• S E X
    L O V E +
    R E L A T I O N S H I P S


    ❤️ Welcome Guest! ❤️


    Posting Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • SLR Moderators: axe battler | xtcgrrrl | arrall

I’m a straight male, why do I want to suck dick?

Dick is very attractive object, it is obvious. Pussy is too, but touching, feeling another man's dick would be very exciting. I would probably (80% sure) not do it, if I could, but on paper it is very attractive. But more in "prohibited, hidden" type of sexy, not straight attraction of vagina that I have as heterosexual male.
 
birdup.snaildown said:
@CFC, I'm not convinced. If you were lost on a desert island with someone of the opposite sex, I think you'd eventually get over it. I've met people who say they couldn't ever bring themselves to eat raw fish, but - again - if you're starving, you will eat it and like it.

The word trauma gets thrown around a bit too much.

A lot of straight guys I've met insist that it's traumatic to catch a glimpse of gay porn or even see someone's dick up close. That's silly. It's not "traumatic". They're just being snowflakes.

When straight guys go overboard about how traumatic cocks are, it always makes me think of Lady Macbeth and how the lady doth protest too much.

Gay guys, similarly, can be so afraid of their heterosexual side that they claim it is impossible. It's not impossible. It's not traumatic. It's just a vagina.

Fucking a woman in the ass isn't that different to fucking a man in the ass. Having your dick sucked by a man is no different to having your dick sucked by a woman.

There's no such thing as a hard-line heterosexual/homosexual. Sexuality is a construct. It doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I just don't agree with your perception. Maybe sex is like eating fish for you, which is great. But it isn't for me, and you'd probably develop a greater understanding of others if you were able to accept that.
 
birdup.snaildown said:
@CFC, I'm not convinced. If you were lost on a desert island with someone of the opposite sex, I think you'd eventually get over it. I've met people who say they couldn't ever bring themselves to eat raw fish, but - again - if you're starving, you will eat it and like it.

The word trauma gets thrown around a bit too much.

A lot of straight guys I've met insist that it's traumatic to catch a glimpse of gay porn or even see someone's dick up close. That's silly. It's not "traumatic". They're just being snowflakes.

When straight guys go overboard about how traumatic cocks are, it always makes me think of Lady Macbeth and how the lady doth protest too much.

Gay guys, similarly, can be so afraid of their heterosexual side that they claim it is impossible. It's not impossible. It's not traumatic. It's just a vagina.

Fucking a woman in the ass isn't that different to fucking a man in the ass. Having your dick sucked by a man is no different to having your dick sucked by a woman.

There's no such thing as a hard-line heterosexual/homosexual. Sexuality is a construct. It doesn't exist.
Click to expand...
What r u talking about? Straight guyd dont care about dicks so easy.
And they see dicks in locker room or from friend or whatever ....
I think you dont know any straight guys
 
Byzek said:
What r u talking about? Straight guyd dont care about dicks so easy. And they see dicks in locker room or from friend or whatever .... I think you dont know any straight guys
Click to expand...

On the contrary, I hardly know any gay guys. If you read what I said, I wasn't referring to seeing dicks in the locker room. I said seeing a dick up close. There is a comfort zone. Most straight guys are "repulsed" by dicks to some extent. Gay guys are also often "repulsed" by vaginas. Both category would struggle to touch one which is weird because straight guys touch their own dicks all the time.

Jerking someone off is basically the same as jerking yourself off.

Straight guys who insist they are 100% straight and would never stray from the path are just repressed. Same goes for gay guys who are repulsed by vaginas.

It's just skin.

CFC said:
Sorry, I just don't agree with your perception. Maybe sex is like eating fish for you, which is great. But it isn't for me, and you'd probably develop a greater understanding of others if you were able to accept that.
Click to expand...

The thing is, though, you don't know what you'd do in the desert island situation. Maybe you'd spend your entire life jerking off in the bushes. If so, that's a little sad. No offense. I think most straight guys would at least let the other guy suck them off. I mean, why not?

People who spend long stints in jail most often do the same thing. They might not admit it to you if you're likely to judge them but I know this to be true. Women in the same situation tend to lez it up a bit.
 
