Am I the Only Only Guy Obsessed with Sucking BBC?
- Thread starterjackjames
- Start date
babyruthiezhubby said:
Good point, and true! I guess that's something us cucks have to watch out for if we don't want to think of ourselves as gay. Personly I think it's just a label.
I have seen this 'if you suck a cock you are gay' arguement come up a lot but what I can't get past is; if you are having sexual contact with both men (bulls) and women (wives) on a regular basis (or even even if just suck a cock once), how does that not make you bi?
I
imported_pussy boy
Guest
Again , to me its all just sex
Maybe I just don't know anymore , according to sojourner.q If you suck a guys cock your gay , even If you have great sex with your wife . Then Is there a such thing as being BI . THE QUESTION NOW IS WHAT IS BI-SEXUAL ? If a woman eats a pussy but loves to fuck guys what Is she ?
Maybe I just don't know anymore , according to sojourner.q If you suck a guys cock your gay , even If you have great sex with your wife . Then Is there a such thing as being BI . THE QUESTION NOW IS WHAT IS BI-SEXUAL ? If a woman eats a pussy but loves to fuck guys what Is she ?
pussy boy said:
Actually I said that if you suck cock then you're a "homosexual".
Gays too are homosexual, and so are bisexuals. A woman who "eats pussy and loves to fuck guys" is also a bisexual. It really doesn't seem all that complicated to me - it's just when guys who enjoy sucking cock say they aren't "gay" that it sounds a bit off - as if they don't actually put the dick in their mouth when they suck it or something. (I do however understand the point that some are making in regards to not being exclusively into sex with men (e.g. what the word 'gay' has come to mean) - in general I think most guys who engage in homosexual activities are in fact bisexual)
Labels, always labels! I don't know why it is so important to put a tag on someone's behavior, especially when that tag usually defines the person as less than the tagger.
You suck one cock and you are gay, or bi, or homosexual (read: less than the heterosexual). What does it matter, unless you are wanting to get with the person you are labeling? It actually reminds me of the old south, where if you had one drop of black blood than you were considered not human, an animal. Stupid!
You suck one cock and you are gay, or bi, or homosexual (read: less than the heterosexual). What does it matter, unless you are wanting to get with the person you are labeling? It actually reminds me of the old south, where if you had one drop of black blood than you were considered not human, an animal. Stupid!
If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it probly is a duck!
It is hard to say you are something you have been told is not desirable. It is obvious there are a lot of opinions on this subject, but bi-sexualiy is just a branch of gay/homosexuality. Gay is generally attributed to men and women are lesbians. Bisexuality just means you have sex with both genders. A male that desires his mate to have sex with others may very well want sex with other men, but afraid to admit it.
pussy boy;142[COLOR="black" said:
It is hard to say you are something you have been told is not desirable. It is obvious there are a lot of opinions on this subject, but bi-sexualiy is just a branch of gay/homosexuality. Gay is generally attributed to men and women are lesbians. Bisexuality just means you have sex with both genders. A male that desires his mate to have sex with others may very well want sex with other men, but afraid to admit it.
Attachments
Normally I wouldn't put a label on someone's activity if they didn't ask me to. But this guy said specifically "I'm not gay" and sucking another man's cock is pretty much the litmus test for a gay activity. Talking about window treatments = kind of gay. Putting another man's penis in your mouth = totally gay. Not that there is anything wrong with that, of course.
The only reason that I'm even taking this time to post is that he is in such denial about his feelings (or orientation or whatever) that maybe being ****** to confront the truth will help him a bit in the long run.
The only reason that I'm even taking this time to post is that he is in such denial about his feelings (or orientation or whatever) that maybe being ****** to confront the truth will help him a bit in the long run.
Susan's Slave said:
A "label" is just a word, and words are what we humans use to express ourselves and describe things. The word "man" describes a certain reality(it labels that reality so we can discuss it), the label "cat" defines a different reality, etc. As to the words; homosexual, bisexual, gay, lesbian, etc - well, they too describe a certain reality that we all understand. Take the word "cuckold" - for many (if not most) this word is a derisive "label". However, this forum is full of people who proudly self label themselves with this term. The point here is; there is nothing wrong with words (labels) - they enable us to communicate.
And I truly don't understand why the use of these words would remind you of the racism of the deep south. Nothing written in this entire thread shows any hint of prejudice against homosexuals (I myself am a bisexual - and very glad that I am). In fact, most have said it doesn't matter what anyone's sexual bent is. Granted, some words can be used in a derogatory way by those who have a prejudice - cuckold is one such word - gay is another - and there are innumerable others. But just because some folk try to use words in a hurtful way doesn't mean we can simply quit using words. For better of worse we are stuck with words (or labels if you will).
