Why Do Straight Men Want to Fuck Each Other? A New Book Tackles This Important Topic

Do straight men who enjoy fucking other men automatically have to be bisexual or gay and lying to themselves? That is what many, many gay men believe, based on their own experience, and it’s something that comes up in the comments on porn blogs like The Sword on an hourly basis.

I myself am guilty of assuming that the guys who seem to open up and enjoy getting fucked the most on Sean Cody must all be questioning their sexuality (ahem, Forrest). But as straight power-top Brodie recently described it, the site’s studio is full of “a bunch of straight guys coming to practice their fantasies. Their deepest darkest fantasies,” and labels like “straight” and “gay” are just “paperwork.”

A new book by Jane Ward, an associate professor of women’s studies at the University of California, Riverside, titled Not Gay: Sex Between Straight White Men, explores the very cultural dilemma we all seem to have around male sexuality, and the commonly held belief that women can lez out and it doesn’t mean anything because they’re naturally “more bisexual,” while men are much more strict about what they like and don’t like, unless they’re bisexual.

We hear it constantly from gay porn stars who claim that they’re simply “sexual,” they love having sex with dudes, and who, if we were to watch them in their personal lives, would end up in love with women, procreating with women, and having fully satisfying lives with female partners.

brandon-sc-gif

From this interview with Professor Ward in NY Mag

I think there’s been a lot of sexological and psychological research suggesting that men’s sexuality is more rigid than women’s and that women are inherently more sexually fluid. And what I argue in the book is that even that research is situated within some long-held beliefs about the fundamental difference between men and women that are not accurate from a feminist perspective. It’s interesting, because if you look at this belief that women’s sexuality is more receptive — it’s more fluid, it’s triggered by external stimuli, that women have the capacity to be sort of aroused by anything and everything — it really just reinforces what we want to believe about women, which is that women are always sexually available people.

With men, on the other hand, the idea that they have this hardwired heterosexual impulse to spread their seed and that that’s relatively inflexible, also kind of reinforces the party line about heteronormativity and also frankly, patriarchy. So one selling point for me in the book was to think about, Why are we telling this really different story about women’s sexuality?

sean-cody-gifs-stu-and-blake011

I think a lot of people who read the blurb, but not the actual book, have been confused about why the book was focused on white men, and I made that choice very consciously. There’s been a lot of interest and commentary about sexual fluidity and heteroflexibility in the last ten, 15 years in the U.S. and it’s focused either on girls kissing girls for the pleasure of male spectators or it’s focused on black men and to a lesser extent Latino men on the “down low,” and all of those accounts have [been so] focused, in the case of women, on what’s going on with women and with femininity that it allows this sort of behavior. In the case of black and Latino men, the question is, What’s going on in these ethnic communities that facilitates these kind of sex practices?

But for white men, no one ever asks what’s going on in white culture or what it is about white masculinity that is making this kind of sex practice possible. But that’s really precisely the question we should be asking, because white men have engaged in — straight-identified white men have engaged in — intimate or sexual encounters with one another since the very invention of heterosexuality and homosexuality as medical terms in the late 19th-century, and yet very little attention has been paid to it.

brandon-sc-2

I think it would be helpful to just start with greater awareness that homosexual desire is just part of the human condition.

Now if we take that as given, then the question is, Well, why do some people want it more than others, or why do some people organize their life around it, and other people don’t want anyone to even know that they do it? To me that’s a more interesting question than Are you born gay or straight? and so I think that the solution, honestly, is to stop being so obsessed with sociobiological arguments about sexual orientation, which I think are a trap, frankly, and instead ask the question, Given that so many humans have homosexual encounters, what is it that makes some people understand their homosexual encounters as culturally significant, and other people understand it as meaningless or circumstantial? I don’t think we have the answer to that question yet.

tumblr_nrfjmzraGR1uuj7n2o1_500

I do, in the end of the book, suggest that, if straight people want in on queer life, that’s about something more than homosexual sex. That’s about queer subculture, which is anchored to a long tradition of anti-normative political practices and anti-normative sex practices and appreciation for a much broader array of bodies and kinds of relationships and so forth, and so I think most straight people don’t actually want to be part of it. I think straight people who engage in homosexual sex, what makes them straight is precisely that they have no interest whatsoever in being part of queer subculture, and so in the last chapter I’m making the point that they could if they wanted to, but they don’t, and that’s part of how we know that this is homosexual sex being enacted in the service of heteronormativity.

tumblr_mvefdowQck1svu6udo1_500

45 thoughts on “Why Do Straight Men Want to Fuck Each Other? A New Book Tackles This Important Topic”

  1. Valid perspective I must say but I am a 3 on the Kinsey scale who often falls willingly into the 4 category. Just enjoy several aspects of sex with other men.

