Results 21 to 30 of 39
Thread: nothing
-
10-10-2008 #21Rookie Poster
- Join Date
- Sep 2008
- Posts
- 56
-
10-11-2008 #22Junior Poster
- Join Date
- Dec 2005
- Location
- CA
- Posts
- 268
Originally Posted by vietboy
It seems that you consider gay to be a dichotomous variable... you are either gay or you are not gay. Your criteria for gayness is simple: if you want to be man-fucked, then, and only then, are you gay. Originally Posted by GinX
But this Dubya-think is simplistic. Gayness is a spectrum encompassing not only sexual dimensions, but also behavioral and linguistic aspects. A macho construction worker might like to get fucked in the ass by a dude. On the other hand, a lisping and dramatic man may like to get fucked in the ass by a shemale. Of these two, who is gay, and is it possible for one to be more gay than the other?
And what if the construction guy liked to get fucked in the ass by a shemale (as opposed to a man), would he be gay? As I understand your reasoning, you'd say no. You consider only the identity of the person someone chooses as the penetrator during a sexual act; however, there is nothing to substantiate the superiority of such a viewpoint. Why should we not consider the identity of both parties? Why is an effeminate man who likes to take dick up his ass not a homo, or at least somewhere on the gay-straight spectrum? In the case of an effeminate man who likes to get fucked in the ass by a shemale, I think you are still gay.
Furthermore, it is not enough to say that "YOU make that determination" regarding if you are gay or not. A guy can insist that he is not gay, but if has a gay looking avatar and suffers hissy fits, and if others view him as gay, it will affect how he is perceived and treated, and in the end it will mean very little if he is the lone voice insisting that he is not gay.
If, as you claim, there are these many variables as to what constitutes 'gay', then there could very well exist just as many variables as to what constitutes 'straight'. Further, what if the variables you apply don't mean anything and it's only the variables that others perceive that matters? Consider the last point you made...if the people around that guy thinks he 'acts gay' and perceive him as such, then it won't matter what he says...that goes hand in hand with the last point I made in my original post.
Since, from your point of view, there is as a seemingly increasing number of variables, then it would remain outside the providence of anyone-even one's self-to determine whether or not a person is gay or straight. You could claim that I am straight because of the variables you perceive...but I could claim I am gay because of the variables I perceive. Since we are going to lend equal claim and weight to the variables involved, that would mean if you call me straight and I call myself gay, we're both right...which, of course, is paradoxical.
The only sensible solution, as far I am concerned, is to examine the sexual activities of the person involved and then attempt to assign orientation. It is true that my own qualifications are simplistic, but they well fit the bill...from my own perspective, if you are a man and desire intimate and sexual relations ONLY with another man-and I mean the entire experience of what constitutes a man, not just his genitalia-and have no desire or interest in intimate and sexual relations with a woman, I would determine you as 'gay', simply due to the fact that given the qualifications in this example, how could we call you anything except that?
The reverse qualifications are true for assigning heterosexual orientation to someone, i.e., should you desire intimate and sexual relations ONLY with a member of the opposite sex.
The purpose of my original post was, as is perhaps yours, to point out that a singular activity alone does not qualify someone as 'gay' or 'straight'. I am still of the opinion that it is self, as long as the self is honest, that determines sexual orientation and not the perceived ideas of others.
-
10-11-2008 #23Junior Poster
- Join Date
- Feb 2008
- Posts
- 207
And there, at the end, you hit the essence of the problem. You are not being honest with yourself. You have simplistically created "the only sensible solution", meaning the only solution that doesn't create cognitive dissonance for YOU. Originally Posted by GinX
Originally Posted by vietboy
It seems that you consider gay to be a dichotomous variable... you are either gay or you are not gay. Your criteria for gayness is simple: if you want to be man-fucked, then, and only then, are you gay. Originally Posted by GinX
But this Dubya-think is simplistic. Gayness is a spectrum encompassing not only sexual dimensions, but also behavioral and linguistic aspects. A macho construction worker might like to get fucked in the ass by a dude. On the other hand, a lisping and dramatic man may like to get fucked in the ass by a shemale. Of these two, who is gay, and is it possible for one to be more gay than the other?
And what if the construction guy liked to get fucked in the ass by a shemale (as opposed to a man), would he be gay? As I understand your reasoning, you'd say no. You consider only the identity of the person someone chooses as the penetrator during a sexual act; however, there is nothing to substantiate the superiority of such a viewpoint. Why should we not consider the identity of both parties? Why is an effeminate man who likes to take dick up his ass not a homo, or at least somewhere on the gay-straight spectrum? In the case of an effeminate man who likes to get fucked in the ass by a shemale, I think you are still gay.