But I will stick to my original point that it seems odd when people try to redefine a word to try and mean something other than the true definition. And sucking cock is without argument a homosexual act.
B
babyruthiezhubby
Guest
mimi27406 said:
I've never been one to believe any thing that's estimated . Any estimate is generally skewed to support the desired outcome of the person doing the estimate. In other words it a wild assed guess by a bi-sexual that wants to make being bi look like it's totally normal to those who are hetrosexual. The point is you can't prove it or disprove it. it's just a random number that someone with an agenda threw out there.
The real question is this. Why is it fine with cucks to call themselves impotent sissys with tiny worthless dicks and be humiliated, sucking cocks and eating cum and being denied sex with females by their own choice but not be comfortable with being called Gay. It's a quandary.
I'm also not buying the argument that all husbands that let there wives fuck other men secretly want to suck dicks.
Say what...?
Mimi,
Um... really? Setting aside the question of how someone can be "at least" bi-sexual, who made this extraordinary estimate, and how did they do it?
According to Baker (in "Sperm Wars: The Science of Sex," by Robin Baker, Ph.D., 1996), about 5% of men consider themselves, or are considered by others, to be "gay" or "homosexual." But of those, about 80% (i.e., about 4% of the male population) are actually bisexual.
That's nowhere near 65%.
Unfortunately, Baker doesn't describe in any detail how the surveys were conducted that led to this conclusion, but that's his number. (Also unfortunately, Baker's book doesn't have an index so I can't give you a more specific reference. That seems like a fairly serious shortcoming for this otherwise-outstanding book.)
—Custer
Mimi,
mimi27406 said:
Um... really? Setting aside the question of how someone can be "at least" bi-sexual, who made this extraordinary estimate, and how did they do it?
According to Baker (in "Sperm Wars: The Science of Sex," by Robin Baker, Ph.D., 1996), about 5% of men consider themselves, or are considered by others, to be "gay" or "homosexual." But of those, about 80% (i.e., about 4% of the male population) are actually bisexual.
That's nowhere near 65%.
Unfortunately, Baker doesn't describe in any detail how the surveys were conducted that led to this conclusion, but that's his number. (Also unfortunately, Baker's book doesn't have an index so I can't give you a more specific reference. That seems like a fairly serious shortcoming for this otherwise-outstanding book.)
—Custer
Sojourner, I agree words are a language, probably our primary one. I take umbrage when you take an action and make it the definition of a person. If I have sex with 100 women and one man does this make me homosexual, or bi-sexual (which you define as homosexual)? I would say that this would make me heterosexual, but open to trying new things. What if I tried sucking cock one time and didn't like it, am I still homosexual?
I would say that only the person themselves could define where they are on the sexual spectrum, and that for many people the place is fluid. I would also ask where this leaves the transgendered population? If I believe I am a female born into a male body and I have sex with a man am I homosexual or heterosexual? If I have sex with a woman does that make me a lesbian? Again, so many labels and what is the point of defining someone else's sexual nature unless to set them apart?
As to the figures describing the number of bisexuals I imagine that if we include any male or female that has had some sort of sexual relationship with someone of the same gender (fucking, sucking, stroking) one or more times the 65 percent figure could be on the low side.
I would say that only the person themselves could define where they are on the sexual spectrum, and that for many people the place is fluid. I would also ask where this leaves the transgendered population? If I believe I am a female born into a male body and I have sex with a man am I homosexual or heterosexual? If I have sex with a woman does that make me a lesbian? Again, so many labels and what is the point of defining someone else's sexual nature unless to set them apart?
As to the figures describing the number of bisexuals I imagine that if we include any male or female that has had some sort of sexual relationship with someone of the same gender (fucking, sucking, stroking) one or more times the 65 percent figure could be on the low side.
magna said:
It certainly is a "gay activity", but the activity does not define the sexuality.
Homosexuality is the "tendency to direct sexual desire towards someone of the same sex". The important word there is "tendency". A single act, or even more then a single act, is not a tendency if most of your sexual activity is with someone of a different sex.
One thing I wouldlike to point out is that a heterosexual is also defined with the word tendency as "some who has a tendency to direct sexual desire towards someone of a different sex" , but the word "tendency" is completely removed from the defintion of a bisexual (at least in my dictionary) "sexually oreinted towards both sexes"
