I think there are very few men who are truly heterosexual.

[GiacomoPisani]

i think they are a very few men who are truly homosexual

and what are those men into? lesbianism? trying to convert non sexual body parts into sexual organs like pussy,clitoris and breasts ,or perhaps are they brainwashed into believing that they can share a pussy with a woman,"feel" it alongside her,and still be masculine,and of top of that be a non sexual deviant? who are those men trying to fool?!!
do you know the difference between a physical,non sexual deviant and a social one? do you know the psycho-physical cost of arousal with sexually dimorphic body parts,not found in your own body? i guess most of them don't have a freaking idea what they are really getting into.

do you have stomach to get sexual delight with what the opposite structural group finds unpleasing? what would you tell a woman that tells you that pussies don't give pleasure becuase they are smaller than cocks,because they smell like rotten fish,because they look like open wounds,because we are better than them, and so on,? you would tell her,no sweetheart, no matter how disguting you think you are, you are actually hot,my own sex is the one who is disgusting,how come do you have stomach to suck cock,then she tells you,i wonder how the heck you enjoy eating vaginal excrement so much? OH my god!!! what a nasty situation!! i guess the moral goes like this for sexual inverts,it is ok to find your own sex disgusting and unpleasant,but careful,not the opposite sex.Does that makes sense to you,coz it doesn't for me.

yes,sweetheart, these words might sound harsh but it's our physical reality,the way that nature made us,sexually dimorphic,incongruous,dissimilar,asymmetric,unequal,proportionate,physiologically and neurologically mismatched,this is the way reality is,anything beyond that is wishful thinking,philosophy,theology,poetry or whatever,but certainly not physical reality.

would you be willing to exchange a hard ,big and massive cock,for an insignificant open wound,that not even the opposite group have stomach to even get sexually aroused with? i don't know about you,but i certainly won't.

and why do you think that they are very few men who are truly homosexuals? why would a strong,big and massive man like to do oral sex and be willing to touch a clitoris,to effeminate himself for sure,right? or would he be trying to show us ,the fags,that he is a real man because he swallows female hormones by licking a vulva. what a foolishness and childish way of thinking eh? do you really think that we the homosexuals will play like that with the contrary sexual group,and tell them ,give me what you don't like and i give what i don't like,coz i like what you don't like and you like what i don't like,and more stupidities like that,right?

be realistic ,we gotta be very realistic when dealing with structural incongruities,it's all here in nature.

 

[bulge]

and what are those men into? lesbianism? trying to convert non sexual body parts into sexual organs like pussy,clitoris and breasts ,or perhaps are they brainwashed into believing that they can share a pussy with a woman,"feel" it alongside her,and still be masculine,and of top of that be a non sexual deviant? who are those men trying to fool?!!
do you know the difference between a physical,non sexual deviant and a social one? do you know the psycho-physical cost of arousal with sexually dimorphic body parts,not found in your own body? i guess most of them don't have a freaking idea what they are really getting into.

do you have stomach to get sexual delight with what the opposite structural group finds unpleasing? what would you tell a woman that tells you that pussies don't give pleasure becuase they are smaller than cocks,because they smell like rotten fish,because they look like open wounds,because we are better than them, and so on,? you would tell her,no sweetheart, no matter how disguting you think you are, you are actually hot,my own sex is the one who is disgusting,how come do you have stomach to suck cock,then she tells you,i wonder how the heck you enjoy eating vaginal excrement so much? OH my god!!! what a nasty situation!! i guess the moral goes like this for sexual inverts,it is ok to find your own sex disgusting and unpleasant,but careful,not the opposite sex.Does that makes sense to you,coz it doesn't for me.

yes,sweetheart, these words might sound harsh but it's our physical reality,the way that nature made us,sexually dimorphic,incongruous,dissimilar,asymmetric,unequal,proportionate,physiologically and neurologically mismatched,this is the way reality is,anything beyond that is wishful thinking,philosophy,theology,poetry or whatever,but certainly not physical reality.

would you be willing to exchange a hard ,big and massive cock,for an insignificant open wound,that not even the opposite group have stomach to even get sexually aroused with? i don't know about you,but i certainly won't.