Furthermore, it is not enough to say that "YOU make that determination" regarding if you are gay or not. A guy can insist that he is not gay, but if has a gay looking avatar and suffers hissy fits, and if others view him as gay, it will affect how he is perceived and treated, and in the end it will mean very little if he is the lone voice insisting that he is not gay.
If, as you claim, there are these many variables as to what constitutes 'gay', then there could very well exist just as many variables as to what constitutes 'straight'. Further, what if the variables you apply don't mean anything and it's only the variables that others perceive that matters? Consider the last point you made...if the people around that guy thinks he 'acts gay' and perceive him as such, then it won't matter what he says...that goes hand in hand with the last point I made in my original post.
Since, from your point of view, there is as a seemingly increasing number of variables, then it would remain outside the providence of anyone-even one's self-to determine whether or not a person is gay or straight. You could claim that I am straight because of the variables you perceive...but I could claim I am gay because of the variables I perceive. Since we are going to lend equal claim and weight to the variables involved, that would mean if you call me straight and I call myself gay, we're both right...which, of course, is paradoxical.
The only sensible solution, as far I am concerned, is to examine the sexual activities of the person involved and then attempt to assign orientation. It is true that my own qualifications are simplistic, but they well fit the bill...from my own perspective, if you are a man and desire intimate and sexual relations ONLY with another man-and I mean the entire experience of what constitutes a man, not just his genitalia-and have no desire or interest in intimate and sexual relations with a woman, I would determine you as 'gay', simply due to the fact that given the qualifications in this example, how could we call you anything except that?
The reverse qualifications are true for assigning heterosexual orientation to someone, i.e., should you desire intimate and sexual relations ONLY with a member of the opposite sex.
The purpose of my original post was, as is perhaps yours, to point out that a singular activity alone does not qualify someone as 'gay' or 'straight'. I am still of the opinion that it is self, as long as the self is honest, that determines sexual orientation and not the perceived ideas of others.
But a man cannot:
1) dress like an leery-eyed fat femme in a goth-Jeffrey Dahmer get-up
2) act like a wounded priss when taunted
3) go on-and-on about how how he likes to take cock up his patulous ass
and THEN, claim to be straight, unless he is in total self-denial!
YOU ARE IN DENIAL. I have nothing against you for being a homosexual, but at least have the honesty to admit it! I doubt I am the only one who has ever indicated such to you. You write that only your own opinion of yourself is what matters, but you do not live alone in your own fantasy world. The opinions of others, not just those of yourself, must count for something...
-
10-11-2008 #24Junior Poster
- Join Date
- Dec 2005
- Location
- CA
- Posts
- 268
Oh I see....I thought we were having a serious conversation. Instead, you're just tossing out ad homs, apparently because a thread was closed, athread in which you never could justify your claims. Originally Posted by vietboy
And there, at the end, you hit the essence of the problem. You are not being honest with yourself. You have simplistically created "the only sensible solution", meaning the only solution that doesn't create cognitive dissonance for YOU. Originally Posted by GinX
Originally Posted by vietboy
It seems that you consider gay to be a dichotomous variable... you are either gay or you are not gay. Your criteria for gayness is simple: if you want to be man-fucked, then, and only then, are you gay. Originally Posted by GinX
But this Dubya-think is simplistic. Gayness is a spectrum encompassing not only sexual dimensions, but also behavioral and linguistic aspects. A macho construction worker might like to get fucked in the ass by a dude. On the other hand, a lisping and dramatic man may like to get fucked in the ass by a shemale. Of these two, who is gay, and is it possible for one to be more gay than the other?
And what if the construction guy liked to get fucked in the ass by a shemale (as opposed to a man), would he be gay? As I understand your reasoning, you'd say no. You consider only the identity of the person someone chooses as the penetrator during a sexual act; however, there is nothing to substantiate the superiority of such a viewpoint. Why should we not consider the identity of both parties? Why is an effeminate man who likes to take dick up his ass not a homo, or at least somewhere on the gay-straight spectrum? In the case of an effeminate man who likes to get fucked in the ass by a shemale, I think you are still gay.
Furthermore, it is not enough to say that "YOU make that determination" regarding if you are gay or not. A guy can insist that he is not gay, but if has a gay looking avatar and suffers hissy fits, and if others view him as gay, it will affect how he is perceived and treated, and in the end it will mean very little if he is the lone voice insisting that he is not gay.
