasure. But that is where things get blurry. Like I said, people have sex for many reasons. Intimacy, domination, submission, fitting in, sexual bucket lists, and so on; all these things can be pleasureful without necessarily being clearly physically pleasureful.

Aside from the obvious pleasure, I think I crave it for the intimacy.  That is why I think to a extent porn doesn't work for me.

Posted by: @divine_o

I do think that certain people have naturally (or through upbringing) higher potential for getting sexual pleasure.  If we knew why, or if we could easily short circuit that, there would be way fewer questions on this forum.  But again, this pleasure imbalance has nothing to do with sexual orientation.

I would disagree.  A gay person is hard wired to want anal intercourse.  As much as you might disagree, that is the position of most gays.  So, they are at a better starting point than straight guys who look to explore that new area.  Some gays might have the stigma that what they are doing is "wrong", but I would argue more straight guys feel that sort of "dirty" feeling the first few times they explore.  Remember... Society has said straight guys shouldn't like that.

I am not connecting the dots on how otherwise my upbringing is related to the actual pleasure I feel in those moments alone with myself.  I can see shame creeping in for some people when having sex, but when you are alone with the door closed?

Posted by: @divine_o

Craving is in the realm of fantasy, and doesn’t take into account the time and effort of actual sex. Once you’ve had a lot of sex, you think twice before turning craving into reality with your partner, seeing as intimacy  (except for “quickies”) can last 30 minutes to over 2 hours, plus cleaning up and ensuing fatigue.  The most common complaints I have heard about sex are the lack of physical pleasure and the time involved.

This is a big reason why relationships fail.  People won't take out the time for intimacy, which is something needed to keep a relationship strong.  If you basically have to perform on schedule (every Friday night etc), you take away a good portion of the feelings involved in the act itself.  Over time, those sexual acts I can imagine begin to feel like hookups - fun with no strings attached.  Yet you are in a long term relationship or marriage.  There are strings attached.  So, can you see why that perspective would make tempt someone into cheating?

Just remember..  Anything worth doing takes time.  🙂

Posted by: @nat

A gay person is hard wired to want anal intercourse.  As much as you might disagree, that is the position of most gays. 

Hear ye, hear ye!

Among gay and bisexual men and other men who have sex with men (MSM) in Western and Latin American countries, distinc- tions are commonly made regarding preferences for insertive or receptive intercourse (Sanderson, 1994; Wegesin & Meyer-Bahl- burg, 2000). Three major self-labels are:‘‘top,’’one who prefers the insertive position; ‘‘bottom,’’ one who prefers the receptive position (Sanderson, 1994), and ‘‘versatile,’’ one willing to per- form either position (Hart et al., 2003; Moskowitz et al., 2008). These labels are similar to those found in Latin American countries:‘‘active,’’‘‘passive,’’and‘‘internacional’’or‘‘versatilo’’ (Carrier, 1985, 1989; Magana & Carrier, 1991).

The proportion of gay men who identify with each label is not equally distributed in Western samples. Among American HIV- positive MSM, 18% self-labeled as tops, 23% self-labeled as bottoms, 47% self-labeled as versatiles, and 12% identified with no self-label (Hart et al., 2003). In another sample of American gay men, 19% self-labeled as tops, 34% self-labeled as bottoms, and 47% self-labeled as versatiles (Moskowitz et al., 2008). In a recent survey with MSM in San Francisco, 37% self-labeled as tops, 21% self-labeled as bottoms, and 42% self-labeled as versatiles (Wei & Raymond, 2011).

In American samples, sexual self-labels are correlated with actual sexual behaviors. Previous results suggested some degree of consistency between self-label and sexual behavior, with tops engaging in a higher frequency of insertive anal intercourse (IAI) than bottoms and bottoms engaging in a higher frequency of receptive anal intercourse (RAI) than tops. Degree of pleasure experienced during IAI or RAI was in the expected direction, with tops rating IAI as more pleasurable than bottoms, and bot- toms rating RAI as more pleasurable than tops (Wegesin & Meyer-Bahlburg, 2000). Recent studies have replicated findings that tops were more likely to engage in insertive anal intercourse than bottoms, and bottoms were more likely to engage in recep- tive anal intercourse than tops, with versatiles reporting inter- mediate rates of both behaviors (Hart et al., 2003; Moskowitz et al., 2008; Wei & Raymond, 2011).

Sexual self-labels may also be associated with gender role variables, although evidence has been inconsistent in previous research. One study showed that adults who preferred RAI recalled more childhood gender nonconformity (Weinrich et al., 1992). Another study found an association between top or bott- om self-labels and femininity in adulthood, with bottoms scor- ing higher on femininity than tops (Wegesin & Meyer-Bahlburg, 2000).

Sexual self-label groups also differ in gay self-identification, internalized homophobia, sexual sensation seeking, and anxi- ety. For example, tops were less likely than versatiles or bottoms to identify as gay and reported higher internalized homophobia than versatiles (Hart et al., 2003). Self-label groups also differed in sociodemographic characteristics. For example, men with a lower educational level, Asian/Pacific Islander men, and men born in Asia or the Philippines were more likely than were other MSM to prefer being a ‘‘bottom’’ (Wei & Raymond, 2011).

The majority of studies focused on sexual self-label were con- ducted in Western and Latin American countries. Studies have shown that China tends to have relatively strong and polarized gender roles compared to Western nations, and societal attitudes toward homosexuality tend to be more negative in China than in many Western nations (Crawford & Solliday, 1996; Kelley, 2001; Yang, 1997). Therefore, Chinese gay men may experience more stigmatization and discrimination than do gay men in many Western countries. It is unclear how previous data extend to the sexual self-labels used among Chinese gay men.

