marksimpson.com

1. arctic_jay Said,

   You don’t need french feminist bullshit to explain this phenomenon. Irigary’s theory is not even applicable since the Occident has not been anywhere near a patriarchy for centuries.

   In western countries, the sexual strategy that has been promoted casts male sexuality as tainted and female sexuality as redeeming. That’s what creates the whole slut/stud double standard. Men and women probably have similar sex drives, but due to the difference in sexual value between genders, men are lauded when they are able to seduce great numbers of women into sleeping with them, while women are lauded when they hold out for a high-status alpha male or a loyal, slavish provider. This has the effect of making men useful, since they have to be productive in some way in order to be worthy of giving sex to. But it comes with the consequence that no one, women or men, can have a fleeting sexual encounter with a man without wearing a scarlet “S” or “F” respectively, while two women sleeping together ironically increases their status as promoters of heterosexuality. Men engage in these types of threesomes because close friends just like to share fun activities together, and what’s more fun than sex? But because homosexuality is a double-taint (no pun intended), they have to put up severe restrictions against it.

   If we lived in a true modern patriarchy, male homosexuality would be seen as a noble bonding activity and any gal lucky enough to be invited into a mmf threesome would be seen as a total stud to all her peers.

2. Pedro Coderch Said,

   “It just means that, like most men, they are rather keen on cocks.”

   I’m sorry, Mark, but if a man is keen on any cock rather than his own, then he is obviously gay or bisexual. Stating otherwise is a contradiction in logic, reason and above all common sense. It’s saying that heterosexual is homosexual.

3. Sisu Said,

   Pedro, Pedro, Pedro.

   This is a brave new world. Men are no longer men as our father’s and grandfather’s defined them. Men are now narcissistic and what could be more narcissistic than admiring the penis of your bro’ / best friend / any convenient guy?

   Cock is cock, but defining your sexuality on the basis of whether or not you admire your best friend’s cock and bod is so 1990′s.

4. Nathan Said,

   Son (bottom)
   Father (top)

   how is this not gay?

5. Pedro Coderch Said,

   @Sisu

   This argument of yours makes no sense. Admiring another man’s dick for it’s size, for example, and wanting to have a dick that size is one thing, but wanting to suck it makes you gay or bisexual. I am sorry, but this is how things are. So define “admire”? Desiring to suck another man’s dick can be due to narcissim, yes, ok, but it’s also homosexuality

6. Natty Soltesz's Blog & Gay Erotic Stories » Thanks Mark Simpson Said,

   [...] the book on Morrissey (and is – please forgive me – a hot piece of ass), wrote this great analysis of my MM4W Craigslist post: Now, there’s nothing wrong with a couple of buddies wanting to [...]

7. jkrs Said,

   Sir, it’s:
   http://nattysoltesz.com/

   –j.

8. jkrs Said,

   erf, sorry. you misspelled his name, but the hyperlink directs just fine.

9. Stephen Watson Said,

   @Pedro: “Admiring another man’s dick for it’s size, for example, and wanting to have a dick that size is one thing, but wanting to suck it makes you gay or bisexual. I am sorry, but this is how things are.”

   ‘Homosexual’ as a term appeared only in 1869 and men have enjoyed other men’s cocks for many, many years before then. You are viewing sexuality from a very particular viewpoint. In early 20th Century Britain, straight men would often enjoy sex with other men but were not considered ‘gay’ or ‘homosexual’. I suggest you do a little research and broaden your horizons.

10. Mark S Said,

    jkrs: thanks for pointing out my sloppiness – sloppy seconds, anyone? – will correct.

11. Mark S Said,

    Artic Jay: I like your theory much more than Irigary’s. I wonder though whether your idea of a ‘modern patriarchy’ would approve of homosexuality, or even tolerate it. And if it did approve of homosexuality it would probably be as prescriptive and controlling of it as the Ancienty Greeks were. I agree however that the current fear of ‘short-circuiting’ of heterosexuality that is represented by (non-gay) males ‘touching one another’ is used to get men to perform and produce.

    Pedro: We’ve been through this one many times before. You think I’m illogical; I think you’re dogmatic. I think male bi-responsiveness is too common to give it its own separate ‘sexuality’. Especially since ‘sexuality’ is a very, very dodgy science with a very, very dodgy history – essentially pathologising non penile-vaginal sex.

    Your standards as to what, in effect, is ‘gay’ are entirely subjective. You may draw the line at sucking cock – others draw it at being fucked, or kissing another male. Or touching another man at all. Or reading this blog.

12. Mark Walsh Said,

    Probably either straights in denial, looking to watch each other perform the “male” thing. It seems some people are forgeting that males, onlike females can get off strictly from visual stimulation.
    That is just one of the differences between male and female sexuality, A.Jay :Females rely much more on frictive stimulation. Most male tops , if the object of their affection is the one they are sticking their appliance into like to be free to toss them around with some abandon. Unless he is interesting in watching the other fucker, an extra is generally just an obstical, making performance intractible, unless he’s around for ancillary roles like whipping or choking.
    These dynamics would generally hold whether the fuckee was a male or female. (i.e. if the bottom himself was not the oject of both mens desire); just a masturbatory tool.
    For that matter, if these two lads in the ad were imaginative enough, they might find a willing sheep, who would do just as well, and not expect drugs or sandwiches, after.

