FF oral vs MM oral sex

[phone bugs 15]

Why is it more open minded , exceptable for a women to eat pussy and it is not as exceptable for a man to suck cock? Where and why is there a line drawn here?

[Miss_Piggy 98]

I think there are a factors that come into play.

 

1. It seems to me that there is a social stigma attached to man on man action. Some men fear being intimate with other men - perhaps due to societal pressure (???), fear of doing things that women are meant to do and thus being less of a man (???).

 

2. Women are encouraged to be affectionate with each other. Perhaps it's not such a jump for them to be a little *more* affectionate with one another.

 

3. A lot of men have a fantasy of seeing their woman with another woman. This fantasy is not so common among women (wanting to see their man with another man). I can see women engaging in girl on girl action in order to satisfy their partner's fantasy.

 

It's true that there seems to be a line there. It's perfectly acceptable for women to do other women but the same does not go for men with other men. Personally, I would like to see that line dissolved a bit. While it is not my experience that many women like the idea of seeing their man with another man, I'd love to see it :kissface:

 

~Piggy

[Alura 2,773]

It seems obvious to me, Phone Bugs. Men are hard, muscular, hairy and yucky. Women are soft, pretty, smooth and cuddly.

 

Mr. Alura

[good times 991]

Dito

 

I'll be honest, when it comes to the fella's I'm a little homophobic. I once saw two guy's go after it at a club, now, it is not at all uncommon to see girls doing it but the club managers tossed these guy's out as soon as they noticed it. When I inquired with a similar question, I was told that if they let that stuff go on, next thing you know, the local gay community would take over the place. It sounded like they were talking from experiance, could happen, I guess.

[fun_pairTX 26]

Women are like an expensive foreigh sports car, sleek, powerful, yet the appointments are soft and supple. Men on the other hand are like and Army Deuce and a Half. Pure utility.....I guess I'll take beauty over functionality on this one.

[Lorrie 21]

I saw a film on Oscar Wilde. They showed him having hot anal sex with another guy in bed with them facing each other, sitting up. It looked pretty hot to me. It got me excited!

[Spoomonkey 421]

I am not sure why there is a taboo - or a line in the sand, so to speak...

 

But for us it is simple...

 

I don't really want to go down on another guy...

 

Mrs Spoomonkey "apparently" enjoys "entertaining" another woman every now and then...

 

Spoomonkey

[gsu22 187]

I met a woman once who really enjoyed watching two men give oral to each other as well as fuck one another. She said she loved watching b/c it was like two animals going at it and it made her incredibly horny/hot. And she loved to instruct inexperienced men on how to suck cock....funny enough, she was a teacher..lol

[curious24 17]

Originally posted by gsu22

I met a woman once who really enjoyed watching two men give oral to each other as well as fuck one another. She said she loved watching b/c it was like two animals going at it and it made her incredibly horny/hot. And she loved to instruct inexperienced men on how to suck cock....funny enough, she was a teacher..lol

 

 

Is it just me or are a lot of teachers out there just crazy (in a cool way of course)?? They are Miss perfect in the class room but outside the class room WATCH OUT!

 

topic>

[Lorrie 21]

Originally posted by curious24

 

Is it just me or are a lot of teachers out there just crazy (in a cool way of course)?? They are Miss perfect in the class room but outside the class room WATCH OUT!

 

topic>

 

There's been quite a lot of films with the storyline like that!

[2neophytes 16]

I am inclined to side with Miss Piggy on this one. But I am not a man, and I have no idea what it is to be a man. So my opinion is only that!

 

So now I want to ask, if it is the case that men are big, hairy, and yucky, then why are all of us sleek, smooth, and sexy girls doing it with you guys?

 

later,

2N

[2neophytes 16]

Whoops, I should change my wording...

 

Why do YOU think we are doing this?

 

sorry...

 

2N

 

(I'm trying to make this less rhetorical)

[jcbicouple 24]

We like both or all, plus love to watch and be watched. M/M is a HUGE turn on for her, as is F/F for him, but so is m/f for both. LOL Have to agree with/or maybe it's more of an answer to 2neophytes "So now I want to ask, if it is the case that men are big, hairy, and yucky, then why are all of us sleek, smooth, and sexy girls doing it with you guys?"

Guys are just as sexy as women, or women wouldn't want them. As common as bi females are in the "lifestyle", there are far more straight females out there than bi ones. When it comes to the daily grind, I'd much rather (female now) curl up into my muscular, hairy husbands arms than any female we've ever slept with, and he'd far prefer to pull my soft feminine body close to his, as opposed to any of the men.

[Alura 2,773]

Originally posted by 2neophytes

So now I want to ask, if it is the case that men are big, hairy, and yucky, then why are all of us sleek, smooth, and sexy girls doing it with you guys?

 

later,

2N

 

As my ol' Pappy used to say, 2N, "Don't look a gift horse in the mouth, Son." If something nice comes your way, don't ask why, just be grateful.

 

Mr. Alura

[phone bugs 15]

Not all men are hairy. I, the female, do not find men yucky. I have seen some women that are not your soft and cuddly kind. The question is still why women get to have sex with women and be excepted, but men having sex with men has a gay tag on it, not to be excepted.

 

Hubby says women on women are reveared as highly desirable, men on men get the tag/considered as gay.

[Brit_Pair 62]

I'm not a psychologist, a behaviourist nor a sexual analyst, so this is definitely something of a pet theory. But I've always considered this issue with regards to the respective roles that 'masculinity' and 'femininity' play.

 

Somewhere, almost certainly as a product of evolution, it's hardwired into us that men are meant to act in a 'masculine' way: i.e. hunter/killer/protector/provider. You know the sort of thing. And for some people (male **and** female), the sight – or even the idea – of two men "getting it on" flies in the face of that hardwired, traditional concept of 'manliness'. I also think that some men, confronted by their own desire for sex with other men, may find that desire to be threatening to their own sense of masculinity, and therefore threatening to their very identity.

 

For some reason though, the same set of conflicting thoughts and emotions are not triggered by the sight or thought of two women "getting it on". And I think it has something to do with the way that such an act does not fly in the face of any hardwired concept we have about the female role. Female-female sex does not threaten a woman's femininity. In fact, it may even enhance it. Why that should be is a question for someone with a far more profound appreciation of this field than I.

