this post was submitted on 29 Feb 2024
892 points (100.0% liked)
196
16563 readers
2164 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I knew this guy. He always wanted to suck my Schlong or f with me. Told him i ain't gay. He replied he neither, he just finds vaginas disgusting (Women in general, Vaginas just being the "most disgusting" part) and schlongs beautiful, hence it's not gay at all. He just prefers guys coz they have said dingdongs.
Told him that was somehow very gay. He got really really really pissed at me for hinting he might be gay. He hates gays and find them repulsive. It was at this point that i realized, he verbally held me hostage. How to reply to that? I didn't know.
EDIT: That wasn't a joke or satire, he was dead-serious about it. That level of cognitive dissonance is hard to find, even in religious people :-)
Ask him if looking in a mirror scares him
I wonder if he beats himself up after jerking off because he just gave some homo a handy
It would be the logical thing to do. Be consistent!
I can't. We didn't recover from me somehow voicing his gayness might be a teeny bit gay.
The question that now comes to my mind: What is gay exactly? Is this specifically just when you like dicks? Or are also looks coming into okay here?
Are you also gay if you like people who look like women but have a penis? If yes, are you then straight if you prefer people that look like men but have a vagina?
Afaik there are also people that have both. If you fall in love with them without having ever seen their genitals, are you then still automatically gay?
Never thought about that before tbh.
Sexuality is a spectrum. Gay is more of a vibe than a science.
Man, the more society progresses in open and honest conversations about sexuality, the more I'm sure that "spectrum" doesn't even begin to do justice to the vast, bizarre complexity of human sexuality.
It's more like...that crazy 3 tier chess they play in Star Trek.
Yeah, I even felt weird using the word spectrum. I'm visualizing a 3-dimensional gradient where each individual point in space reflects a unique sexuality. It's about as unique to you as your fingerprint. It's insane to me that we had such black and white categories for so much of our history.
There are actually different models of talking about sexuallity. The one most common that you know where there's stuff like gay, lesbian, bi... But when you have trans folks that doesn't nessisarily give much credence to genital preferences. It's more a reference to the cultural gender expectations. A cis man and a pre-medical trans man is still gay where a cis man and a trans woman in the same situation is straight... But when you are non-binary this model doesn't serve because if I am culturally neither male or female is me liking a specific presentation gay or straight? If you're defaulting to what my body type is then neither is correct. I am not pan or bi because I don't like both and I am not straight or gay because those things frame relationships between physical sexes not fitting neatly into the changing cultural landscape of gender.
The other less used model just describes what someone finds sexy. A gynophile is attracted to feminine presentation, androphiles like the masculine, Skoliophiles are into non-binary people and ambiphiles like all.
It is a little 4D chess but it's easier to pick up when you don't have to account for old rules.
It's an n-dimensional spectra, but I'm not really sure what n is in this case. It's at least two, with one dimension being masculine/feminine and the other being penis/vagina, but there are way more things to sexual preference than that. We need one for dominant/submissive, multiple dimensions for hair color, maybe age, and all kinds of other factors. Every person will have a range of preference for all of these, and they aren't just the far ends.
Spectrum is fine and all, but gay is gay. If gay would mean many things, the word would be useless. It already became useless for its original meaning, let's not kill it again :-)
Yeah, totally. I mean, that's definitely why there aren't any words at all in the entire English language that have more than one strictly defined meaning, and that meaning has never, ever changed.
Oh man. I should've used the word homosexual to be precise.
Love is multiple things and is still meaningful for us.
Theoretically I can see somebody not being attracted to guys, as in masculine people, or just males, but still being turned on by penises as we see in OP's example. That person might not call themselves gay since they wouldn't want to be in a relationship with any guys, but might be interested in a hookup with a trans woman who still had their dick.
Maybe their is some nuance in what being gay is or there is room for another descriptor for this phenomenon.
Edit: reading below, this person might be hetero-romantic and homo-sexual.
Not judging or anything, i never cared who wanted to make love to whatever.