  2. One of the worst books I ever read. DO NOT, I repeat, DO NOT waste your money or time reading it. You will be better informed by reading comments left on the subject.

  3. I believe that very few people are 100% heterosexual or 100% homosexual. And bisexual doesn’t mean that you’re equally attracted to men and to women – you don’t have to be on the 50 yard-line to be bisexual, you just have to be somewhere on the playing field. If you’re at least somewhat attracted to men and at least somewhat attracted to women then you can call yourself bisexual and you can fuck who you want to when you want to

  4. A.C. certainly has some creative justifications for what I like to call “homosexual denialism” – the classic “men give better blowjobs” is my favorite though! It still amazes me the level of internalized homophobia that motivates many gay or bi men to post incredibly long, tortured, and obfuscatory comments that resemble the old “gish gallop” debating technique that creationists pioneered years ago when they attempted to disprove evolution. Lots of words but in the end the same old religious BS….

    1. I could explain my position in a simpler, shorter manner, yes, but I am pained to understand what my syntax, grammar, and length of post have to do with the substance of what I have written. I prefer to discuss ideas, not engage in a terribly tedious back and forth with someone who could have simply said, I disagree. Your barbs notwithstanding, I wish you had something more to offer than what you have here, like a substantive rebuttal. Thoughtlessly raising ‘internalized homophobia’ as both an argument and defense to any credible claim that challenges your world view is rather cliched. I offer the “men give better blow jobs” as one of many anecdotal (and universally recognized) instances of men engaging in sex without the claim of erotic or romantic attraction to their partner, which is my single, simple thesis. I would be more interested in reading a response to that instead of a pompous dismissal of an argument that you disagree with because I never portend to know that I am right and and can be compelled. My supposition was quite singular in its focus, though I could stand to edit it in places; that is conceded. I could respond to you in kind, with insults, but I choose to esteem you better than that. Your analogy toward the end was quite interesting though, interesting to the extent that you believe it was an actual foil to the “gish gallop” you deride.

      1. Oh give it a rest Mary – gish gallop all you want but its just the comment section of GAY porn blog. So much self-loathing…PS – I know your game is to always get the last word by attrition so this is my last comment on this thread. Congrats…

        1. LOL! Pity, I thought that if and when you responded you would actually have something worthwhile to say rather than hurling the usual round of invective and presumption, sorry that is not the case. Self-loathing, never, I love the person I am. I find it curious though that for someone who sees this as just a gay porn blog you sure did take the time to post quite a bit about the subject. One could easily confuse you for someone who thought of it as something more than that. Sorry we could not have had a better discussion, it should have been interesting.

          1. Say what you have to say man and don’t worry about the noise in the background. I understood what you said just fine. Real talk, you could be less long winded, but nobody’s the perfect writer. I agree with your point though and there are plenty of OUT and PROUD men who do as well. They’re just not going to post on here because they don’t want to have to deal with the headache of responding to folks who get keyboard bold and want to flex their superior intellectual and writing muscles to tell you how to write like somebody else, how much more they know about the matter than you do, or about the person you are.

        2. I’m with you on this one. Despite multiple degrees in widely varied subjects, I had a real problem wading through the “gish gallop”. I prefer reading words that communicate a point clearly and concisely. It is so much more elegant. A masterful writer was Patrick White, 1973 Nobel Prize winner, who was out and proud, probably before most people who read this porn blog were born. Patrick White could paint a mental picture in a reader’s mind with few words. Not so for some of the posters here.

  5. Actually most straight men don’t want to fuck each other. While some experiment in same sex play as teenagers, mature really straight men are fully satisfied with sexual relations with women.

  6. Akerus’ third-last and second-last paragraphs nicely provide a framework to understand SC Brodie’s (as an example) attempts to justify repeatedly engaging in homosexual activities while claiming that they are just manifestations of a “straight” man’s “deepest darkest fantasies”.