 

Now before anyone jumps on me from a great height, I am **not** repeat **not** suggesting that a man who enjoys sex with another man (either as part of a homosexual or bisexual relationship) is not masculine, or has surrendered his masculinity. Nor am I suggesting that all men with sexual desires for other men feel that their masculinity or identities are threatened. This is a pet theory about the role that hundreds of thousands of years of biological programming may play in the question of why male-male sex still remains something of a taboo even among a crowd as sexually enlightened as swingers, while female-female sex is positively eulogised about.

 

Even if this theory has a degree of truth to it, I suspect it's just one element of what is an incredibly complex issue.

[jcbicouple 24]

Originally posted by phone bugs

men having sex with men has a gay tag on it, not to be excepted.

 

We would agree that bi men are often labled as "gay", and are not publicly accepted in most swinging circles. However, we also believe that most of the swinging world underestimates the number of bi males out there. Our experience has shown that many supposedly straight males will privately tell us that they are indeed bi. The number of e mails and replies we get to our ads from men who's profile states that they are straight, but then tell us they are bi, or bi curious, is truly amazing. We also go to adult theaters on occasion, and have witnessed a high percentage of the men there engaging in some type of m/m contact. We've also observed that many of these men are wearing wedding rings, so we would assume that they are "straight" out in the real world. While married men seeking a sexual thrill (cheating) isn't what we consider part of the swinging lifestyle, it does indicate that the number of men interested in bi activity is higher than a lot of us would believe.

[bser 15]

after getting 570 on the kinky test thought id chip in. it depends if your in a 3some and things are hot i dont have a problem with playing with both people. never done a mmm and wont but if its mmf its ok. ive gone down on her while hes fucking her and he pops out ill do both, or let her watch. seems to get everyone hotter. shes sucked both our dicks, if hes fucking her ill work on her clit then slip a finger or 2 in with his dick..

[Alura 2,773]

Well, y'all can see how naive I am at this advanced age. I thought bi sex with a male did necessarily mean anal intercourse.

 

When I was licking Mrs. Alura's clit while another guy was fucking her, I had no idea that was a bi act. I admit to being a bit uncomfortable when his balls were covering my nose but it was mostly because I was suffocating. Once we turned around, and I could breathe, it worked out pretty well.

 

When Mrs. Alura was trying to stuff two cocks in her mouth at the same time, that didn't seem bi to me either.

 

Thanks for the education, y'all. Should I go change our profile to "bi"?

 

In all seriousness, I was doing these things for Mrs. Alura, not for the other man. Both his pleasure and mine were immaterial to me at the time, and I think that's the key to assessing one's bi-ness. But hell, I'm just a hick Okie.

 

Mr. Alura

[wrnakedru 38]

I know you were joshin' us, Mr. Alura, about changing y'all's profile to bi. I have seen many profiles that define the gentleman as straight but not homophobic - perhaps even the added phrase of "not fearful of things that go bump in the night". I believe what you refer to is what is being aluded to in that wording. It would be difficult, I think, for two gentlemen to be attending to one lady's pleasure without their being some incidental contact.

 

I think the profiles that state the gentleman's reaction to bisexuality as "NO WAY, NO HOW, HELL NO, NOT EVER" are probably reflective of those who might get highly distressed at the non-intended but unavoidable encounter.

 

I agree with jcbicouple's statement that an underestimate of bimales exists. IMO, a contributing factor is the lack of honesty of a goodly number of bimales with their wives/significant others. I have heard some harsh criticism of bimales from men who enjoy the activity themselves, odd as that may be.

 

This would seem to bear out Lord Brit's theory of a perceived/implied lack of masculinity being part of the reason for the difference in how MM activity is generally viewed. Whether the variance is equitable, just, fair, or right doesn't seem to matter - - it does exist.

 

But views vary M to F in other areas too. For instance, a young man who gets a lot of action is viewed by many to be "studly". A young lady who has an active and varied sex life is viewed by many in a quite uncomplimentary manner. Some activities are just going to be gauged differently by gender.

 

I am not supporting those viewpoints, just acknowledging them.

[Alura 2,773]

Well, Mrs. Wrnakedru, I think both you and Lord Brit made some very good points. To me, though, sex with a male is just something I'm not interested in. I don't know why. Maybe it was because I was raised by a cowboy. Gays are always saying, "It's just the way I am." I'll buy that and reply, "I'm just a hick heterosexual."

 

I wasn't threatened when in close proximity to the guy we had the threesome with, nor was I "turned on" by his presence. He was a big help in giving Mrs. Alura a fun experience, though.

 

I was, indeed, joshing about changing our profile. HeeHee.

 

Mr. Alura

[yawanna 17]

to Mr. Alura for stating just exactly what the deal is.

 

MFM events..there is GONNA be some MM contact. No need to freak...stuff happens

 

wrnakedru posted:

 

IMO, a contributing factor is the lack of honesty of a goodly number of bimales with their wives/significant others.

 

and with respect I disagree. Many years of meeting men, both as a single and as a couple, lead me to see otherwise.

The men who some label as bi aren't. Two men and me in a bed? Two couples and me in a bed? Many couples on mattresses and me? I'm sorry...certain genitals are gonna bump.

 

I don't identify as 'bi' myself but I have played with women..proximity, in the moment, etc. etc. Same can happen for men.

 

A better distinction/label would be 'not homophobic and won't scream if 'parts' bump during a DP'.

 

Mr. Alura....were you thinking of Clinton's definition of sex?

[wrnakedru 38]

I may have not expressed myself in a clear fashion. I did not, do not, and would not deem a gentleman as bi [any more than he would define himself] simply because he doesn't get the heebie-geebie screaming meemies if/when a portion of another man's genital area comes into some contact with him.

 

Yawanna, the quote of me you cited refers to several men I have known over the years who have pursued separate one on one activity with other men. The wife is certainly aware of that activity which occurs in her presence and/or as a part of couple/threesome/group/orgy activity. But those I speak of are those who, when the opportunity arises, seek activity with oft times total strangers when their wife is either out of town or occupied for a sufficient length of time for them to make contact and schedule a one on one [sometimes more] encounter for themselves.

 

I have heard some men refer to this pursuit, and at the same time tell of their wife's diminishing sex drive. Others cite a certainty of the wife's lack of understanding for the interest he has - perhaps even believe she finds it distasteful. Whatever their justification or rationale, they are not being honest about themselves.