and why do you think that they are very few men who are truly homosexuals? why would a strong,big and massive man like to do oral sex and be willing to touch a clitoris,to effeminate himself for sure,right? or would he be trying to show us ,the fags,that he is a real man because he swallows female hormones by licking a vulva. what a foolishness and childish way of thinking eh? do you really think that we the homosexuals will play like that with the contrary sexual group,and tell them ,give me what you don't like and i give what i don't like,coz i like what you don't like and you like what i don't like,and more stupidities like that,right?

be realistic ,we gotta be very realistic when dealing with structural incongruities,it's all here in nature.

I coudn't agree more. M2M is for men. M2F is for chicks.

 

[easyroad]

i think they are a very few men who are truly homosexual

Well played, sir!

GiacomoPisani, you misinterpreted stevexxx's comment. The funny thing is, if you think about it, what he said is true! Considering the total of men, there ARE few men who are truly homosexual. He's not doing what the opening post did, which is to claim that those who BELONG to a certain group are lying to themselves with only anectdotal evidence to back it up. That's understandably offensive to heterosexuals, IMO.

At least he didn't say "everyone is bisexual". THAT would be offensive to both straight and gay.

 

[stevexxx]

and what are those men into? lesbianism? trying to convert non sexual body parts into sexual organs like pussy,clitoris and breasts ,or perhaps are they brainwashed into believing that they can share a pussy with a woman,"feel" it alongside her,and still be masculine,and of top of that be a non sexual deviant? who are those men trying to fool?!!
do you know the difference between a physical,non sexual deviant and a social one? do you know the psycho-physical cost of arousal with sexually dimorphic body parts,not found in your own body? i guess most of them don't have a freaking idea what they are really getting into.

do you have stomach to get sexual delight with what the opposite structural group finds unpleasing? what would you tell a woman that tells you that pussies don't give pleasure becuase they are smaller than cocks,because they smell like rotten fish,because they look like open wounds,because we are better than them, and so on,? you would tell her,no sweetheart, no matter how disguting you think you are, you are actually hot,my own sex is the one who is disgusting,how come do you have stomach to suck cock,then she tells you,i wonder how the heck you enjoy eating vaginal excrement so much? OH my god!!! what a nasty situation!! i guess the moral goes like this for sexual inverts,it is ok to find your own sex disgusting and unpleasant,but careful,not the opposite sex.Does that makes sense to you,coz it doesn't for me.

yes,sweetheart, these words might sound harsh but it's our physical reality,the way that nature made us,sexually dimorphic,incongruous,dissimilar,asymmetric,unequal,proportionate,physiologically and neurologically mismatched,this is the way reality is,anything beyond that is wishful thinking,philosophy,theology,poetry or whatever,but certainly not physical reality.

would you be willing to exchange a hard ,big and massive cock,for an insignificant open wound,that not even the opposite group have stomach to even get sexually aroused with? i don't know about you,but i certainly won't.

and why do you think that they are very few men who are truly homosexuals? why would a strong,big and massive man like to do oral sex and be willing to touch a clitoris,to effeminate himself for sure,right? or would he be trying to show us ,the fags,that he is a real man because he swallows female hormones by licking a vulva. what a foolishness and childish way of thinking eh? do you really think that we the homosexuals will play like that with the contrary sexual group,and tell them ,give me what you don't like and i give what i don't like,coz i like what you don't like and you like what i don't like,and more stupidities like that,right?

be realistic ,we gotta be very realistic when dealing with structural incongruities,it's all here in nature.

You comment was so boring, it put me to sleep.

 

[stevexxx]

Well played, sir!

GiacomoPisani, you misinterpreted stevexxx's comment. The funny thing is, if you think about it, what he said is true! Considering the total of men, there ARE few men who are truly homosexual. He's not doing what the opening post did, which is to claim that those who BELONG to a certain group are lying to themselves with only anectdotal evidence to back it up. That's understandably offensive to heterosexuals, IMO.