If, as you claim, there are these many variables as to what constitutes 'gay', then there could very well exist just as many variables as to what constitutes 'straight'. Further, what if the variables you apply don't mean anything and it's only the variables that others perceive that matters? Consider the last point you made...if the people around that guy thinks he 'acts gay' and perceive him as such, then it won't matter what he says...that goes hand in hand with the last point I made in my original post.
Since, from your point of view, there is as a seemingly increasing number of variables, then it would remain outside the providence of anyone-even one's self-to determine whether or not a person is gay or straight. You could claim that I am straight because of the variables you perceive...but I could claim I am gay because of the variables I perceive. Since we are going to lend equal claim and weight to the variables involved, that would mean if you call me straight and I call myself gay, we're both right...which, of course, is paradoxical.
The only sensible solution, as far I am concerned, is to examine the sexual activities of the person involved and then attempt to assign orientation. It is true that my own qualifications are simplistic, but they well fit the bill...from my own perspective, if you are a man and desire intimate and sexual relations ONLY with another man-and I mean the entire experience of what constitutes a man, not just his genitalia-and have no desire or interest in intimate and sexual relations with a woman, I would determine you as 'gay', simply due to the fact that given the qualifications in this example, how could we call you anything except that?
The reverse qualifications are true for assigning heterosexual orientation to someone, i.e., should you desire intimate and sexual relations ONLY with a member of the opposite sex.
The purpose of my original post was, as is perhaps yours, to point out that a singular activity alone does not qualify someone as 'gay' or 'straight'. I am still of the opinion that it is self, as long as the self is honest, that determines sexual orientation and not the perceived ideas of others.
But a man cannot:
1) dress like an leery-eyed fat femme in a goth-Jeffrey Dahmer get-up
2) act like a wounded priss when taunted
3) go on-and-on about how how he likes to take cock up his patulous ass
and THEN, claim to be straight, unless he is in total self-denial!
YOU ARE IN DENIAL. I have nothing against you for being a homosexual, but at least have the honesty to admit it! I doubt I am the only one who has ever indicated such to you. You write that only your own opinion of yourself is what matters, but you do not live alone in your own fantasy world. The opinions of others, not just those of yourself, must count for something...
And for a minute there I thought you were half-way serious about talking about something meaningful...but you know, something meaningful could come out of this....
Tell you what....if you admit you are gay, then so will I.
After all, a man who:
1. has to resort to personal attacks rather than discuss the issue
2. Acts like a queen on her period when someone disagrees with him
3. Freely talks about liking to have sex with shemales
4. and tries to critique the the clothing I was wearing in my last avatar
...cannot possibly be straight! YOU ARE IN DENIAL. Oh sure, when you are topping a t-girl, I'm sure you think you're a straight guy, but the majority population doesn't see you having sex with a woman...they see you having sex with a guy who has had some alterations! I mean, the opinions of others count, right? I won't knock you for being gay, but come on...just open up that closet and we'll walk out together. Do yourself a service and be honest with yourself!
-
10-11-2008 #25Junior Poster
- Join Date
- Feb 2008
- Posts
- 207
"Oh I see....I thought we were having a serious conversation." Originally Posted by GinX
Oh I see....I thought we were having a serious conversation. Instead, you're just tossing out ad homs, apparently because a thread was closed, athread in which you never could justify your claims. Originally Posted by vietboy
And there, at the end, you hit the essence of the problem. You are not being honest with yourself. You have simplistically created "the only sensible solution", meaning the only solution that doesn't create cognitive dissonance for YOU. Originally Posted by GinX
Originally Posted by vietboy
It seems that you consider gay to be a dichotomous variable... you are either gay or you are not gay. Your criteria for gayness is simple: if you want to be man-fucked, then, and only then, are you gay. Originally Posted by GinX
But this Dubya-think is simplistic. Gayness is a spectrum encompassing not only sexual dimensions, but also behavioral and linguistic aspects. A macho construction worker might like to get fucked in the ass by a dude. On the other hand, a lisping and dramatic man may like to get fucked in the ass by a shemale. Of these two, who is gay, and is it possible for one to be more gay than the other?
And what if the construction guy liked to get fucked in the ass by a shemale (as opposed to a man), would he be gay? As I understand your reasoning, you'd say no. You consider only the identity of the person someone chooses as the penetrator during a sexual act; however, there is nothing to substantiate the superiority of such a viewpoint. Why should we not consider the identity of both parties? Why is an effeminate man who likes to take dick up his ass not a homo, or at least somewhere on the gay-straight spectrum? In the case of an effeminate man who likes to get fucked in the ass by a shemale, I think you are still gay.