The Relationship Between Intercourse Preference Positions and Personality Traits Among Gay Men in China

Posted by: @nat

A gay person is hard wired to want anal intercourse.  As much as you might disagree, that is the position of most gays. 

Hear ye, hear ye!

Among gay and bisexual men and other men who have sex with men (MSM) in Western and Latin American countries, distinc- tions are commonly made regarding preferences for insertive or receptive intercourse (Sanderson, 1994; Wegesin & Meyer-Bahl- burg, 2000). Three major self-labels are:‘‘top,’’one who prefers the insertive position; ‘‘bottom,’’ one who prefers the receptive position (Sanderson, 1994), and ‘‘versatile,’’ one willing to per- form either position (Hart et al., 2003; Moskowitz et al., 2008). These labels are similar to those found in Latin American countries:‘‘active,’’‘‘passive,’’and‘‘internacional’’or‘‘versatilo’’ (Carrier, 1985, 1989; Magana & Carrier, 1991).

The proportion of gay men who identify with each label is not equally distributed in Western samples. Among American HIV- positive MSM, 18% self-labeled as tops, 23% self-labeled as bottoms, 47% self-labeled as versatiles, and 12% identified with no self-label (Hart et al., 2003). In another sample of American gay men, 19% self-labeled as tops, 34% self-labeled as bottoms, and 47% self-labeled as versatiles (Moskowitz et al., 2008). In a recent survey with MSM in San Francisco, 37% self-labeled as tops, 21% self-labeled as bottoms, and 42% self-labeled as versatiles (Wei & Raymond, 2011).

In American samples, sexual self-labels are correlated with actual sexual behaviors. Previous results suggested some degree of consistency between self-label and sexual behavior, with tops engaging in a higher frequency of insertive anal intercourse (IAI) than bottoms and bottoms engaging in a higher frequency of receptive anal intercourse (RAI) than tops. Degree of pleasure experienced during IAI or RAI was in the expected direction, with tops rating IAI as more pleasurable than bottoms, and bot- toms rating RAI as more pleasurable than tops (Wegesin & Meyer-Bahlburg, 2000). Recent studies have replicated findings that tops were more likely to engage in insertive anal intercourse than bottoms, and bottoms were more likely to engage in recep- tive anal intercourse than tops, with versatiles reporting inter- mediate rates of both behaviors (Hart et al., 2003; Moskowitz et al., 2008; Wei & Raymond, 2011).

Sexual self-labels may also be associated with gender role variables, although evidence has been inconsistent in previous research. One study showed that adults who preferred RAI recalled more childhood gender nonconformity (Weinrich et al., 1992). Another study found an association between top or bott- om self-labels and femininity in adulthood, with bottoms scor- ing higher on femininity than tops (Wegesin & Meyer-Bahlburg, 2000).

Sexual self-label groups also differ in gay self-identification, internalized homophobia, sexual sensation seeking, and anxi- ety. For example, tops were less likely than versatiles or bottoms to identify as gay and reported higher internalized homophobia than versatiles (Hart et al., 2003). Self-label groups also differed in sociodemographic characteristics. For example, men with a lower educational level, Asian/Pacific Islander men, and men born in Asia or the Philippines were more likely than were other MSM to prefer being a ‘‘bottom’’ (Wei & Raymond, 2011).

The majority of studies focused on sexual self-label were con- ducted in Western and Latin American countries. Studies have shown that China tends to have relatively strong and polarized gender roles compared to Western nations, and societal attitudes toward homosexuality tend to be more negative in China than in many Western nations (Crawford & Solliday, 1996; Kelley, 2001; Yang, 1997). Therefore, Chinese gay men may experience more stigmatization and discrimination than do gay men in many Western countries. It is unclear how previous data extend to the sexual self-labels used among Chinese gay men.

The Relationship Between Intercourse Preference Positions and Personality Traits Among Gay Men in China

from Archives of Sexual Behavior
The Official Publication of the International Academy of Sex Research
ISSN 0004-0002
Arch Sex Behav
DOI 10.1007/s10508-011-9819-0

@nat

yes porn falls short on intimacy.

i stand my ground, that gay men aren’t hardwired to want to have anal sex. I think it is cultural. Straight men would crave being fucked in the ass just as much as gay men if culture allowed it and even expected it of us (in the way culture allows and expects gay men to have anal sex).

on another note, the NYtimes just posted this article on aphantasia. Nothing you don’t know, probably, but it was pretty eye opening for me:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/08/science/minds-eye-mental-pictures-psychology.html

Self identifying can get really tricky.  Some people are "tops".  Just because they are not "bottoms" does not mean they don't enjoy anal.  It is no different than a straight guy enjoying anal by doing it with a woman.  The act is still craved. 

Posted by: @divine_o

Straight men would crave being fucked in the ass just as much as gay men if culture allowed it and even expected it of us

But then would they be straight?  And if that is the case, that would mean either being gay is a choice or that all guys genetically are gay, but culture has forced them out of it.

Very murky area.

I have heard before about a "gay gene" that was discovered.  I guess everyone has it but it is only activated in some people (which is what they are yet to figure out).

Posted by: @divine_o

the NYtimes just posted this article on aphantasia.

My browser won't let me read it.

I honestly don't believe in it.  They only discovered it five or six years ago.  Since then, no progress has really been made.  I feel it is just another way to label yourself.

I've read about how those who can't visualize well can build the muscle by focusing on random items throughout their day and trying to picture them seconds after they see it.  After awhile (supposedly) you will get good enough to be able to visualize anything you want.

That would mean either Aphantasia is curable or just simply doesn't exist.

All I know is the whole thing isn't genetic.  Both of my parents told me they have no problems with visualizations.