 

And yes, I feel it is in an effort to keep that portion of themselves well guarded and private that they often are quite negatively vocal in front of others when male bisexuality is discussed.

 

There are many profiles that deem a male as straight when that in fact is not the case. I do not think that is a deliberate attempt to mislead anyone, but rather an acknowledgement of the general lack of acceptance of male bisexuality. And often, too, a reluctance to become totally defined by something that is perhaps mostly a 'right time, right circumstances, right folks involved' kind of thing.

[EternallySingle 32]

Men in our culture have been taught to be hard, forceful, and dominant. Sex usually requires one person, at least temporarily, to become soft, receptive, and submissive. That can eat away at a man's sense of worth and, in the end, make him doubt not only his masulinity but his role as a person in our society. And thats all it is. Our society has taught us men don't do that.

 

I knew three men from a small community in Brazil who laughed at the fact that I wouldn't join them and their girlfriends in a mutual masturbation party. Where they grew up, the terms homosexuality, bisexuality, and heterosexuality didn't exist until the 1940's when missionaries tried Christianizing them. They simply believed sex was sex and as long as noone was forced, everything was enjoyable.

 

I didn't join them, but it made me think hard about the labels we put on things. But lets think about this. Not too many years ago two men who met and hugged each other would have been considered "not quite manly", but now it is somewhat more acceptable.

[yawanna 17]

To provide my own clarification, I was expressing my respectful disagreement that there are many bi men who hide that fact from their wives and SO's or other sexual partners, in tandem or not with their primary partner. That hasn't been my experience or understanding from my encounters as a longtime single women and then as a participant for many years now in this lifestyle.

 

Any and all men that I/we met with, and perhaps will meet with, aren't in this for bi activities. Bumps happen as you said and they don't freak out about that. They are in fact more open sexually than men in the general population, and have more opportunities/chances of coming in closer contact sexually with other men, during the course of an encounter involving a woman or women.

 

But perhaps you were speaking of the general population and not those involved in swinging?

[BradAndJanet 70]

Originally posted by Alura

... I thought bi sex with a male did necessarily mean anal intercourse.

...

I'd say it covers a whole range of M/M interaction, from kissing, mutual masturbation, oral sex and anal intercourse. While I have never had a strong desire to kiss another man or engage in anal sex, I did enjoy giving and receiving oral sex in the context of a foursome. Part of that was that I knew that one of the ladies involved enjoyed watching, but I won't say that I didn't enjoy it myself.

 

I guess that makes me bi, or a bit more than just 'bi-curious'. I'd probably do it again, given the right circumstances, but it's not something I would particularly seek out either.

 

Like many have said, when there are four or more involved, things are gonna go 'bump' occasionally, and that does not bother me in the slightest. One thing for sure though, I'd never do anything that would make anyone (male or female) uncomfortable.

 

-B

[ionsawmill 86]

I agree that there are more bisexual men in the swinging lifestyle than people would want to believe. I was told, when I started investigating the lifestyle, that I should keep my bisexuality to myself. I decided to be honest and open about my sexuality, even if it meant that we never find anyone compatible. How many men entering the lifestyle are willing to make that kind of commitment? Instead, they pass as straights and either suppress their bisexual tendancies or live a double life. Odds are that if you've been in swinging for long, you've had sex with a bisexual man, whether you knew it or not.

 

One of our unfulfilled fantasies is double vaginal insertion. I can't imagine any "very str8" man rubbing his penis against mine, regardless of its location. (By "very str8", I mean the men who announce vociferously their staightness and wilt in the presence of another male member.) Of course, there's no accounting for the ability that we men have to rationalize almost anything. Somehow, the presence of a woman acts as a buffer that allows the straight man to reason away the presence of the other male, despite the fact that most of his own sensation may be caused by male-male contact.

 

Somehow, we are supposed to believe that there are more bisexual females in swinging than in the general population and that, conversely, there are less bisexual men. How likely is that, considering the homogeneity of the swinging subculture?

 

I really think that if women were inherently more bisexual than men, then there would be less close-ups of penises in hetero porn. Guys in porn flicks would remain clothed throughout the entire show, only exposing the least necessary flesh. They would be as unattractive as possible and preferably out of shape. Instead, they are Calvin Klein underwear models making a few extra bucks on the side.

[Brit_Pair 62]

Originally posted by ionsawmill

One of our unfulfilled fantasies is double vaginal insertion. I can't imagine any "very str8" man rubbing his penis against mine, regardless of its location. (By "very str8", I mean the men who announce vociferously their staightness and wilt in the presence of another male member.) Of course, there's no accounting for the ability that we men have to rationalize almost anything. Somehow, the presence of a woman acts as a buffer that allows the straight man to reason away the presence of the other male, despite the fact that most of his own sensation may be caused by male-male contact.

That ability to rationalize the irrational certainly is a remarkable gift. But picking up on one of Mr Alura's thoughts, a person's bi-ness in such a situation is surely largely determined by their thought process at the time?

 

Taking your example of double vaginal penetration: if the male's primary concern is for the pleasure of the female, with little - if any - regard for his own, can he really be assessed as being bi? If he is consciously thinking to himself: "I'm really relishing the sensation of rubbing my cock against another man's", there well may be a good-sized element of bi-ness to him. If he's thinking: "I am enjoying the overall experience of fucking this woman in conjunction with another man", then it's going to depend on the jury's interpretation. If he's thinking: "I'm uncomfortable with having my dick in such proximity to another man's tool, but I'm enjoying the pleasure it's giving my partner" can he really be assessed as being bi?

 

Would such a man be rationalising away his bisexual tendencies?

[jcbicouple 24]

Can't help it ........must post the obvious.......LMAO!

If a woman licks a pussy, or snuggles under sexual content with another woman: She's bi.

 

However! If a man sucks a cock, as long as it is for the pleasure of a woman, or his main focus is for the woman: He's bi curious or experimenting, but straight.

 

Have to agree with ionsawmill: Guys are amazing!

Of course, that's probably because the following (warped outlook)also appears to be true:

 

A woman kisses another woman and she's full blown bi as far as society is concerned! No getting out of it! You are bi. period!

 

Now let a man kiss another guy, just one little kiss, and OMG he's gay! No turning back now! You are gay. period!

No more pussy for you!

