And here I thought nisosbar was using “quotations” correctly…
Do I have a cite for the statement “many ‘straight’ men do indeed have sex with men…”?
Not exactly, but consider Kinsey’s survey of 1948, rating men on a Kinsey scale of sexuality, 0 being always exclusively heterosexual - through 6, being always exclusively homosexual:
You can see that there are a large number of men who call themselves “straight” who either have had sex with men in the past, are doing so now, or both. The percentages have probably gone up since 1948, since the sexual freedom in society is so much greater today.
On the Lissener/Malacandra discussion:
One reason Lissener might be getting offended, Malacandra, is that you may be taking “why am I sometimes especially turned on by straight men?” as the much bigger “why am I gay?” I read L. as addressing the former, not the latter. It’s just a fact that many gay men, myself included, get heated when nongays are willing to flatly deny our own experience of knowing that we were nonstraight from a very early age. Whereas you MAY turn out to be right in questioning the received doctrine, it’s not something you can quite so casually toss off. Even erudite professionals in the field of human sexual development have learned to walk lightly.
“Lure of the toaster?” Hmmm. Maybe so. There is even a pop-up element. But you might’ve at least called it the intrinsic call of the harandra, O Malacandra.
I’m sorry, I’m a little slow - what is “lure of the toaster”? The idea that the challenge of making a self-professed “straight” man pop a hard-on from stimulation from a gay man is itself a turn-on? That’s a believable theory.
Actually, the nature v. nurture debate as to the origin of a gay identity within a male is, as most of you who read the news knows, a hotly debated subject with research on both sides.
Lissener promotes the nature position; malacandra says gayness is nurture.
I’ve gotten the impression that the toaster is the ass.
Or maybe it’s toast rack I’m thinking of?
Okay, dealing with the “toaster” reference: that’s a well-known gag whereby it’s asserted gay people want to “convert” straights because they’re all part of some secret club and can win a prize, e.g. a toaster, for every “success”. Nobody actually believes it’s true. I might as well have mentioned 1920s-style “Death Rays” if the context had justified it.
Scott, blessed are the peacemakers, and point taken.
nisobar, Malacandra says that whether gayness is nature or nurture is irrelevant to the question as to whether an under-ten has any meaningful insight into their own sexuality. I do argue for the possibility that someone who arrives prematurely at an unjustified conclusion about themselves might be quite heroically stubborn about sticking by what they’ve decided, but that’s some way from arguing that this is true of all gays.
lissener, off you go and be offended, then. I’ll drop the whole subject, okay? Actually I’ll drop it whether it’s okay by you or not, and if I want to discuss the “I’ve always known I was gay” line, I’ll start another thread. See ya.
So I totally missed the toaster reference. Yep, I thought sure it was a reference to the idea of looking at some guy’s crack and getting turned on. Show’s how much I know.
I do think it’s sweet that there are guys out there who daintily cover their possible ports of entry lest someone actually get pleasure out of looking thereupon.
I pity the hypothetical gay guy who can possibly get a charge out of looking at my fat, hairy, spotty behind. The prospect that someone might actually do so rates pretty low on my personal ScareOMeter. 