Not exactly contradicting you: you suggest we will have different opinions, I suggest that that is sort of short-sighted, instead of different opinions, we will have no opinions. Issues of sexual preferences, even proclivities, will not matter at all, we will have indifferent opinions.
Why would anyone think being gay, or being a man who likes to penetrate men, or being a man who likes to be penetrated by other men, is in any way masculine or not masculine? What does male/male sex–regardless of whether you’re pitching or catching–have to do with masculinity?
Hey c’mon, I think by now you already count as the poster man 
You know, I was just thinking, the OP reminds me of my teenage years. It was common, (As I’m sure it was with lots of teenaged boys) for guys in my group to say things like “Suck my dick” while talking shit to each other.
It was widely accepted that the “dick sucker” was the effeminate one while the other kept his 'Straight” status along with being the masculine one.
Of course, these were stupid teenagers talking shit. Had anyone ever actually followed through on those empty threats, I’m sure they’d both be considered gay by said teens.
I find this to be an interesting parallel to the OP.
I’m asexual. Every other asexual person I’ve spoken with knows what type of sex they would prefer if they wanted sex.
Being gay is not what you do, it’s something you are.
It seems extremely unlikely to me that future humans will be indifferent about sex, and I have to say it’s not a very pleasant thought. Having no opinions about sex would require us to either lose interest in sex altogether or become blasé about things like rape and child molestation. I doubt that’s what you really had in mind, I assume you mean something more like “Whatever consenting adults do is their own business”, but that’s not a totally indifferent attitude.
Because Esprix doesn’t come around anymore. 
It’s called versatile where I come from. This is the kind of sex that I find most satisfying (physically), being both top and bottom in the same session.
So according to the OP, I guess that means that I switch back and forth between masculine and feminine in the course of a few minutes. That doesn’t make as much sense to me as the idea that I like men for sex.
My sense of the OP is just that he doesn’t know very many (or any) out gay men and that his thesis is based on naiveté and wishful thinking (the wish being that he would like to conclude that full-blown male homosexuality doesn’t really exist).
Roddy
It may even be that being out is unacceptable (or unsafe) where he is.
Agreed. I knew I was gay before I knew what gay was, or even really what sex was. I only knew that I felt about guys the way most other boys felt about girls.
To simplify things, I’d say there are three broad categories. (and of course, a number of variations)
- Heterosexual, also known as Straight. People that are sexually attracted to only members of the opposite gender.
- Homosexual, also known as Gay. People that are sexually attracted to only members of the same gender.
- Bisexual…hmm, is there a colloquial term? People that are sexually attracted to both genders. Many will have a general preference for one over the other.
None of them have anything to do with what sort of sex you prefer, what position you like it in or if you like to penetrate, be penetrated or neither. We don’t view things the same way as the Greeks did at least in part because we aren’t a completely patriarchal society that treats women as little better than property. (I know there are those that will at least partly disagree with that last bit)
…
I don’t really agree. I once wrote a very long post about this topic (already in relation with Greeks views), so I’m not going to do this again, but to sum up : there’s a general idea that about 5% of the population are attracted to men hence gays. Plus some bisexuals.
Now, if you look at classical greece, relationships and love with other men or boys is lauded, celebrated, possibly moreso than love for women. And apparently, rather widely practiced. Except if we assume that Athenians had a special genetic mix-up that made 75% of them attracted to men, it means that society and culture has a significant bearing on sexual practices and emotional feelings. If you’re living in a society where homosexuality is not only considered as normal, but even promoted, you end up with a large part of the population indulging in it (both sex and love).
I would say that homosexual relationships in prisons, or in the past on ships, show the same thing. Not having women available shouldn’t turn you into an homosexual. If you’ve zero interest in men before, or even feel disgust at the idea of man-man sexuality, as a lot of heterosexuals will state, there’s no reason this would change when there’s no woman around. You won’t make me do something I have zero interest in or even am repelled by just because my prefered options aren’t available.
To sum up, I believe that sexual attraction is much more fluid that usually stated. And that we even came recently to the extreme end of this belief. “People are born gay” (particularly popular in the USA, much less so over here in France) “It’s not a choice” and even this major idiocy nevertheless stated and supported by many “gays” : “Bisexuality doesn’t exist!”.
So, yes, I think our current view of homosexuality is very seriously flawed, that the evidences that it is are quite obvious but somehow ignored, sometimes to serve a greater purpose (stating that you’re born homo or hetero, one way or the other, and that there’s no leeway is convenient when arguing with preacher types), and I think that some societies of the past might have had a better grasp of it.
This opinion being compounded by my own experience. I’m definitely not “gay”, not even “bi”, but I don’t fit in the pure hetero category either even though it’s how I’d define myself if asked, by lack of other options. Even moreso since I believe that if things had gone differently at a certain point in the past, I might be nowadays calling myself “homo” again by lack of other options, or rather because people insist on putting everybody in one of these categories.
Ouch. You still can’t reach to an agreement. It’s like you want to re-invent sex. It’s like sex is a some field of nanotechnology that cant be figured.
For me and for the tribal people and even for animals, it’s simple:
Some people like to fuck. Other people like to be fucked. That’s it. I think a top gay wouldn’t mind doing a pretty girl. Bottom gays have to compete with girls to get a top. There is nothing in the structure of our brains that makes us want to only want to do gay men.
Gay should only be used to define bottom gays, because top gays (those who don’t like the idea of being anally penetrated) can do it with both genders.
So where do you put those of us who like both equally?
Roddy
You really don’t understand sexuality, do you? What you’re posting is nonsense.
Why is anyone even wasting their time with someone who says silliness like this?
You think wrong.
Only for bisexual tops.
Speak for yourself.
So The Sheikh, what does it mean if I like a woman on top? I’m so confused.
I don’t have the slightest in fucking a girl. My sexual identity isn’t defined by whether I like to fuck or get fucked. It’s about the gender of the person I’m wanting to have sex with.
I don’t know where you got these ideas, but they’re absolutely wrong. I am classified as a “top” or “dominant,” only with men. I have no desire to do anything sexual with a woman.
Maybe The Sheik likes to top men but doesn’t want to be thought of as homosexual. I may be reading too much into his handle, but I understand that’s actually pretty common in Arab culture.
ETA: Of course, it doesn’t change anything in the real world. If he likes to top men exclusively, he’s gay. If he likes to top women in addition to men, he’s bisexual. Defining your own words doesn’t have any traction outside of your head.