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Brit_Pair 62]

Originally posted by jcbicouple

Can't help it ........must post the obvious.......LMAO!

If a woman licks a pussy, or snuggles under sexual content with another woman: She's bi.

 

However! If a man sucks a cock, as long as it is for the pleasure of a woman, or his main focus is for the woman: He's bi curious or experimenting, but straight.

If you're picking up on the point that I made, then I have to agree that more extreme actions - like masturbating another man, or sucking him - would indicate a bi- aspect to his sexuality regardless of what he's thinking at the time. Or what he tells himself/his partner/his friends to try and make himself feel better later.

[BiCoupleNJ 15]

Originally posted by EternallySingle

I knew three men from a small community in Brazil who laughed at the fact that I wouldn't join them and their girlfriends in a mutual masturbation party. Where they grew up, the terms homosexuality, bisexuality, and heterosexuality didn't exist until the 1940's when missionaries tried Christianizing them. They simply believed sex was sex and as long as noone was forced, everything was enjoyable.

 

Hopefully this isn't too long an absence in this thread... and it can be started up again.

 

As a bisexual male in a bisexual couple, I often contemplate why Liz is openly accepted as being bi while I am not offered the same acceptance. As a bisexual that engages only in oral sex with other men (at this time anyway!! ), I do not let too many people know of my sexual choice, simply to steer clear of any labels that others might give me as a result.

 

OK... time to open up a HUGE can of worms....

To answer why bisexual males are not accepted, I can accept many of the possible causes that have been discussed, but EternallySingle hit the nail on the head, although I am not sure he meant to do so! It is organized religion that has forced male-male sex into the closets and dark booths at adult book stores. There are a number of entries in the bible that mention male-male sex. In nearly all instances, the act of male-male sex is looked upon in a negative light.

 

Does this mean I am agnostic and find religion a blight on humanity? No. Many people need religion. I am a Catholic, albeit non-practicing. And I do believe in some form of a higher power or god that looks over us and has a master plan for us. In medieval times and prior, male-male sex was acceptable. As man interpreted the teachings of the bible, the basic tenets were changed to more accurately mirror what the person or group interpreting them felt was appropriate. At a point in history, someone got it into their head that male-male sex was unacceptable and, with hellfire and brimstone, convinced others into believing the same. Soon, enough people were convinced and, lo & behold, male-male sex was now a no-no. Somehow, no one ever took it upon themselves to argue against the point until very recently, for example the same sex marriages that have been performed across the US. But that fight still has a long way to go. AND... as most gay or lesbian people will tell you, it does not address bisexuality - bi people tend to be ostracized by both heterosexual and gay/lesbian people. Sigh

 

Anyway... one more point - if one looks at any indigenous race that has lived without outside influence (i.e., the Aborigines in the 1950s), you'd see that male-male sex is not frowned upon and, in some instances, it is highly acceptable. I am not necessarily suggesting a man having anal intercourse with another is accepted, but oral sex, masturbation... things of that nature have been very accepted in many cultures for centuries. Oh... that's right... right up until... organized religion showed up!

 

OK... those who wish to stone me... line up on the right, but make sure to take a number!

[Dee_Lee 15]

Dito to BiCoupleNJ... As I state in my profile I am Bi however, I will NEVER push that fact on anyone, nor will I never bring it up unless asked. NOT because I'm shy, just because there's too many homophobes who think Bi is Gay. I just believe that everyone should know who their swinging with. My girlfriend (Bi-Lea) and I recently re-united with ferocity and she never knew untill recently (two months ago) that I was Bi, even though at the beginning she wasn't too thrilled at the idea, she is starting to understand and slowly excepting and actually asking more and more questions about my borders with other guys. For the record, I don't enjoy anal and I just don't like kissing other guys, not that there is anything wrong with it but it's not something I enjoy..

 

To an ending people, Just because you think it, doesn't make you Bi. If you confront your "desires", then yes your Bi.. It's OK, let others know, they have the right to know just like you have the right to "enjoy"...

 

One last thing promise. Things do go bump in the night, and No your not Bi unless it was enjoyable to you, then what you do with it is simply what you do with it!!!!

 

Life is short people, lets do what we do best and enjoy it!!

 

-- Dave --

[bser 15]

hey great topic. i agree with dave & lea im also bi. there is a diff between bi & gay. im not into kissing and hugging etc with another guy but have no prob in a 3some or moresome. i have been with a couple of guys one on one blowjobs are great done the anal thing - on top- but dont really get into that. its more fun when a woman is there either watching or teasing or joining in. dp's are great knowing she is getting double pleasure is what gets me off. it feels good to me to know the other person is getting blown away. you have to be secure with yourself to enjoy being with other people anyway. dont worry about whose touching who or who has the biggest dick. i get off watching 2 women enjoy each other so i can see how she would feel watching 2 guys.

[BiCoupleNJ 15]

In my own opinion, I think that the most important difference between bi & gay was made by the last two posters (Dee_Lee & bser): gay males have an emotional bond to each other, which is often manifested in a kiss or a loving touch. Bisexual males, as odd as this might sound, are open to oral and, perhaps, anal sex with other men, but do not have an emotional, loving bond with that other man, thereby usually not engaging in kissing and other forms of intimacy that would be shared with the opposite sex and/or a loved one.

Yeah, I know it sounds weird... you'll let a guy stick his cock down your throat and you might even swallow his load... but you won't kiss him. But to me, that seems to be the one differentiator between a bisexual and a gay male.

Any thoughts?

Jerry

[Chris&Amelia 253]

Not to be disrespectful to gay men, but neither me nor my wife think the idea of man-on-man action is attractive or exciting. It kinda grosses us out.

 

But, hey, to each our own. We're just not interested in it. I have very little desire to partake in the man-sausage (shrug).

 

On the other hand, both of us think women are attractive. So she has a little bi play now and then, but nothing serious. She prefers men most of the time.

 

It's simple, really.

[Chris&Amelia 253]

Originally posted by BiCoupleNJ

In my own opinion, I think that the most important difference between bi & gay was made by the last two posters (Dee_Lee & bser): gay males have an emotional bond to each other, which is often manifested in a kiss or a loving touch.

 

A co-worker and friend of mine is gay, and we were talking about this one day. He was in the process of breaking up with his boyfriend, and I made an off-hand comment about "at least you don't have to worry about catching your wife sleeping with another guy!"* His reply was "Hah! Let me tell you something! Gay men are the worst whores in the whole world!"