    1. I can understand Akerus’ position in that respect, and for a number of closeted gay men that is true, but the performer in question is performing those acts on camera and for a profit. If one presumes that he is unwilling to accept the truth of his sexuality because of the privilege that he might lose, then this venture certainly undermines that. He has exposed himself as ‘queer’, ‘coming out’, in a manner of speaking, and in doing so has relinquished his heterosexual privilege to a degree. The challenge I see in supporting the idea that homosexual sex is for homosexuals only is that it presumes a truth about the nature of the participants that is not necessarily valid. It is not a game of semantics as much as the litany of nomenclature we believe accurately describes human sexuality is still inadequate. Claiming that a person is bisexual when they have not expressed an attraction – erotic or romantic – for their sexual partner is, respectfully, a perverse derivative of the term. Bisexuality, like hetero and homo sexuality implies attraction of some sort to a particular gender and that attraction need not be present when one has sex in accordance with or in opposition to their true constitutional sexual identity. I would humbly suggest that what the performer is articulating is that he and his fellow performers are living out a taboo, and that, or any other reason of the sort, provides the requisite attraction, not the gender of their partner. Indeed this is true of all sexual creatures as the history of human and animal sexual behavior is not replete of examples of species engaging in sex simply for the allure of something other than the gender of their partner.

      1. I don’t disagree with you at all. My objective was to report a little of what apparently objective material I have read. I find the topic interesting but I accept many people know much more about it than I. It doesn’t mean I agree or disagree with all I have read. The one example of “situational homosexuality” with which I can agree is in prisons. You don’t have much choice there when you need to get you rocks off there. As for the porn industry, I appreciated the interview with Chad Hunt, who spent a lot of years in the industry and suggested, in an interview on this blog, that a lot of apparently G4P guys were actually at a stage in the coming out process. I agree with the other commenters who write that repeated instances of engaging in homosexual acts “for pay” as a rationalisation for the behaviour are questionable. It is pretty naive to think that you are going to make much money in porn as a model and the stigma is probably not worth it in most cases. My conclusion is just to never believe much of what is reported in the porn industry, which exists simply as a business around sex.

  7. Thank you Etseq for your excellent exposition.

    More importantly, this work appears to be ignoring the diverse manifestations of bisexuality, which is probably the most diverse manifestations of human sexuality. The problem with bisexuality is that it has been largely ignored by the mainstream media and most people assume that a person can only be bisexual if they are equally attracted to men and women, or need simultaneous relationships with both. That is not the case, however.

    Coalescent bisexual people are those who are BOTH homo/hetero romantic, homo/hetero social and homo/hetero sexual in diverging degrees, which is to say, they feel sexual and romantic attraction for both genders.in spite of the fact that they will normally prefer one gender over the other.

    Dissociative bisexual people (like the ones presented in Ward’s book), are those who experience romantic and sexual attraction for one gender, but can only experience either romantic OR sexual attraction for the other – never both. Taking it further, there are bisexual people with disjointed desires, which is to say. they feel strong romantic attraction for one gender, but strong sexual attraction for the other gender.

    On top of that, we have fluidity, which is a trait inherent to some bisexual people.

    If a person has fantasies about engaging in same sex activities and goes out of their way to make said fantasies real, they are not straight even if they feel most comfortable identifying as such because they are heterosocial or heteroromantic. Playing semantic games out of fear of being categorized as “less than” because of prejudices against same sex desire, is in itself a frequent occurrence that shouldn’t be legitimized for the very simple reason that it normalizes internalized homophobia, and turns it into an acceptable driver for social interaction.

    it is understandable that many people do not want to renounce to heterosexual privilege, which is preserved for those who rigidly fit into our patriarchal society’s heteronormative moral code. For the same reason, misogyny has contributed to demonize gay men to the point where anyone who might be close to fitting the socially acceptable model, would be terrified of sharing any traits with homosexual individuals out of fear of exclusion, ridicule and violence. However, that doesn’t mean that denying reality ought to be an option; after all, only through visibility can minorities achieve political agency and guarantee that society will respect them and view their identities as legitimate, valid and normal.

    Playing semantic games only contributes to make matters deliberately more confusing, and casts a veil of shame over same sex attraction – something that’s acceptable if gay people do it, but shouldn’t be tolerated by anyone who desired to be seen as respectable. Shame is a very powerful emotion, but then again, it can be overcome with the equally powerful effects of honesty and acceptance.