Furthermore, it is not enough to say that "YOU make that determination" regarding if you are gay or not. A guy can insist that he is not gay, but if has a gay looking avatar and suffers hissy fits, and if others view him as gay, it will affect how he is perceived and treated, and in the end it will mean very little if he is the lone voice insisting that he is not gay.
If, as you claim, there are these many variables as to what constitutes 'gay', then there could very well exist just as many variables as to what constitutes 'straight'. Further, what if the variables you apply don't mean anything and it's only the variables that others perceive that matters? Consider the last point you made...if the people around that guy thinks he 'acts gay' and perceive him as such, then it won't matter what he says...that goes hand in hand with the last point I made in my original post.
Since, from your point of view, there is as a seemingly increasing number of variables, then it would remain outside the providence of anyone-even one's self-to determine whether or not a person is gay or straight. You could claim that I am straight because of the variables you perceive...but I could claim I am gay because of the variables I perceive. Since we are going to lend equal claim and weight to the variables involved, that would mean if you call me straight and I call myself gay, we're both right...which, of course, is paradoxical.
The only sensible solution, as far I am concerned, is to examine the sexual activities of the person involved and then attempt to assign orientation. It is true that my own qualifications are simplistic, but they well fit the bill...from my own perspective, if you are a man and desire intimate and sexual relations ONLY with another man-and I mean the entire experience of what constitutes a man, not just his genitalia-and have no desire or interest in intimate and sexual relations with a woman, I would determine you as 'gay', simply due to the fact that given the qualifications in this example, how could we call you anything except that?
The reverse qualifications are true for assigning heterosexual orientation to someone, i.e., should you desire intimate and sexual relations ONLY with a member of the opposite sex.
The purpose of my original post was, as is perhaps yours, to point out that a singular activity alone does not qualify someone as 'gay' or 'straight'. I am still of the opinion that it is self, as long as the self is honest, that determines sexual orientation and not the perceived ideas of others.
But a man cannot:
1) dress like an leery-eyed fat femme in a goth-Jeffrey Dahmer get-up
2) act like a wounded priss when taunted
3) go on-and-on about how how he likes to take cock up his patulous ass
and THEN, claim to be straight, unless he is in total self-denial!
YOU ARE IN DENIAL. I have nothing against you for being a homosexual, but at least have the honesty to admit it! I doubt I am the only one who has ever indicated such to you. You write that only your own opinion of yourself is what matters, but you do not live alone in your own fantasy world. The opinions of others, not just those of yourself, must count for something...
And for a minute there I thought you were half-way serious about talking about something meaningful...but you know, something meaningful could come out of this....
Tell you what....if you admit you are gay, then so will I.
After all, a man who:
1. has to resort to personal attacks rather than discuss the issue
2. Acts like a queen on her period when someone disagrees with him
3. Freely talks about liking to have sex with shemales
4. and tries to critique the the clothing I was wearing in my last avatar
...cannot possibly be straight! YOU ARE IN DENIAL. Oh sure, when you are topping a t-girl, I'm sure you think you're a straight guy, but the majority population doesn't see you having sex with a woman...they see you having sex with a guy who has had some alterations! I mean, the opinions of others count, right? I won't knock you for being gay, but come on...just open up that closet and we'll walk out together. Do yourself a service and be honest with yourself!
Hilarious! Damn, you do a great imitation of an ex-wife!
And then?
"Acts like a queen on her period"...
you gay men and your love-hate relationships with female physiology
"Freely talks about liking to have sex with shemales" and "when you are topping a t-girl"
You must have me confused with someone else. I am into women, whether GG or post-op.
"and tries to critique the the clothing I was wearing in my last avatar"
I'm not that fastidious in my fashion criticism (no "queer eye", so to speak). I'm just a regular guy who saw a queer and chuckled (I think I wrote "leery-eyed fat femme in a goth Jeffrey-Dahmer get-up"). Yes, in that avatar, which you ditched, you look queer, literally.
"you're just tossing out ad homs"
Now we are getting to some real meat here! "Ad hominem"... Latin, for "to the man" ("against" is an imperfect translation that is used for the modern connotation). Essentially, you criticize me for taking my argument to you personally, by criticizing you based on your appearance. But, isn't that actually the reverse of what you were doing when you were slobbering all over Kelly and Mimi's pictures with your fawning cock-praise? You imputed a number of merits to their personalities with your sophomoric analysis, which was based entirely on their pictures! Come on hypocrite, if you are going to criticize me for bashing you based on your avatar, is it not equally shallow and stupid to praise the personalities of others based on their pictures?
