Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - andkon

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 13
...but because they had so much power that they became easily "bored" with "normal" sexual outlets and were free to experiment and indulge in more and more "outrageous" acts.

I've heard this before. This excuse still negates the current theory whereby sexual orientation is innate and not made by boredom.

Others may say that a lot of what we know of Roman Emperors' private lives is simply political gossip, designed to manipulate their image to favour the incumbent at the time that the history was written. So a lot of the juicy stories, such as those about Caesar and king Nicomedes, and Caesar and Augustus were designed to harm their reputations.

There's two answers to this. Being penetrated was negative but other exploits with men and women are still mentioned without any hint of harm. Also, the actual sources (summed up by Homosexuality [sic] in Greece and Rome: A Sourcebook of Basic Documents by Thomas K. Hubbard) do suggest a universal homoeroticism; the Roman emperors are just the most concise data set that reflects the rest of the culture.

Regarding my "encounters" they happen in the usual places, typical for the UK, saunas, bath houses, outdoor cruising areas, department store changing rooms (once in the US, in Boston, Ma ;-) from ads on Craiglist, etc. so not really representative but still, a sample.

Anything long-term come of these?

OK, so in the purple cluster are the effeminate gay guys but Grero are at the top in an orange band. I realise that this is work in progress but let's just look at the chart as drawn: does the intensity of colour represent numbers? Do you really think that there are two polar opposites, masculine guys and effeminate guys but very few, if any, in between? This chart is really useful to summarise the issue and to highlight its biggest problem: the dearth of empirical evidence.

Colors just represent gay, grero, and straight; not numbers. The white are the unnamed things in-between.

My experiences of sex with men are somewhat restricted to a self-selected minority who feel the need for no-strings-attached sex, but I can say that the number of masculine men who seek gay sex is quite large. Some of them identify as gay, some as bisexual and some as straight but all clearly enjoy sex with men. Some of the most masculine men I have met preferred a passive role! This confirms your theory but is only anecdotal evidence...

It's anecdotal, but plenty have said the same thing to me. At some point all those anecdotes add up :-)

I live in the UK and have noticed that many teenage males have internalised the acceptance of homosexuality to the point where they openly display physical affection towards each other. Only a few years ago this would have been classed as "gay" and therefore open to derision and abuse. Also the easy access to gay porn must have familiarised a lot of males with the images of sex between men, reducing their fear of it. I remember your reference to the research using the plethysmograph but I believe more evidence is needed to produce a chart like the one you propose. Empirical evidence would shift opinion slowly towards accepting the shades of grey and this would be a blessed relief to a lot of people.

Gay acceptance is good. Unfortunately, gay is seen as feminine and thus there's a need for something more masculine to push guys into more than just physical affection.

Keep up the good work and, if you have the opportunity, try to find work in this field. It cries out for articulate, motivated and open minded people.


Also, if you don't mind, can you tell me how you meet guys?

First, thanks for your kind words.

Second, gay as an effeminate gender is not my theory. It's the "folk belief" of most people, which admittedly counts for little except that science confirms it. Given that most people do then also stereotype all same-sex attraction as effeminate, it's good to have a term for specifically masculine-on-masculine attraction.

Third, take a look at video 0040. If we combine the Kinsey scale with gender we see the continuum between grero and gay. It is hard to tell where one begins and one ends but the polar opposites/archtypes do exist.

No problem.

Open Board / Re: Yoo Hoo?!
« on: February 25, 2014, 11:43:13 PM »
No siblings. Parents were homophobic. Snide, unwelcoming comments. But I never came out to them because I never saw any benefit.

Open Board / Re: Yoo Hoo?!
« on: February 09, 2014, 12:27:55 PM »
Well, race is obvious but how much importance we give to it can change. Left-handed people were treated pretty badly, but now there's no discrimination:

Open Board / Re: Yoo Hoo?!
« on: February 07, 2014, 08:41:40 PM »
Why can't you just answer my question straight up?

I'm not a big fan of the race thing. Maybe if we ignore it, it'll go away.

Open Board / Re: Yoo Hoo?!
« on: February 05, 2014, 03:33:21 PM »
Hmmm... I thought I replied to this, but it's not here. My answer: I wish that stuff didn't matter. By the videos though I'm sure people can rule out certain possibilities for sure :-)

Open Board / Re: Yoo Hoo?!
« on: January 08, 2014, 03:49:33 PM »
IR is a subset of IS:

The terms and concepts of International Studies and international relations are strongly related; however, International relations focus more directly on the relationship between countries, whereas International Studies can encompass all phenomena which are globally orientated.

Open Board / Re: Yoo Hoo?!
« on: January 08, 2014, 01:47:22 PM »
I officially declared international studies to be my major but apart from an intro course and a remedial writing class everyone had to take for it, I didn't really take anything else, except some other regular boring core courses like English and history.

Open Board / Re: Yoo Hoo?!
« on: January 08, 2014, 01:32:45 AM »
Over 6', just one, and I dropped out pretty quickly.

Open Board / Re: Johnny Rapid Interviews Rocco Reed
« on: January 06, 2014, 01:42:51 PM »
You can't be straight if you willingly have sex with other men, by definition. Being paid for it makes no difference because it's still a choice. Look at it this way:

sucking dicks for $500 per scene > folding shirts for $10/h
teabagging another guy for $1000 > bagging groceries for $8/h

Sucking dicks for money is a still meaningful choice because it's not like you're going to starve to death otherwise. There's plenty of other options. It's not coercion or compulsion, like being raped. You prefer to suck dicks more than folding shirts or bagging groceries. Unless having a "normal" job is like rape, we have to conclude that these men prefer sex with men than not having sex with men.

I write about this in the book in Chapters 7 and 8, specifically porn:

Sausage Jockeys Tossing Salads:
Even More Porn:

Open Board / Re: Yoo Hoo?!
« on: January 04, 2014, 01:44:04 PM »
Yes and Texas.


i have a strictly straight guy that i can call on occasionally because he LOVES giving head.

Of course not.

Open Board / Re: Yoo Hoo?!
« on: December 31, 2013, 08:00:59 PM »

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 13