    1. If I understand the thesis of your post, a man who has sex with another man but self-identifies as straight is simply exhibiting unexpressed and or repressed same sexual attraction and is therefore gay despite his claims or inclinations to the contrary? I ask because I have come to understand that there is a critical distinction to be made between ones sexual orientation, sexuality, and sexual expression. A person may very well be attracted to someone of a different or same sex, however, how they choose to express themselves sexually may seem and or be at times contradictory. In other words, the way in which that person chooses to express themselves sexually may have nothing to do with an attraction to a specific gender per se, but to an act or to a condition. Take for instance the men who claim that men perform fellatio better than women. There is reason to believe that there is some truth to that statement, and the natural desire to have a more enjoyable oral sex experience may drive their curiosity. For that reason they may very well find themselves engaging in homosexual sex, but finding no sense of deep erotic attraction to their partner, let alone a romantic one. I would dare say that instances such as these, which are fairly common in most, if not all instances of circumstantial homosexuality, does not fit the definition of bisexuality (at least without offense). It seems that the glossary of terms that we have created to better define and allegedly understand the complexity of human sexuality is imprecise at best and has devolved into something that is the antithesis of what better information, and therefore better understanding, should offer us – liberation. I agree with you that there are those who, for various reasons that are their own, are not honest about their sexuality, however, I believe that is most troubling to presume a person’s sexuality simply by what acts they engage in and with whom.

      1. I agree that eveyone has the freedom to identify or not as they wish – it’s when you expect others to accept whatever Tumblr bullshit made-up identity that you have a problem. And when, as this article and some comments imply, you try to game the system by efffectively trying to reap the benefits of homosexuality without dealing with any of the negative aspects of being a non-heterosexual person and/or try to make it okay that you are in a multiple partner situation that only benefits you/enables guilt-free infidelity. I have known people who have struggled for years to find out who they actually are in all aspects, and others who are just using a smokescreen of bullshit half-formed queer theory babble to further their own denial or make their reprehensible relationship actions seem “okay”. I believe in supporting the former and calling the latter out on their crap iwith as much shame as possible.

        1. You have staked out the claim that if you have homosexual sex you must be queer in some sense, and what is anecdotally, if not empirically true, is that there are any number of reasons that a person may engage in homosexual sex that has nothing to do with an attraction – erotic or romantic – to their partner. Those encounters are sexually satisfying yes, but they do not, in and of themselves, confirm a person’s sexual identity or orientation. Yes, there are those that abuse ‘queer’ theory to conceal their sexual identities because they are concerned for the consequences (and for that reason I can empathize with your ire), but I am not concerned about them because the larger issue for them is their inability to be honest with themselves. My concern, in this discussion, is reserved for men who are being challenged and labeled in contradiction of what they know to be their true sexual nature by use of a standard that is unfortunately imprecise.

      2. “…but finding no sense of deep erotic attraction to their partner.” Doesn’t need to be “deep,” not to mention “deep” is a subjective experience given all kinds of psychological issues (i.e. in the closet – guilt, shame, fear, denying your sexual orientation in order to maintain hetero privilege, etc.).

        1. The word ‘deep’ is not critical to my argument, and so to the extent that it obscures my thesis, please feel free to disregard it. My position remains that there are any number of reasons why a man may engage in homosexual sex. Those reasons can, and more often than we would like to believe, have nothing to do with any sense of attraction to their partner, erotic or romantic. The caricature of these men as psycho-sexually repressed homosexuals afraid to realize their true identity is not particularly fair as it is not always true, nor accurate. To the extent that there is a third option in this discussion I believe that we should be more open to the idea because that is what ‘queer’ thinking would ask of us.

    2. Bravo! Exceptional wrting. Who are you? May I use your comment verbatim as a handout for my presentations, teaching, and my publications? If so, just give me your desired credit info. Pls respond soonest!

  8. Those men aren’t straight. Straight men do not want to have sex with other men or have sex with other men in any way shape or fashion. Period. If they do then that makes them not straight but gay along some line of the gay to straight continuum.

  9. Aslogan: So all those guys who got married, had kids and were devoted fathers and husbands, only to come out later in life, are really straight? Based on your definition, their “behavior” certainly suggests it.

    1. No, clearly the people you’re talking about were living in denial until they came out. I don’t know what you’re trying to conclude based on what I’ve said, but you’ve failed.