 

I was taken aback a bit, to say the least. Maybe I was just being naive.

 

* - No, he has no idea that me and my wife Swing.

[BiCoupleNJ 15]

Originally posted by Chris&Amelia

His reply was "Hah! Let me tell you something! Gay men are the worst whores in the whole world!"

 

I was taken aback a bit, to say the least. Maybe I was just being naive.

 

Chris,

 

According to the local gay community, this is absolutely true - my brother is gay and he is one of the first to tell you that he wishes he wasn't, primarily because he can't find a guy to 'settle down' with, so to speak.

 

But... and this is a REALLY BIG BUT.... you missed the point entirely: the suggestion that gay men might be the worst whores, as per your co-worker, has nothing at all to do with emotional bonding. Commitment and bonding are two entirely different animals. To put this into your own perspective (that being a hetero male), just because you are married and show love and affection - an emotional bond - to your wife, it does not guarantee that you would not cheat on her with other women. Not that you would, but maybe that clarifies my position a little better for you. Better yet, let's use a term that hasn't been used in many a year (except where Warren Beatty is concerned) - womanizer. A man might show love and affection to a woman in public or elsewhere, but that has nothing to do with commitment or monogamy. A gay male might show love and affection to another man, but that has nothing to do with commitment or monogamy. A bisexual male typically will not show love nor affection to another male. Therein lies the difference.

 

Again, just my own opinion here, but my opinion is based on nearly 20 years in the lifestyle in which I have run a swing club with over 3000 members and published a swingers contact newsletter with nearly 1000 subscribers.

 

Jerry

[ionsawmill 86]

Ok. I'll bite. What do you call a guy who does form emotional bonds with males and females and will have sex with both, but prefers sex with women?

 

I've been married for 9 years, but I've been friends with the same guy for almost 20 years.

 

Do I love him? Yes!

 

Would I have sex with him? In a minute.

 

I could see myself in a long term sexual relationship with him. We've shared everything else. We've known each other so long that we can almost read each other's minds. Just like I'd do anything for my wife, I'd do anything for him. He's exactly what I'm looking for in a man. There's just one problem; he's straight. We've discussed it, and he's just not into guys. If not for the fact that he and my wife don't find each other the least bit attractive, he'd would have been our first "third".

 

I don't think that a guy is bisexual if they tolerate sex with men as long as they don't feel emotionally attached. Hedonist might be a better term. You have to ask yourself this question: am I attracted to men or just tolerent of men.

 

T.H.

[BiCoupleNJ 15]

Originally posted by ionsawmill

I don't think that a guy is bisexual if they tolerate sex with men as long as they don't feel emotionally attached. Hedonist might be a better term. You have to ask yourself this question: am I attracted to men or just tolerent of men.

T.H.

 

T.H.,

 

Now you are getting into the realm of argument that is most commonly fought over in predominantly gay communities, at least based on what my brother, who is, as I mentioned, gay, suggests. He has lived here in the central NJ area where there are several large gay communities as well as in San Francisco, San Diego and South Beach, FL.

In predominantly gay communities, gay & lesbian people argue that women that call themselves bisexual are really straight and only performing a sexual act against their norm to please their man. These same groups suggest that a man that calls himself bisexual is really gay and only holds on to a hetero relationship to hide that fact. Keep in mind that these are only generalizations and are not indicative of all gay/lesbian people.

Based on those comments, both you and I would be considered closet gay males, although I am sure that is hardly the truth with either of us. In fact, I know that I cannot have an emotional bond with another man that is even remotely close to that which I hold with Liz or even girls that I call dear & close friends.

My initial comments, as broad as they are, are based on the closest conclusion that one can come to in today's day of labelling every person, no matter what they do. And that is a key word - label. For whatever reason, we have become a race of labellers - one cannot be simply 'man' or 'woman'... one must have a label - white, rich, black, asian, jew, gay, etc. Therein lies the problem - and the confusion - in our subject of this thread.

About a year ago, a very dear girlfriend came to visit. I have known and loved her for more than 20 years. And, by love, I mean a love that transcends simple friendships and is as strong as that which Liz and I have in marriage. Perhaps stronger. During her visit, we got on the subject of bisexuality as she is a very sexual and emotional being, one that can truly love anyone, be they man or woman. Not necessarily in a sexual sense, but certainly in a heart-felt, emotional sense. She was concerned that her husband wasn't happy about doing the 'womanly' chores around the house - dishes, cooking, etc. I happen to be THE cook in my family, berating Liz if she so much as enters my kitchen when I am preparing dinner

The end result of this conversation was that the trouble with the world in general is labels - at the most basic level, humankind feels there is a need to label everything as being a male or female activity. This results in a significant breakdown in humanity insofar as sharing and living peacefully is concerned. How many times have you heard a guy bitch that the dishes were piling up because his wife wasn't doing 'her job'? Or how often have you heard the wife complaining that the husband wasn't doing 'his job', cutting the lawn? The list of arguments are endless.

SOOOO.... how does all this tie into this thread? I fell into the same trap - feeling a need to define what is and what is not bisexual/gay. By defining, in my terms, those words, I generalized and assumed... coming to a conclusion that does not fit you at all. That's not really a bad thing, but it is the norm for all of us these days - we ALL have to pigeonhole someone and label them, thereby reducing a human with a variety of choices... that might alter their choices from time to time... down to a definition of something they may not actually be at all.

TH - you are different than I am by nature of your ability to have an emotional, loving and sexual relationship with another man. I congratulate you for that ability. But we are the same in that we are both sexual beings that have an ability to appreciate sexual activity with others, be they men or women. We are not heterosexual... we are not bisexual... we are not homosexual... we are simply sexual beings.

Thank you for pointing out the error in my ways... and letting me ramble on like this... I DO so like to talk (so you can see) on subjects like this!!! :-)

Jerry

[yawanna 17]

We label and categorize in an effort to control our environments. Rather than just accept what a person is, or isn't, we need a compartment to allocate them to. A way of judgmentalizing and therefore being able to take a position. Transexual and transgendered issues are good examples. What category do they fall into in our present understanding? Where do we slot them?

 

Why slot them at all?

[BiCoupleNJ 15]

You are so right, yawanna!

The world has become one of excessive competitiveness & comparison and minimal trust. If that weren't so, we could all 'just get along'.

