come again?

 

I am pretty much hetreosexual but I guess I tend to dress like a metrosexual(pink shirts, dress shirts, tight shirts now and then) But I love girls and I dont see why people like having dicks in their ass or like to put their dick in some guys ass so I cant see why anyone could be gay.

 

Depends on how you do it

 

I don't think you get it. I don't like to fuck (I've only done it once with my bf and didn't like it), but I'm still gay. A straight guy could have sex with a man, but he'd still be straight. Girls can do whatever they want, and it won't turn me on. On the other hand, all I have to do is see a hot muscular guy walkin along the beach and I instantly look. I fantasize about guys on a regular basis, and get crushes on them. And I dress really masculine too (my female friends complain that I have no style, cause I wear baggy cargo pants and t-shirts). I hope that makes things a little more clear for ya on what it means to be gay or straight.

 

someone has been watching a little too much of that show where the fags dress the straight guys and turn them into pussies.

 

TMI but interesting none the less. I always assumed the sexual component was the entirety of homosexuality. I never fathomed that its the emmotional aspect, not the sexual, that more appropriatly designates homosexuality.

Good information for an ignorant heterosexual (read: me) about homosexuality.

 

I don't see how any guy could be gay

Men are disgusting...
a naked man is not attractive at all...if anything it is repulsive

If I was a girl i'd be a lesbian.

How can you not like their soft skin, hairless bodies, bewbies, and the pussy.

 

Just guessin here, but i think to truely understand it, just think of how women like our disgusting hairy asses.

If you can understand how they like it, now inject that mentality into a dude and you have your understanding of how a man can be gay.

I think....

 

but what about bewbies
and pussies

how can you do without that.

 

no idea but im sure it turns them off as much as a hairy ass turns us off

 

hmmm, you mean like Latin and italian women...

<----Teh Italian.

 

I can't understand how straight dudes like the soft, weak woman bodies. That would be the same as me asking to you about guys "how can you not like their sculpted muscles, bubble butts and cock?"

And of course you'll say 'yuck' or something to that effect. That's how it is with gay guys and women. I said this before somewhere, but to me looking at a beautiful naked woman is like looking at a statue. Does nothing for me, but not hard on the eyes.

It's all what you find most attractive.

This (I don't see how this can be repulsive):


Or this:

 

You got the right idea

 

lol I dont dress that gay.

 

I'm as straight as a wall!

 

female perspective: i can't see how you guys can eat pussy all day. i mean, if i could eat my own, i would, but i don't want to stick my nose in between girls' legs all the time. i enjoy a man's body. it feels good to be up against. it feels good to have their larger bodies against ours. it's just as fun for a woman to explore a man's body as it is for a man to explore a woman's.

 

PS. that pic of the guy above would be SO much hotter if he didn't have that ridiculous looking net thing on.

 

Trust me, it just as strange to us that you guys can suck dick all day. But dont get me wrong, i aint complainin.

 

I agree the net thing is stupid. I mean who wears that stuff? Unfortunatly it was the only non-NWS pic of him that I have. I have a load of pics on my computer though. 24672 to be exact, taking up 2.51 GB

 

How about this:

(I'm posting a link in case people think swimsuits are NWS)


LINK<-click to see

versus this (woman):

 

I'm ressurecting this thread for all the new people we have around here. Add your vote!

 

Since you started this poll, I'll ask you: How does one determine where they are on the Kinsey scale? I'm not very familiar with Kinsey's work/conclusions.

 

Kinsey's scale was developed as a hypothesis about sexuality after interviewing any number of men in the late 1940's and early 1950's. The questionnaires were direct, focused and the results, for the time, scandalous. From the information derived from his survey, he built a "sliding scale". Imagine a rectangular box divided into seven equal bars by vertical lines. Then, draw a diagonal from the upper left to the lower right. At one extreme, he hypothesized, are men who are exlusively hetero, at the other, men who are excusively homo. He further hypothesized that the distribution was fairly equal (again, based on his survey results) and that most men have the capability for a diversity of sexual expression.

His ground breaking and very controversial book outlined his theory, told in such clinical detail that it was devoid of salacious focus, was shocking for the time. However, he did not take much of a position about whether sexuality was inherent or circumstantial (nature vs nurture) but flirted with the concept that it might be a combination of both. GIven that his survey groups comprised any number of returning soldiers from various military posts were sex was either mono or homo in nature, the validity of his survey instrument (no pun intended) has been questioned, although further research tends to confirm that sexuality and sexual proclivities are not an exclusive either/or.

He further noted that one's innate sexual range did not necessarily dictate where one chose to form one's ltrs, and noted that men with relatively modest interest in women sexually could form lasting, healthy and rich marriages. Presumably, the opposite is true, that someone with a strong heterosexual index might find a lifepartner that was of the same sex. Harder hypothesis to substantiate.

About four or five years ago, research on Kinsey's life discovered that, in the later stages of his research, he entered into "direct exploration" of S/M and samesex relationships with his research assistants while remaining married.......That, in addiiton, has caused some to question the inherent nature of his interest in his research, though it does seem that his interest in kinky sex and homosexual sex (not automatically the same thing)eveolved as a result of his work, and was not the initiatory force.