      1. I believe that @Scarpien was referring to the fact that your first post seemed to conclude that having sex multiple times with a persons of the same sex means that you are either gay or bisexual. If we accept that conclusion as true then it must also follow that the “father” in the example he used would have to be necessarily straight because he engaged in sex with a woman multiple times. We would have to treat his present claim of being gay as at least dubious because of his rather extensive history heterosexual sexual activity. In short, he is pointing out the fallacy of correlating sexual orientation to sexual practice or history. Homosexual sex is not just for homosexuals, however, ironic that may seem. It is a set of sexual behaviors that do not necessarily imply erotic and or romantic attraction.

        1. That’s a false equivalency, because that premise dicounts that these people later came out and presumably also engaged in repeated homosexual inercourse of their own free will. That arguably makes them bi, assuming they got some enjoyment out of a life spent in heterosexual relations. Under the original assumptions of the article, however, these people could continue to insist that they are still straight, they just happen to enjoy regular gay sex. Which, bullshit. You may not be gay – because heaven forbid you should be one of those filthy abominations, right? – but you’re about as straight as a crazy straw.

          1. I was not offering an equivalence just attempting to expose the latent fallacy in the idea that sexual expression dictates sexual orientation. My counterargument is that you cannot presume much, if anything at all, about a person’s sexual orientation from their sexual history or pattern of sexual behavior. Engaging in homosexual sex may be about any number of things that have nothing to do with attraction – erotic or romantic. Unfortunately, there has been such a history of marginalization directed toward the gay community, that has been repulsed by the same, that the resulting culture wars have created an us-against-them mentality, wherein sharp lines of distinction on all matters of sexuality have been made that are not particularly accurate nor fair. Whatever this ‘husbands’ true sexual leanings may be, the reality is that I will continue to believe whatever he chooses to believe about himself, one, because it is only right to do, and two, because I have no truly valid reason to believe otherwise.

  10. A lot more straight men would do it except for the taboos. I think it should be as natural and acceptable as handball, basketball, wrestling, etc, and perhaps a fitting conclusion to any night out with the guys.

  11. Ugh – Jane Ward strikes again with another volume of pop pseudoscience heavily marketed to the press with best click bait titles ever! Unfortunately, most empirical sociologists cringe because she is notorious for employing weak methodology shaped by the most extreme post-structuralist/queer theory in order to justify ridiculously counter-intuitive per-determined conclusions that just so happen to match her politics. Ethnography is basically a non-quantitative black box that is ripe for abuse because it is basically boils down to the researcher’s subjective opinion that can be distorted by the anecdotal nature of the study.

    Ward is a hard core social constructionist who rejects any biological explanations for human behavior, especially when it comes to gender and sexuality. For her, there is no reality to sexual identities outside of a very extreme anti-capitalist, anti-normative politics, which the vast majority of people, gay and straight, would reject as nonsense. Her view of “queer” identity is so narrow and political that it would exclude almost everyone who currently identifies as LGBT so I guess we are all heterosexual then!

    “That’s about queer subculture, which is anchored to a long tradition of anti-normative political practices and anti-normative sex practices and appreciation for a much broader array of bodies and kinds of relationships and so forth, and so I think most straight people don’t actually want to be part of it. I think straight people who engage in homosexual sex, what makes them straight is precisely that they have no interest whatsoever in being part of queer subculture, and so in the last chapter I’m making the point that they could if they wanted to, but they don’t…”

    Finally, she really crosses the line when she claims that any LGBT who disagrees her just-so theorizing and asserts an innate sexuality is suffering from internalized homophobia! Talk about chutzpah! Ward, just like the religious right, is motivated by a kind of faith based denial of science – her faith being in Queer Theory – and allows her own ideology to trump the lived experiences and narratives of the vast majority of LGBT people.

  12. Forrest is great period, no labels….just great ! He brings excitement to his scenes and he loves cum. A wonderful man. I hope they pair him with the new guy…..hot and hairy Scott !

    Bring back Mitch to have a scene with Forrest too.

  13. We understand the world around us from scientific endeavor. Science requires classification of things to understand them, eg. taxonomy of whatever. Scientists looks for similarities so they can group things, understand their properties, and give them labels so others can understand what they are talking about. Life revolves around labels and what they mean. That is not to say that every article neatly fits into the middle of a labelled group for its total existence, just that it does at any particular time. There may be some variation at the edges. Biology generally has normal distributions around means where the observed feature is the result of very complex processes, eg. sexuality. And then there is the element of change with time, e.g. hormones affecting sexuality. Layering psychological aspects over that and sociological aspects over that again, makes it very complex. Things are understood with the benefit of labelling. To say otherwise is to deny the scientific process and the knowledge it has given us.