Your point about transsexual and transgender issues are far worse than this bit of discussion on what constitutes bisexuality in a man. I am sure that, given time, we could come up with dozens and maybe even hundreds of 'groups' such as these in which harassment, bias and other issues exist.

I don't think humans will ever attain a level of acceptance of all people before being wiped off the face of the earth. But I guess we can all make small steps towards meeting that goal... towards accepting people for what they are, not what we think they are... and maybe come close to that Nirvana!

Jerry

[ionsawmill 86]

I think labels are a good thing. On the whole, humans are conceptual thinkers. We tend to think of things in the abstract. Try to think of an apple. You're more likely to think of an idealized apple than any specific apple. There are green apples, yellow apples and red apples, but you most likely thought of a red apple. If every time you had a conversation with another person, you had to stop and redefine all the concepts discussed, you'd find yourself bogged down in definitions and not really getting anywhere. If I said, "Go out and buy an apple." and we had to stop and define exactly what constituted an apple, I'd starve before I got that apple. Is it still an apple if it's not red? Is it still an apple if it's not ripe and juicy? What if it has spots? If your "apple-concept" differs from my "apple-concept" (and it surely does), then we can never come to an agreement without creating a commonly held ideal of what an apple is.

 

Thus we create labels which represent generalizations about the world around us. It's a necessary part of human communication.

 

For ease of communication, it's necessary for all parties to agree on what a term means. I say that bisexuals are those who are have a sexual orientation to persons of either sex. This is dependent on my definition of sexual attraction, which includes an emotional attachment. Your definition carries no emotional prerequisite, therefore my definition is too specific for our discussion. Someone else defined bisexuality based on experience, not orientation. If we narrow the definition to make it suit our needs, we arrive at something like this: bisexuals are persons who are sexually oriented toward (defined as "seek sexual stimulation from/with") persons of either sex. This one will work for me. If someone is only participating in same-sex stimulation for someone else's benefit or enjoyment, then they are not actively seeking same-sex stimulation. Only someone who actively seeks out stimulation from or with persons of both sexes could be called bisexual. By this definition, no experience is required. Even if I've never been with another man, I am actively seeking same-sex and opposite sex arrangements. That makes me bisexual. Note that we didn't need to attach an emotional bond, or lack thereof, to this definition. It's neat and tidy and does the job well, in my estimation.

[cek 16]

Well, when it comes to sex with a lady, I say

 

I would welcome a reply through my page if any lady would like to help me find out.

 

But I can remember swinging privately after being at a club with a couple then from Syracuse NY. This was to be a MfM affair and he had a very large cock. As it was she wanted me to go down on him as she said it turned her on. I attempted to but could not "get into it" all that much. But I did it because I did like her.

 

It is just a big turn on for a guy to scoop a woman up in his arm while she is next to him and hold her so she rests her head on his chest and he can caress her back and butt and feel that smooth flesh.

 

Men, I think, are just to busy being competitive and the MM sex is still not the same as FF sex. FF sex is more like sharing in an experience, not one having dominion over the other. Mutual masturbation I think comes closer to the FF sex thing in the male world, and we can get into that.

 

But, when all is said and done my biggest thrill is seeing the lady in question ecstatic with pleasure.

[ionsawmill 86]

Apparently, we're not the only ones having problems with labels:

 

___________________________________________________________

From the San Francisco Chronicle

 

Nuances of gay identities reflected in new language

'Homosexual' is passé in a 'boi's' life

 

Rona Marech, Chronicle Staff Writer - Sunday, February 8, 2004

 

First, there was the term "homosexual," then "gay" and

"lesbian" then the once taboo "dyke" and "queer."

 

Now, all bets are off.

 

With the universe of gender and sexual identities

expanding, a gay youth culture emerging, acceptance of

gays rising and label loyalty falling, the gay lexicon

has exploded with scores of new words and blended

phrases that delineate every conceivable stop on the

identity spectrum -- at least for this week.

 

Someone who is "genderqueer," for example, views the

gender options as more than just male and female or

doesn't fit into the binary male-female system. A

"trannydyke" is a transgender person (whose gender is

different than the one assigned at birth) attracted to

people with a more feminine gender, while a

"pansexual" is attracted to people of multiple

genders. A "boi" describes a boyish gay guy or a

biological female with a male presentation; and

"heteroflexible" refers to a straight person with a

queer mind-set.

 

The list of terms, which have hotly contested

definitions, goes on:

 

"FTM" for female to male,

"MTF" for male to female,

"boydyke"

"trannyboy"

"trannyfag"

"multigendered"

"polygendered"

"queerboi"

"transboi"

"transguy"

"transman"

"half-dyke"

"bi-dyke"

"stud"

"stem"

"trisexual"

"omnisexual"

"multisexual"

 

"The language thing is tricky," said Thom Lynch, the

director of the San Francisco Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual,

Transgender Community Center. "I feel sorry for

straight people."

 

Tricky, maybe, but also healthy and empowering, said

Carolyn Laub, the director of the Gay-Straight

Alliance Network, which links gay and lesbian student

clubs in the state.

 

"We in society and in our generation are developing

new understandings of sexual orientation and gender

identities and what that means to us," she said. "We

don't really have enough language to describe that;

therefore, we have to create new words."

 

For those back in the linguistic dark ages still

wondering what's wrong with "homosexual," the

evolution of queer identity language has progressed

something like this: "Homosexual" sounded pathological

and clinical, so activists went about creating their

own words, starting with "gay" and "lesbian." That was

well and good, but terms like "dyke" and "queer" had

an appealing spikiness and served double-duty by

stripping the sting from words that had heretofore

been considered unspeakably nasty.

 

The adjustment took time for some: As recently as

2002, visitors at the San Francisco community center

routinely complained about a sign proudly pronouncing

it "the queerest place on Earth," Lynch said. But in

the Bay Area, in the age of "Queer Eye for the

Straight Guy," that sort of sensitivity is beginning

to seem almost quaint. Even some straight people have

adopted the word because they have gay parents or an

affinity for gay culture.

 

These days, "queer" is especially handy because it's

vague enough to encompass just about everyone. The

word and its newfangled linguistic cousins have become

indispensable as the transgender population in the Bay

Area has grown exponentially - into the tens of

thousands, advocates say - and sexual identities have

become increasingly complicated.