But he really wanted dudes. Women were "disgusting". whatever floats ones boat, but this is simply the definition of gay, if you like the term or not. It's just a word describing a preference. A dude just liking cocks on a dude's body and person and gender, then it's plain gay.
Guess in his case (my generation, we both being genx) it was just the typical upbringing that said gay=bad. Guess the shit stucks deeply, hence his cognitive dissonance and extreme adversity to gayness.
The age old question of do the traps be, in fact, gay
To which the answer is that there is no gay, no straight, nothing makes any fucking sense, everyone is bisexual (or asexual) but also there is no bisexuality (or asexuality)
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
do the traps be, in fact, gay
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
I honestly have no idea what it is, if it's society, if it's internal, no idea, but I'm absolutely 100% not aroused by men at all, and just knowing a m2f transgender person once had the biological parts of a man is enough to kill any arousal that could have been.
Not that it's a common question, but my "answer" to "could I ever date/sleep with a transgender person" is "I'm not mature enough to be comfortable with that." I blame myself in some way, but I am "repulsed" by the idea (not repulsed by the person, just the thought of intercourse)
I hope it doesn't need to be said, but just to be sure: I want everyone to be able to live their best life and to be happy and accepted, I have no hate for transgender people or anyone (except billlionares, private insurance companies and maybe some landlords)
Sucking a cock doesn’t make you gay. Only wanting to suck dicks and finding women unattractive and NBs unappealing? Yeah, you might be pretty gay. But if you just want to fuck with the occasional dick sometimes? You’re not gay. There are a million different variations that don’t make you gay. Some of them involve penises, sure.
Yeah man. If you only find other handlebars aesthetically pleasing and maybe just want to briefly touch them that's definitely not gay. Is it gay to touch your own suspensorium? No difference and very straight.
Source
Well in his case it wasn't just the dick itself. Women were "disgusting". So the dick needed to be attached to a manly man.
What exactly is gay? To me it's when a manly man likes manly men. If you'd fall in love with a woman and THEN see her male genitals, it wouldn't be gay. She just was an ass to not tell you earlier 😁 If you'd see both genitals or none, it wouldn't be either. And yes, there always have been those with both or none.
This begs the question (possibly a stupid question on my part since I'm not very knowledgeable on the topic): if he had a genital preference for wangs, and a sexual preference for trans women, would he in fact be considered straight, or is there another classification for this?
Dude, i honestly don't know if a guy liking an mtf-trans with a dong is considered gay. I would prefer said mtf-trans-with-dong over a manly-man-with-vayajay. I consider myself straight. If i HAD to choose which of those only 2 alternatives would be more attractive. So I'd guess it's more the person/gender than the primary genital. But what do i know :-)
I think it's the difference of preference for gender presentation vs preference of genitalia
here's the thing, there is a perceived idea that being gay means that you fit into "gay culture" and all the aesthetic ideas that go along with it, which is not exactly what's real (at least, this is my perception as a mostly straight ally).
So these guys think, I don't like the way the sterotype of a gay person behaves in my head. I don't belong in that group of people. Sure I want to suck a dick, but I don't want to go see a drag show or act like a woman (not my opinion here) so I'm not gay. I just want to jerk off with my buds.
that's why they had to come up with the definition of MSM. People basically think "gay? I'm not gay! I fucked Jim in the ass yesterday, but that doesn't mean I'm gay."
onion article that's kinda related to what I'm trying to express : https://www.theonion.com/gay-pride-parade-sets-mainstream-acceptance-of-gays-bac-1819566014
basically this
Solution: girldick
Nah, he disliked woman in general, the vagina was just the "most disgusting" part beside the tatas :-)
Dude. Who doesn't like tatas? I understand not liking genitals -- there's nothing particularly visually attractive about most V's or P's, when you're not aroused. But boobs? Just about everyone can agree that boobs are attractive.
Well, don't ask me...I won't argue about the beauty of tatas 😊
Heresy
Either he was a closeted gay or a closeted time traveler from Ancient Greece
Based on the lack of evidence for the latter, my money would be on the prior 😁
Sounds like that one guy in Ozark.
Lol, yeah kinda like him 😂