At least he didn't say "everyone is bisexual". THAT would be offensive to both straight and gay.

exactly, i don't think there is absolute heterosexual nor absolute homosexual. people lie between bi and heterosexual. or lie between and homosexual. if it works one way it has to work the other way.

 

[Rex]

Are there really any men out there who truth be told are purely heterosexual? After 10 years of having man sex on the side, I'm convinced they are few and far between. I still love women in every way, and appreciate great tits, wet pussy, enjoy looking at them and fucking them. But I have been with very few women who can match the sexual intensity of the average guy. Most women just can't keep up with us sexually. I am so in my element when I'm with a guy sexually, and believe that most guys would feel the same way if they could get past their inhibitions. Let's face it guys... we are put together sexually different than women, and most of us are looking to get laid as much as possible. There are millions of horny, sexually frustrated "heteros" out there tonight who are taking matters into their own hands because the wife, the girl friend (or the lack there of) is happy with once or twice a week.... maybe even less. If they could get past the guilt and inhibitions about man to man sex, we could make a believer out of them.

If there are gay guys who are disgusted by pussy and don't want to be anywhere near one why is it so hard to believe that some men have no interest in dick or being with another guy?


It's a nice fantasy to think all straight men are fair game but it's not true.

 

[AsianDream]

There ARE people who are exclusively straight or gay. And there ARE bisexuals.

From many discussions on this there is a very broad range of definitions:

• Who you feel some degree of attraction to
• Who you actually have sex with
• Who you could become emotionally attached to

If you use the first definition - I'd guess many people are bi-sexual to some extent.
However - I know several guys that define themselves as Straight - even though they sometimes have sex with other men - they feel they could only be emotionally attached to women.

Also some gay guys who find some women attractive (Kylie?) but would not have sex or an emotional attachment to a woman. Also some people who define themselves as bi-sexual but happen to be in a monogomous relationship with someone of a different gender or the same gender (eg: in terms of behavior are actually pure Straight or pure Gay).

In practice it's best to just accept how people define themselves (if at all). In a social or work context their sexuality isn't relevant anyway.

In a sexual context all that matters is do I want to have sex with them? and - if so - are they interested in having sex with me? In my case - wether or not they like watersports is far more important than a persons gender.

 

[bankside]

If you call

• "asexual" 0,
• "monosexual" 1 (exclusively straight or exclusively gay) and,
• "bisexual" 2,

then you can put them all on the x axis, ranked in increasing degrees of sexual freedom and still apply a bell curve.

You'd have a few asexuals, a great number of monosexuals, then tapering down to a few bisexuals.

Of course all blurry with lots of good bell-curve overlap between categories.

 

[stevexxx]

transgendered is the strongest degree of gay

 

[AsianDream]

transgendered is the strongest degree of gay

Actually transgendered people are one of the reasons some people use the term pansexual rather than bi-sexual - because they don't consider what genitals a person has as being important.

I've talked to several transgendered people on other sites - and in fact some of them would define themselves as "Straight" in that they like the opposite sex to that which they identify themselves as being.

 

[versatileplayer]

I have mixed feelings about the statistics. Anything involving humans will never be entirely pure--meaning I doubt we'll see pure and unadulterated representations in the statistics. Maybe someday, far in the future, as we continue to hone our God-like qualities and detach from fear and insecurity.

Sorry guys, I really talk and think like this... I mean no offense. It's like they say: Take what you want, leave the rest.

At any rate, I feel that heterosexuality and bisexuality are misrepresented in the statistics. I think they are reversed. From my perspective, bisexuality is the norm, meaning the most prevalent. I think that heterosexual behavior can be learned--as can homosexual--particularly for a group that is, shall we say, "versatile." I just feel like there's a general, tacit, and omnipresent guidance toward heterosexual behavior within society, and so it tends to be practiced, to subsequently manifest in any polls.

I agree with the bell curve observation.

Thoughts?

I'm with you - hence all the moralizing and rules about sexual expression - it's meant to repress our true sexuality. We should do as we wish.

The rules were laid down primarily to control female sexuality because property follows the male line in our culture and men had to know the paternity of their children.

The other thing they serve is the male or female with no self esteem who is emotionally needy and has to live in the illusion that they possess a sexuality so powerful that their mate wants nothing else - ever. To that I say - "bitch please."