I know what he means. I don't want hugging and kissing and lovey dovey. I would love to just suck cocks in a glory hole and get my ass banged multiple times. Too bad thats not safe to do. I used to have lots of gay sex when I was younger. It was a fun pastime for me and different buddies. Who needs a label. Right now I have been married to tha same woman 31 years and still happy. No justification needed bro...ever.
 
birdup.snaildown said:
On the contrary, I hardly know any gay guys. If you read what I said, I wasn't referring to seeing dicks in the locker room. I said seeing a dick up close. There is a comfort zone. Most straight guys are "repulsed" by dicks to some extent. Gay guys are also often "repulsed" by vaginas. Both category would struggle to touch one which is weird because straight guys touch their own dicks all the time.

Jerking someone off is basically the same as jerking yourself off.

Straight guys who insist they are 100% straight and would never stray from the path are just repressed. Same goes for gay guys who are repulsed by vaginas.
Click to expand...

Yeah I've never "gotten" this. Like, I consider myself pretty much just ordinary straight. I have no particular desire to be involved with other women. But I can't say seeing naked women really repulses me in any way either. Certainly not to the hysterical degree some guys make it out as.

Maybe it's different for guys, or some guys anyway, although if I'm honest, part of me strongly suspects this is another thing where guys are more or less just pretending because they think guy culture expects that of them. Or if not pretending, that they've convinced themselves that's how they feel because they think they're supposed too.

My thoughts anyway.
 
Yeah guys are repressed because from a very early age society (via guy culture) insists that they pretend to be repulsed by other men's genitals and the idea of gay sex. I experienced this in high school. There is a lot of homophobia among young men, driven by fear. I don't believe the repulsion is in any way natural. The pretence of repulsion mutates later in life into confusion and repression.

The healthiest place to be, psychologically, is totally unphased by sex.

Sucking a dick might not be for everyone, but it's not traumatic unless you have underlying issues that make it traumatic. It's just sex. It's no big deal. If you can put a sausage in your mouth, you can put a dick in there. If you don't like it, just take it out again. No harm done. People get really worked up about sex. Like I said - at the end of the day - it's just a bit of skin.
 
I wouldn't go quite that far.

Sex is a very emotionally involved activity. Even if the mechanics of sexual activity might not be traumatic the psychological impact can still be significant in some circumstances.
 
Sex can be emotional but it can just be fucking. Maybe it's different for women, but if you're a guy you should be able to just fuck some random person and move on. I don't see why it needs to be emotional. Obviously it is for some people, but I tend to think there are underlying issues there.
 
Yeah i don't think I've even kissed a couple before a couple fucks - doesn't need to be a big thing.

Sucking dick would be in my memory strongly, because it's new and a taboo experience that i probably wouldn't enjoy, but i can't say it would shape me as a person.
 
birdup.snaildown said:
The thing is, though, you don't know what you'd do in the desert island situation. Maybe you'd spend your entire life jerking off in the bushes. If so, that's a little sad. No offense. I think most straight guys would at least let the other guy suck them off. I mean, why not?

People who spend long stints in jail most often do the same thing. They might not admit it to you if you're likely to judge them but I know this to be true. Women in the same situation tend to lez it up a bit.
Click to expand...

I agree, I don't know. Maybe my feelings would change in certain situations, I'm not saying I can only be binary. What I was saying is that in this situation, and with this package of nurture/nature experiences and endowments I've had throughout my life, what I wrote before is my genuine position. It would probably be fun to be more sexually open and exploratory in some ways, but I'm also happy to accept myself the way I am.
 
CFC said:
nurture
Click to expand...

That's all I was saying in the first place.

If two men came into existence in a bubble (floating in space) and they were anatomically developed they would experiment sexually. Without the influence of religion and culture, it wouldn't be traumatic. There are no women in this bubble. They don't know what women are. There is no homophobia in this bubble. There is no reason for them to judge themselves or overthink it.

Naturally, sex isn't traumatic. It becomes traumatic because of the church. It becomes traumatic because of fairy tale ideals from Disney films. It becomes traumatic because people are more comfortable (for whatever reason) lumping themselves and each other into categories. We do it with skin colour, with gender, and with sexuality. It wasn't that long ago that most people would have struggled to partake in interracial relationships.