 

http://www.askmen.com/love/dzimmer_1...e_answers.html

the kinsey controversy

Sexual Behavior in the Human Male was very poorly received in many circles, and its publication immediately resulted in the indictment of Kinsey by conservative groups. His findings were dismissed as unfounded, and the man himself became the subject of character assassination. Why the controversy? Well, whether because they saw them as morally reprehensible or as reflections of their own secret sexual lives, a lot of people just didn't like the answers to Kinsey's questions. For many, the following findings ranked among the more maddening:

Females are just as capable of sexual response as males.
50% of female subjects had had premarital sex; 25% had had extramarital sex.
37% of male subjects and 13% of female subjects had had at least one homosexual orgasmic experience by age 45.
90% of male subjects and more than 60% of female subjects admitted to masturbating.
10% of male subjects claimed to be predominantly homosexual for at least three years between the ages of 16 and 55.
For an America that largely frowned upon masturbation, homosexuality and infidelity, this did not make for very pleasant reading. What really got people stewed up, though, was Kinsey's scale of sexual orientation.


the kinsey scale

One of the primary findings of Kinsey's study was that heterosexuality and homosexuality were not mutually exclusive; it is far more common to have homosexual inclinations than it is to be entirely hetero. Rather than being placed into the distinct camps of "straight" and "gay," each individual's sexual orientation could be pitted along a scale of 0 to 6, with 0 being exclusively heterosexual and 6 being exclusively homosexual. Based on the results of his interviews, Kinsey reported that 18% of men ranked a 3 (equally heterosexual and homosexual) or higher. For many men, this notion -- that two out of 10 guys at the country club weren't sure which team they played for -- didn't sit well.

the kinsey institute

In spite of -- or, rather, because of -- the controversy, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male went on to sell more than 250,000 copies. Kinsey would later be credited as a source of inspiration for the sexual revolution of the '60s, and the institute that he founded continues to operate successfully to this day. Kinsey's own fate, however, was less than ideal.
The publication of his findings made Kinsey the target of many a smear campaign. In addition to accusations of skewed data and poor scientific practices, personal attacks were launched. Kinsey was branded a pedophile and molester, and critics took delight in pointing to his own unusual sexual tastes which, according to some biographers, included orgies, homemade pornography, bisexual masochism, self-circumcision, and the insertion of a toothbrush into his own urethra.

In 1954, Kinsey lost a major source of his funding. Around this time, he was accused by a Congressional committee of contributing to the spread of communism by undermining American values. He died in 1956 at age 62.


kinsey: pioneer or fraud?

In many respects, the controversy surrounding Alfred Kinsey has not died down. Do a Google search, and you'll find just as many indictments of the man as you do celebrations.
In some respects, Kinsey's findings are a point of debate. His subjects were all sampled from the same age and socioeconomic groups, a shortcoming which certainly detracts from their credence. Nonetheless, most must acknowledge Kinsey's contribution toward making sexuality a legitimate matter of public discussion.

 

That's exactly what I was thinking.

 

Thank you for the history lesson. I learned a few things that I didn't know before. I definitely think that the reason people get their panties in a bunch over sexual orientation is because they wish to keep the status quo. Anyone who challenges that is fair game for all sorts of attacks.

 

Given that recent studies have shown that animals have a diverse array of sexual activities and proclivities that are not necessarily bound by the absence of the opposite gender - there is an emerging understanding that sexuality is a hellofa lot more complex than we care to think.....

 

I know. And also, the exclusive homosexual is now at 5%, so there're more than 1 gay guys on here beside YoungTL. Shit, it's contageous. J/K.

 

I agree. Oops, did I just outed myself?

 

I think bisexuality is the subway ride to homosexuality.

 

There was some weird recent study that showed that guys who claimed to be bisexual actually only got erections from looking at men. I don't know how much credibility to give it.

Oh, and looks like we're up to 5 gay guys here (6.25%) assuming that they're all male. I'm guessing that we might have a lesbian or two here though. That percentage seems about accurate based on my real life experience. I know it's probably not 10%, and it's not 2% like some people claim. The fact that this is a car enthusiast board stereotypically should eliminate more gay men and add lesbians, although off the top of my head I know for sure that I'm not the only gay guy here ( for PM's!)

 

Check the link I posted in post #60 on this page. It's not the same guy, but you might like that one better.

 

DISAGREE COMPLETELY

 

Are you bi? Do you know anyone who is? I think it's a valid sexual orientation for women, but I don't think it works for men. I have yet to meet a true bisexual guy. I have met truly bi women though.

 

I just disagree w/ doopstr's statement, that's all.

 

Okay, well why? You not only disagree, you "DISAGREE COMPLETELY"...I'd just like to know what your reasons are.

 

I disagree w/ his statement that there's no such thing as bi, and agree w/ your assessment written in previous post.

 

Awwwwww, fuck it.

I play for youngTL's team. I'm one of the 6's.

 

+1 for us!

Now there's 3 more

 

Thanks, that's what I meant.