    As one goes through life, all the underlying biological processes affect decisions, e.g. to engage in sexual behaviour and its type. But the processes may change. Clearly, hormones do, particularly male hormones. So, what you do at any one time is going to be a function of your physiology as controlled by psychological processes and sociological beliefs. So it is not unimaginable that males will engage in what the psychologists call “situational homosexualty”.. Some psychologists argue this is what underpins G4P.

    The time effect also may mean that the “coming out” process is very long, eg. Caitlin Jenner, and countless gay guys coming out in their 50s and 60s. For them, the sociological constraints (what other people think and how that will affect them) and psychological constraints (how predisposed a person is to risk) will affect how they classify themselves and act on their desires. If a guy has his neighbor come over to suck him off without any consequences, e.g. letting his wife know, or that he is on Ashly Madison for an elicit affair(s), it makes it very hard to understand whether he is bound and sheltered by sociological structures that cover up his underlying homosexual tendencies or if he is really at the edge of the biological category of homosexuality.

    A lot more understanding is needed to be definitive on this.

    1. Interesting research! “So it is not unimaginable that males will engage in what the psychologists call “situational homosexualty”.. Some psychologists argue this is what underpins G4P.” So when is it no longer considered “situational” after the broke “straight” guy has made, according to them, 3,500 or more 30x over and has been able to not only pay this months rent, but has purchased a condo or paid off his car, sold it, and got a new one?

      All said, “G4P” is a marketing/niche ploy! If the guy can convince his gullible fans he is “straight” and fucks a guy and even get fucked he can “earn, according to them, 3,500 to 4,000 a scene, all in a morning’s/day’s “work!”

  14. I’ve been with several guys who identify as straight, and with the exception of particular guy, I have no reason whatsoever to doubt them. The whole notion of “you must identify based on a) your behavior and b) my judgment of your behavior” is absolutely ludicrous. One my oldest friends, married with children and a hardcore Ashley Madison user has, in recent years, been okay with me sucking his dick. We do it every few months. Occasionally, he’ll tug on mine for minute, but he’s made it clear that’s as far as he’ll go. It doesn’t make him gay, it doesn’t make him bisexual, it makes him a guy who’s comfortable with whatever he’s comfortable doing. He can certainly choose to identify as bisexual, given his behavior, but he doesn’t, and I’m not sitting here thinking “oh, he’s just gay and won’t admit it.” So no, behavior does not dictate identity nor does identification necessarily dictate, or correlate with, behavior.

    In short, let’s stop worrying about fucking labels. It’s exhausting.

    1. I get it, don’t get your panties in a bunch! You wouldn’t want to piss your bi-guy off and loose his lollypop. I don’t blame you. For me, self-respect is more important, so I choose to suck the dick of a MAN who isn’t afraid of labels that’s not hetero or straight!

    2. “…I’ve been with several guys who identify as straight.” Well, if they TOLD YOU they are straight, then they obviously aren’t “exhausted” yet? You on the other hand need to take a breath so YOU won’t get exhausted defending THEIR LABEL “STRAIGHT!”

    3. This is so insulting ! Gay, straight, bi or what ever is not a label ! It is a part of the personality. And peoples like you haven´t a personality. That is the point ! When you are a guy and like guys you are gay. When you like vegetables than you are a vegan. When you like jesus then you are a christian. When you like assholes, then you are a republican. The whole personality are just ” labels ” . Labels are important to say, who i am.

  15. If you have a homosexual experience once, whatever. If you do it again/repeatedly by choice, you’re either bisexual or gay. Anything else is just people kidding themselves or navel-gazing to the point of confundity.

  16. This is what I’ve been saying for years, her thesis is absolutely correct. Attaching meaning to sexual encounters between hetero males is a false trap. I’d go so far as to say that it’s mainly perpetrated by self-hating gay men who refuse to believe that sexuality cannot be fluid, simply because they themselves couldn’t conceive of getting an erection for a woman. Sexuality is defined by emotion, not by sexual acts.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The maximum upload file size: 50 MB. You can upload: image. Links to YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and other services inserted in the comment text will be automatically embedded. Drop file here

Scroll to Top