Categories are meaningless.
People are people.
Skin is skin.

Audiobook said:
If that’s what you like I say go for it.
Click to expand...

I like a bit of both. Sometimes I chose to engage emotionally, if I have feelings for that person, but I can also totally detach myself into animal form and just fuck. Both are good; there's nothing wrong with either.
 
Something I think that's worth pointing out...

Even if you accept uncontested that something is only traumatic because of the arbitrary cultural influences... Does that actually matter?

Humans aren't rational and aren't generally able to rationalize something they find traumatic into something they don't find traumatic, even if that rationalization is actually entirely sensible and logical.

I've seen similar arguments in the past about other irrational attributes of human thinking... The problem is the human mind isn't rational and explaining why something isn't rational can be amazingly ineffective at changing the way the mind feels about it.
 
It matters if you care about clearing away the cobwebs and finding the truth. It matters if you care about freeing yourself from the random, arbitrary constraints of time and place. It matters if you want to pursue truth and enlightenment. Life is short. I don't want to spend it afraid because the church says so. I used to life in fear. I used to be repressed. I'm glad I have liberated myself from all that bullshit. So, yes, it matters to me. Whether or not it matters to you (or anyone else) is something you have to decide for yourself.

JessFR said:
Humans aren't rational and aren't generally able to rationalize something they find traumatic into something they don't find traumatic, even if that rationalization is actually entirely sensible and logical.
Click to expand...

I disagree. People might tell you that you exist in a particular box and you can't free yourself from it... and you might believe them... but that doesn't make it true.

JessFR said:
explaining why something isn't rational can be amazingly ineffective at changing the way the mind feels about it.
Click to expand...

Everything is relative... So, "amazingly ineffective" in comparison to what alternative technique?

If there isn't a better way, the statement is meaningless.
 
Last edited:
birdup.snaildown said:
It matters if you care about clearing away the cobwebs and finding the truth. It matters if you care about freeing yourself from the random, arbitrary constraints of time and place. It matters if you want to pursue truth and enlightenment. Life is short. I don't want to spend it afraid because the church says so. I used to life in fear. I used to be repressed. I'm glad I have liberated myself from all that bullshit. So, yes, it matters to me. Whether or not it matters to you (or anyone else) is something you have to decide for yourself.



I disagree. People might tell you that you exist in a particular box and you can't free yourself from it... and you might believe them... but that doesn't make it true.



Everything is relative... So, "amazingly ineffective" in comparison to what alternative technique?

If there isn't a better way, the statement is meaningless.
Click to expand...

Compared to nothing. It's amazingly ineffective in the sense that the significant majority of the time it doesn't work.

My point is, say you're traumatized by believing you've done something that will condemn you to tell. It's all crap, but the harm done by that trauma is still real. Even if that person later becomes an atheist the trauma can still linger.
 
1) Something cannot be amazingly ineffective in comparison to nothing. The adjectival part of your statement (at the very least) is meaningless without some kind of context. If a vaccine is 10% effective and it is the only vaccine, you might say it is "amazingly ineffective", but - really - it is the most effective vaccine. Like I said, everything is relative.

2) The "significant majority of the time" what doesn't work? Rationalization? I'm not going to bother asking you to cite a source for that, because clearly it's a ridiculous statement. You appear to be suggesting we shouldn't explain why certain things are irrational. Does that apply to the irrational fear of black people, too? What other irrational fears should we not bother to rationalize in your opinion?

3) Sure the trauma can still linger after we make our best efforts to help people understand why it shouldn't linger, but I don't see why that means we shouldn't try to rationalize it. I'm not traumatizing people by telling them they shouldn't allow the church (or other people) to traumatize them. I'm not traumatizing people by suggesting that sex is natural and they shouldn't worry about it... My point is: the trauma doesn't come from the sexual act, it comes from external influences that make us feel shame/guilt. You appear to be arguing that we should just leave the trauma as is and not bother to try and help people understand that they shouldn't feel shame/guilt?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top