 

"If you're not a man or woman, words like 'gay' or

'lesbian' don't fit you anymore," said Sam Davis,

founder of United Genders of The Universe, a support

group and speakers bureau. "The words from just a few

years ago aren't adequate to talk about who we are,

where we're coming from and who we like."

 

Dee Braur, a 17-year-old with a tuft of greenish hair,

calls herself "half-dyke." "I'm bisexual but I lean

more toward women than men," she said. Men, she added,

annoy her.

 

"Trisexual" also works, she said with a snicker: "I'll

try anything once and if I like it, I'll try it again

and again and again."

 

Andy Duran, 19, said: "People are feeling like, what's

the point of labeling? If I must label, let me create

my own."

 

That said, Duran uses "queer" -- among others --

because "it's the one that leaves the most for

discovery... It's not really limiting. I can date a

woman or a man. I can date someone who's transgender

or genderqueer."

 

Tiffany Solomon, who is 19 and technically a lesbian,

is put off by the word "lesbian."

 

"I think of a shorthaired woman who wears flannel.

It's bad to a degree, but it's something that becomes

embedded when you're young and queer and look on TV

and you only have stereotypes to go on," she said. She

calls herself a "metrosexual" -- the word used to

describe straight men who have a gay sensibility when

it comes to fashion and grooming -- because she also

identifies with gay male culture.

 

Justin, who is 19 and didn't want to use his last name

because he's not out to his family as transgender,

calls himself a "boi" -- with an "i" -- because he

feels like a boy -- with a "y" -- but "I don't have

the boy parts, as much as I wish I did."

 

"I'm still learning the ropes of just being me," he

added.

 

Lynn Breedlove, a musician and author, spent years as

a "butch dyke," but nowadays, he prefers to

interchange pronouns and, depending on his mood, goes

back and forth between the old label and "trannyboy."

"Because I'm like Peter Pan -eternally youthful but

I'm always played by a girl," Breedlove said. "It's

more a faggy aesthetic thing. I don't want hair on my

face and chest. Ooh, I don't want to be transman -

that sounds really furry."

 

While Breedlove is old enough to have an age complex

-he explained his refusal to divulge his age as a

"rock star thing" - a lot of the identity fluidity,

name mania and word invention is bubbling up from the

next generation of queer youth.

 

"Now that community resources are in place and public

acceptance has increased, it's more feasible for

adolescents to come out during adolescence," said

Caitlin Ryan, a researcher at San Francisco State

University who has studied lesbian, gay and bisexual

youth. "What we're getting in the LGBT community is

the power of youth. It's their expression and

exuberance and energy and also their contribution to

the culture."

 

It makes sense that youth, in particular, are coming

up with new words and trying them on, considering that

"identity development is one of the most important

developmental tasks of adolescence," she said.

 

Growing acceptance of gays and lesbians has also

encouraged idiosyncrasy, Ryan said. "Identities are

very personal. That was much less true 20 years ago,

when identity was more around community. Now that

there's a community, a vibrant one with resources,

there's more room for personal identity. Before, the

tribe was so much more important," she said.

 

To further complicate matters, race and ethnicity

affect who is using which words. Some people of color

prefer the word "stud" to "butch," meaning a

masculine-identified lesbian. Which makes someone who

falls between a stud and a femme -- a more "feminine"

lesbian -- a "stem."

 

And genderbending and genderqueerness aren't as

prevalent among people of color, said Mateo Cruz,

who's Latino and a staff member at the Pacific Center,

Berkeley's LGBT center.

 

In these communities, "queer" and the terms it spawned

have a reputation of being "white," so some shy away

from them in favor of "same-gender-loving people" or

"men who sleep with men," or -- among Spanish-speakers

-- "homosexual," which is also a Spanish word.

 

"A lot of the stereotypes of what a 'queer' person is

supposed to be, especially in mainstream media, is

always a white person," said Solomon, who is African

American. "A lot of issues people of color have with

their families is their parents are saying, 'If you're

gay, then you want to be white.' Because that's all

they see. So yeah, 'queer' is not a word that a lot of

people of color use."

 

No wonder Cruz sometimes grows frustrated when he

leads discussions about appropriate language in

anti-homophobia workshops. It can take an hour for his

savviest students to list the "hundreds" of words they

know for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender

people. Then the discussion about what the words mean,

who can use them and whether they're polite, often

drags on ad nauseam.

 

When Cruz's coding system -- circles, big X's and

dotted lines to connote cool, uncool, and

sometimes-cool terms -- inevitably breaks down, he

throws up his hands.

 

"However people self-identify," he tells students, "we

have to respect."

 

What it all means

Definitions of many words in the gay lexicon are hotly

contested. Here is a sample:

 

Genderqueer: Someone who views the gender options as

more than just male and female or who doesn't fit into

the binary male-female system.

 

Transgender: An umbrella term for transgression of the

binary gender system. May include surgical, hormonal

or nonhormonal changes that result in a gender

identity different from the one assigned at birth.

 

Pansexual: Someone attracted to people of multiple

genders.

 

Trannydyke: A transgender person attracted to people

with a more feminine gender.

 

Trannyfag: A transgender person attracted to people

with a more masculine gender.

 

Boi: A boyish gay guy or a biological female with a

boyish presentation.

 

Heteroflexible: A straight person with a queer mind-set.

[leftcoastcouple 32]

Originally posted by bser

hey great topic. i agree with dave & lea im also bi. there is a diff between bi & gay. im not into kissing and hugging etc with another guy but have no prob in a 3some or moresome. i have been with a couple of guys one on one blowjobs are great done the anal thing - on top- but dont really get into that. its more fun when a woman is there either watching or teasing or joining in. dp's are great knowing she is getting double pleasure is what gets me off. it feels good to me to know the other person is getting blown away. you have to be secure with yourself to enjoy being with other people anyway. dont worry about whose touching who or who has the biggest dick. i get off watching 2 women enjoy each other so i can see how she would feel watching 2 guys.

Hope I'm not too late jumping in here, but it took me some time to get up the guts. I'm going WAY out on a limb here, because I've never discussed this with anyone but my wife--not even in a semi-anonymous way.

 

I grew up as many men do in this country, adopting the mindset that homosexuality was black and white--you were either gay or straight--and ridiculing anyone even suspected of being a "fag." However, after the first time my wife and I played with other guys, I was forced to examine my stereotypes. Because the fact is, much as I hated to admit it to myself, I had a sexual response to the guys as well as the overall situation.