 

[versatileplayer]

10% core gays
80% more or less bis, but in the societal context they identify as str8
10% core str8s

The official figures are biased and not trustworthy cause of the way they are collected.

Here's my guesses - and I'm speaking about attraction and desire - not actions....

1% exclusive heterosexual
98% bisexual
1% exclusively homosexual

Of all the guys I've had sex with in my life, I only know of one that had never had sex with a female and had no desire to ever try.

 

[versatileplayer]

transgendered is the strongest degree of gay

Transgenderism is about gender identity.

I'm very happy being a man - and I love having sex with other men. Most gay men have no desire to be a woman.

Homosexuality is about sexual desire.

Transgenderism is about gender identity.

 

[versatileplayer]

If you call

• "asexual" 0,
• "monosexual" 1 (exclusively straight or exclusively gay) and,
• "bisexual" 2,

then you can put them all on the x axis, ranked in increasing degrees of sexual freedom and still apply a bell curve.

You'd have a few asexuals, a great number of monosexuals, then tapering down to a few bisexuals.

Of course all blurry with lots of good bell-curve overlap between categories.

The number of monosexuals would still be skewed by societal restrictions - what if you defined it by desire and not actions?

 

[Flexuality]

My blog deals with the question raised in this thread. I agree with the earlier comment that sexuality probably falls on a bell curve distribution. You might be interested in my recent post which shows data from my Flexuality Test, specifically the percent of people who identify as "heterosexual" but say they have had gay desires or experiences, or would be willing to have a gay experience: How Straight Are Heterosexuals?

 

[easyroad]

exactly, i don't think there is absolute heterosexual nor absolute homosexual. people lie between bi and heterosexual. or lie between and homosexual. if it works one way it has to work the other way.

Hmm, I don't know about that... For example, I wouldn't be against having sex with a woman but I don't think that means that I'm a bit bi. Just that I was conditioned to view it as normal, despite knowing for sure that gay sex is much more pleasurable TO ME. Which is why it would be more difficult the other way around (a straight guy not being against having gay sex).

Also, sex with a woman is not something I would pursue. At all. Not because I'm lazy or had an absent dad, as a social conservative would say, but because I just know it wouldn't be as pleasurable as with a guy. The opportunity would have to fall from the sky at the right time for me to even consider it.

 

[GiacomoPisani]

You comment was so boring, it put me to sleep.

stevexxxx yes boring and poignantly true,

one year ago i meet a pathologist who was married and with kids, and when he asked me the reasons why i was single,i bluntly told him that i was gay and that i actually had a boyfriend.he revealed to me his secret that nobody knew,that he was bisexual since he was young.

we talked about sexuality,and the explanation that he bluntly gave was unbelievable.he said not to expect science to give any correct answer about what human sexuality is.In this agenda,the sexual deviants are the homosexuals while the heterosexuals are just the non deviant ones.The problem is that these are social definitions.
Nature does create two distinct PHYSICAL "sexualities",based upon structure,so there is what we could call female "sexuality" and male "sexuality".The heterosexuals are the ones who have the ability to "get into" the "sexuality" of the opposite structure.By doing this, they incur in neurological sexual inversion and deviancy,because they have to convert body parts that are not physiological,meaning that they are not in their own bodies, into sexual organs.In order to get sexually aroused with body bits that are not physiologically related to them,the sexual deviant must regard attraction and sexual arousal to sexual dimorphism from a different perceptive or angle,they must invert the psycho-physical scale,in such a way that if attraction to sexually dimorphic parts is a neurological sexual deviancy and effeminacy (for males), in their fabricated philosophical scale it actually means the opposite,it would mean that you are not a sexual deviant and that a male who like to be receptive and sensitive to vaginal stimuli is masculine.This create sort of like a paradox and a contradiction that is very difficult to understand because how come can a person be a psycho-physical non sexual deviant and then be a social deviant according to society ?