Sorry to have caused you a hissy fit by taunting you about your effete avatar. I can't make you more of a man, but maybe you'll find solace when someone injects in your butt with their manhood later later today.
-
10-11-2008 #26
- Join Date
- Oct 2008
- Posts
- 2
its like this with me
Im not confused about my sexuality so i dont have to question myself because even though i look at shemales ON THE COMPUTER im am strait. and here is why.
I have no desire to fuck a shemale, talk to a shemale or even look at a shemale in real life.I remember i was in this restaurant eating my food and this crossdressing person sat at the table next to me and i didnt try to look at him/her at all because i didnt want him/her to say anything to me. i was so grossed out and scared i just boxed my food up and left.
i just like to see shemale porn because i have seen regular/harcore strait porn ever since the age of 10. So it gets boring seeing it after awhile. so i come on here, look at shemales then when im off the computer its PUSSY!!! all the way.
i own no shemale dvds or movies. even when i watch shemale porn i only like to see her get sucked. it got to a point where i only look at shemale porn if she has a REALLY big black shemale dick, gets sucked , jack off and of course cumshot.. Thats because i get bored with material quick. i hate everything else in a shemale porn. in a about a year or 2 i probably wont even be checken shemale porn because i would probably switch over to animal porn or whatever. one thing i would never get into is real gay porn between actaul gay men.
If you have fantasies, want to fuck a shemale or like going where shemales hang out then you are gay.
So in conclusion i like to see shemales on computer but in real life when im off the computer i hate shemales and im scared of shemales.
-
10-11-2008 #27Junior Poster
- Join Date
- Feb 2008
- Posts
- 207
Your cock fantasies are explored only via porn right now. Originally Posted by nashif
My prediction is that you will become more open and honest about your cock fantasies and you will eventually be just another cock-bandit.
-
10-11-2008 #28Veteran Poster
- Join Date
- Apr 2007
- Posts
- 669
I always find it quite amusing, how some guys on this board feel the need to use fancy and/or archaic words to make their point, which is, that they have no interest in cocks whatsoever and that everything related with it disgusts them. Let's not forget, that we're ALL posting on a TRANSSEXUAL board. Why does this guy (w/210 posts) (and others too) always have to ardently defend the fact that he's such a macho man? Obviously, Vietboy, there is something you like about TRANSSEXUALS, and don't give me that beating-around-the-bush-crock, that you like their whole modus operandi or whatever. Otherwise, you would clearly NOT have posted/ spend so much time on this board, but instead would've opt to write only on GG boards. Dont kid yourself playboy, as said, this is a TRANSSEXUAL forum, but I guess some people still have to come to grips with the fact, that they're actually attracted to something women don't have casu quo find it interesting to have sex with and/or look at pictures of TRANSSEXUALS and then play a lil bit with their little winkies. I guess, you just belong to one of them manly-men-coteries, who cope with this "problem" this way. It's all good.
-
10-11-2008 #29
- Join Date
- Oct 2008
- Posts
- 2
I think gays have a hard time believing some dudes just like looking at shemale porn just for the fuck of it and i totally understand.
theres only about 3 types of videos i wanna see and if i see them then i will be done with shemales.
1.) a black shemale with a really really big dick NOT named suzanna holms, natasha, nefertitti, yasmin(the one wit the fake dick) madison(or anyone on the bigdickbitch website), vanity(even though i dont consider her dick big) and vanilla, nyobi and jada.
if i can get some videos of super big dick black shemales recieving a GREAT blow job and its not any of the black shemales i named above then i will be happy and i wont look a shemale porn again. i promise to god.
I know what yall are thinking "man if your looking for that then your gay". not really. I will admit i like LOOKING at shemales on the computer but thats about it. anything shemale related outside the computer i dont fuck wit.
if anybody has black shemale video then PM me the link or send it to me through fyetrombone@yahoo.com
-
10-11-2008 #30Junior Poster
- Join Date
- Feb 2008
- Posts
- 207
Clearly it is difficult for a cock-bandit to understand anything other than his own fetish for cock. I'm into post-ops, and the idea of a post-op pussy is probably so repellent to you that it makes you queasy (if so, steep a little ginger tea before you go back to your cock-banditry). Originally Posted by mrbig
As for me using big words, I'm sure you could get your mouth around them, if you tried.
BTW, why are cock-bandits so sensitive to gay jokes? I mean, you're not gay, right?
Reply With Quote