 

There was no contact between me and the guys and I didn't do anything to let on, but the realization was there. Shortly afterwards, I began having occasional homoerotic dreams and fantasies, and I even went so far as to rent a few bisexual videotapes, too scared to rent "gay" ones but still wanting to gauge my reaction to the MM content.

 

End result was this: I came to the conclusion that I'm at times turned on by cocks and the thought of manual or oral contact with a man. Yet, the thought of anal (giving or receiving) with a guy is NOT a turnon, and the thought of general intimacy with a guy--touching and particularly kissing--is actually a major turnoff. And while I find that it's not all guys (in fact very few), it's a relief to be able to be honest with myself, to be able to admit, when I see that rare guy, "Yeah, I would," particularly in a MMF with my wife. What Mr. Alura described--giving oral to (my) wife while she takes it doggy style from another guy--is a huge fantasy of mine, and if we were all into it and it felt right, I could see myself going a bit further, given the convenience of the position.

 

I've never acted upon any of this and don't know if I ever will. My wife knew about this realization as it evolved and is completely accepting of it, yet there seems no interest on her part to see anything done about it.

 

But I'm wondering: Am I alone in being turned on by certain bisexual activities (manual, oral) and turned off by others (anal, kissing, carressing)? The former gets me excited, while the latter leaves me thinking what else Mr. Alura said, that men are "hard, muscular, hairy and yucky.

 

PS--I think the answer to the original question posted by phone bugs is clearly homophobia. No need to elaborate on that.

[ionsawmill 86]

Originally posted by leftcoastcouple

But I'm wondering: Am I alone in being turned on by certain bisexual activities (manual, oral) and turned off by others (anal, kissing, carressing)? The former gets me excited, while the latter leaves me thinking what else Mr. Alura said, that men are "hard, muscular, hairy and yucky.

 

You're not alone. Bisexuality is as unique as bisexuals. In other words, everybody has their do's and don'ts. It's not different than hetero preferences. There are some guys who won't perform oral sex for their wives or girlfriends. They just won't go there. Some women absolutely refuse to perform fellatio. They just won't go there.

 

In the same manner, there are bisexual and even gay men who just will not have anal sex. There are some who will be "tops" but not "bottoms", like me.

 

There are many other variations on the theme. As you can see from the above posts, some men will do oral and anal but won't kiss.

 

Decide where your limits are, and do whatever feels comfortable to you.

[BiCoupleNJ 15]

Originally posted by leftcoastcouple

Hope I'm not too late jumping in here, but it took me some time to get up the guts.

...

But I'm wondering: Am I alone in being turned on by certain bisexual activities (manual, oral) and turned off by others (anal, kissing, carressing)? The former gets me excited, while the latter leaves me thinking what else Mr. Alura said, that men are "hard, muscular, hairy and yucky.

 

Mr Leftcoast...

First, no, it is NEVER too late to jump into a conversation such as this one... attitudes and people change, so there is always a need to revisit old threads like this one on occasion. Thanks for offering your point of view

Second, congratulations ( ) on taking what is an incredible step forward for anyone, especially a man in this day & age - admitting to people other than loved ones that you have a sexual response to bisexual activities!

You and I are much more alike than we are different. Although I am curious about anal, I don't really know if I would ever go through with it. But I'll readily (or, perhaps, greedily??) suck a guy's cock, but kissing or intimacy with a guy just doesn't do it for me. It is like that beer commercial for Bud Light (I think!!!) from a couple years ago...

Man #1: "I love you man!"

Man #2: "You still aren't getting my bud Light."

If I want any intimacy with another guy, I'll just pull up the anchor & spend 6 or 8 hours on the ocean fishing... that's intimate enough for my tastes!

 

Oh... ionsawmill... thanks for that article on the sexual labels. It was a good read, both pleasant and funny at times. It also reminded me that, when that girlfriend and I spoke about the gender mixes when it came to jobs around the house, I had come up with poly-sexual - one that is simultaneously open to sex with both women and men. I suppose that, based on the info in that article, I might also have to add transgenders to that list

 

Jerry

[ionsawmill 86]

I saw this porn vid on HBO's Real Sex one time that featured two beautiful women kissing and caressing each other's firm breasts while splashing about in a large tub. They were gorgeous! I was thinking, "These girls are hot!" Debussy's "Arabesque No. 1" was playing on a piano in the background. They locked in a passionate embrace, standing as they did so and revealing a couple of large cocks!

 

All I could think was, "These girls are hot!" Even after they revealed their "secrets"(as they say in Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil), I still couldn't think of them as guys. I guess first impressions last the longest. Since I saw them from the waist up for the first few minutes, they were women; women with penises.

 

I still can't hear Arabesque No. 1 without thinking of that. It haunts me to this day.

[BiCoupleNJ 15]

Originally posted by ionsawmill

All I could think was, "These girls are hot!" Even after they revealed their "secrets", I still couldn't think of them as guys.

 

Living in the heavily alt lifestyle central Jersey Shore, one can see all sorts of things, including some of the most incredibly delicious women on earth. Well... they LOOK like women!!!!

Normally, it is so easy to tell a TG/TV/TS because there are only so many ways to hide large hands, a bulge in your crotch or an Adam's Apple. But I have seen some TG/TV/TS online and locally that would make me think twice about ever kissing a woman without first asking what was between 'her' legs. LOL!

Jerry

[Uneed_Love 15]

Watch a female playing with a female is a strong turn on for me... while watch two men playing together is more complicated. The fear to be judged as a gay makes me feel embarrassed with this...

 

Am I bi curious ? not sure but may be... How would I react if a guy was giving me a blow job ? not sure I should appreciate it because of the guilty feeling... Should I be pleased to give him the same favor... I don't think so!

 

Now things are slightly different with transexuals or "she-males"... things could be different here because I regard them more like females than like males even if they have a cock...

 

They look like a female, the have often a female body with long legs and big boobs... They can look very sexy and attractive, so - in such case - I suppose I could have sex with a true transexual (but not with a male disguised like a female)... into my opinion and my concern there is a huge difference between a "she-male" and a male disguised... in the first case I can have the fantasy to play with "her" while in the second case I shall not play with "him".

 

Kinky isn't it...

 

JC