Many fabricated things that this society claims that homosexuals are,specially masculine ones,in reality,according to the real psycho-physical way that the brain works,the heterosexual actually are,this psycho-physical "way",is hidden and society will do anything it can in order for people not to associate attraction and arousal to sexual dimorphism with sexual deviancy,promiscuity,perversion. etc.Thus many of the things that we see in this world are nothing but a psycho-physical interaction between sexual deviant and non sexual deviant neural circuits,the more sensitive to non physiological/neurological body parts a neural circuit is,the easier it is to be heterosexual.The interaction now becomes very complex,because society created another opposite scale that twist the psycho-physical one and competes with it.it basically defines the non sexual deviants as sexual deviants,and the sexual deviants as nonsexual deviants.This is all based on behavioralism such as gender roles,manipulative philosophical/theological concepts and quack science.

he said that to the brain,it is not much different in term of neurological and psychological processes, being blind and then getting aroused by touching a zebra or a human pussy.Thus,all the definitions of sexual deviancy,heterosexuality,homosexuality,are emotional definitions that society and the heterosexual agenda has been trying for long time to make us believe that these definitions truly portray the physical way that nature works.So this is why if a man has a female sexual partner,he is not supposed to feel effeminate,in fact,he is not supposed to believe that he is with a woman simply because of one reason,that he likes to feel her anatomical structures alongside her.

if a man is with another man,then he is not masculine,because for that,he needs to bang a woman,while of course, fondle her tits and then intake female hormones,if he is with a man like himself,he gotta feel like a woman feels.This is actually another twist of the psycho-physical scale.It is actually the woman who has to feel body parts that she doesn't have neither internally nor externally,and pretty much convince herself that a cock is a sexual organs of hers as much as it is to a homosexual man. Simply because we are humans ,and sexes are pretty much alike, doesn't mean that psycho-physical laws won't apply,guess what ,they always do.

if a woman tells you,come here,lick my pussy, you can feel this structure as much as i do,be SURE that this is 100% physically true.if she tells you come here,lick this pussy,i will make you feel like a real man,she is partly true,she will make you feel like a real man according to society's fabricated behavioral labels but notice the psycho-physical price that you are to pay.

homosexuals lack neurological sensitivity to non physiological body parts.that's what paradoxically makes us non sexual deviant/inverts according to the psychometric scale.

one day we will be very grateful for not having followed the herd,i promise!!!

 

[Telstra]

GiacomoPisani, can you also summarize your posts.
Are you saying men who are attracted to female body parts are deviants ?

 

[AsianDream]

The heterosexuals are the ones who have the ability to "get into" the "sexuality" of the opposite structure.By doing this, they incur in neurological sexual inversion and deviancy,because they have to convert body parts that are not physiological,meaning that they are not in their own bodies, into sexual organs.

I don’t think there is in any value in talking about which types of sexuality are “deviant” or not. Nor is it sensible to say there is anything problematic or wrong with sex with the opposite gender (if that’s what you mean by “neurological sexual inversion and deviancy”).

In fact in order for the human race to continue sex between men and women is necessary (at least enough of them to replace the population). However in human beings sex goes far beyond reproduction and has a whole spectrum of attractions and relationships.

From ancient civilisations there is strong evidence that a larger proportion of people than found today will engage in bi-sexual activity where this is socially acceptable. So it may be true that more people are potentially bi-sexual than is often assumed. But I’m sure there will always be many who are either exclusively heterosexual or exclusively homosexual.

I do think that some people (both straight and gay) are uncomfortable with the idea of bi-sexuality and see it as a failure to make a choice – or that a Bi person is really either gay or straight “inside” and just not admitting this to themselves.

 

[bulge]

GiacomoPisani, can you also summarize your posts.
Are you saying men who are attracted to female body parts are deviants ?

He says society created a culture of pseudo-opposites, ying/yang shit and so and of pseudo-attraction between "opposites" while same/same appeal is naturally much more evident than all ying/yang shit. Prove is social live - this is not what Giacomo says, but my opinion - of ALL men who all live strong homosocietal lives, but artificially and purposely exclude the sexual part from it. The exclusion of the M2M sex attraction part is specifically prompted by M2M attraction. Only str8 and unreachable guys seem appealing.

I fully agree with Giacomo.