13. straightinbedonly Said,

    Reproduction is the most non homosexual (and possibly non heteroSEXUAL) sexual act.
    What if the fear of being categorized as gay (in the mind or in society) pushes these 3some parties to embrace reproductive intercourse as an integral component?

    By proving one’s hetero, reproductive “cred”, through insemination, it frees up the possibilities of even more homoeroticism in the scene. With the paternity in doubt (and abortion an option), there is no ultimate parenting responsibility (at least for the boys and maybe for the girl too).
    Get ‘er preggers and you’re psychologically free to get a lot more touchy with your buddy in the mix. No tag of gay possible.
    If fleshlights could get pregnant, they wouldn’t even need the girl.

14. straightinbedonly Said,

    It may be that homoeroticism is on the rise as an alternative of actual eroticism, when the option of girls who proclaim their slut-dom but don’t dare act it out or just can’t approach the level of intense sex hunger of the guys.
    But it may also be that, with at least the cultural fashion of easy chicks, the social respectability of sluts actually makes them less interesting. And so the continued anxiety about being effete-gay (and it’s the effete, pretty quality, not the bear-so-near-to-hetero-macho quality, which the stylish straight fears to embody) is actually what’s making it so damn interesting (fashion mags, behaviour). Not pure aestheticism in a wasp culture of anti aestheticist pragmatism and money mania. But the fact that it’s still kind of “dangerous”, unlike going with girls these days.
    Beware: make “gay” too respectable and the numbers of gay and metros may dwindle for lack of interest.

    But ‘Darnell’ says “dangerous” better than I can here.

15. straightinbedonly Said,

    @Mark Walsh
    “Most male tops , if the object of their affection is the one they are sticking their appliance into like to be free to toss them around with some abandon. Unless he is interesting in watching the other fucker, an extra is generally just an obstical, making performance intractible,”

    Admittedly I have no idea of mwalsh’s experience, straight or “gay”. But nevertheless,
    I would respectfully suggest that this is a very, VERY, idealized concept of contemporary hetero bedtime activity.
    Top or not, that kind of behaviour, I surmise, is highly influenced by watching porn.
    And even with all of THAT that there is,
    one of the most entrancing things about male on male sex, remains the fact that you can play a lot rougher with the boys than with the girls.
    Don’t take harsh straight porn for the truth of what straight sex is, only as proof of what it OUGHT to be.
    If anything, I’ll bet money that a threesome with two metros and one chick will end up a lot rougher than that between even a male top and female submissive. And the girl in that 3 will be the one left out of the rough stuff. Want to smack around or be smacked but don’t have the guts to go gay? Try it with your best bud, but have a girl in the room keep watch for good “hetero” cred measure, as you boys bruise each other up like rugby players!

    I guess I sound very PC. But one of the most idiotic, counter productive arguments of the gay marriage movement and all the social activism by today’s gays, is that “anything goes” among straights and that if you’re straight you can “practically have sex in the street”. All that does is tell all the straight boys, who are none of them having that kind of fun, to sit down and be satisfied with their lame traditional puritan sex, in the name of gay rights.
    Straight sex remains very PC. Anti-PC is one of the attractions, both physical and ideological, of gay-ness.
    That’s why increasingly lame comedians still get a raucous laugh of approval whenever they say the word “gay”: it’s a code word for rebellion against PC.

16. Mark Walsh Said,

    straightinbedonly: I can’t speak authoritatively about porn but in real life It’s been my limited experience that really passionate women are often dangerous once they get going; I don’t think its ideal breaking bones when you get tossed out of bed! Sometimes one needs a wrestling pad to avoid shattered bones. I speak not of the oh so many unhappy couples who don’t know what bottons to push. Even if you don’t climb trees but end up with some sadomasochist who will kill you, given a chance, many ladies can be rougher than some male bottoms. Remember they orgasm repeatedly and become progressively more worked up right along. Also not advisable driving! The point is though that the dynamics are such that it’s easier for one man to tangle with the beast than two.
    Actually I think it might be easier for two men to pair with a third man than a woman.

17. Mark Walsh Said,

    “Beware: make “gay” too respectable and the numbers of gay and metros may dwindle for lack of interest. ”

    Gay respectability is boring enough in and of itself to lose any luster for being common as well.

18. arctic_jay Said,

    The Ancient Greeks prohibited romantic relationships between adult males because the birth rate needed to remain high and boys needed to be prepared for military service, which required men to start families and provide for them. I mean, if men, if they were so inclined, could find sexual and emotional satisfaction with other men, why on earth would they start families unless they were forced to?

    A modern patriarchy could have less restrictions on adult male behavior, since maintaining a healthy stream of warriors set to be slaughtered on the battlefield is not necessary at this particular moment. That could change immediately, though.

    That a homo-friendly patriarchy could arise in modern times without violence seems unlikely. Western societies have benefitted greatly from exploiting sub-alpha males with heterosexual bribery. And the vast majority of women will fight against any sort of male sexual liberation (notice how gay-rights advocating feminists will still crinkle their noses at the idea of dating a bisexual man).

19. Mark Walsh Said,

    Modern warfare has made slaughter an equal opportunity fate. Note the N.Y.Times went all the way and admitted that the U.S. has just bombed out a section of innnocent women and children; dismissed with a casual ,”Whops! Just Afganis.” Actually the soldiers seem to be the only safe entrants in combat. The so caled “rules of engagement have changed since Greece. Besides, the world is so overpopulated that a few million deaths here and there seems a blessing: as long as they’re the right religion and race.

    Actually a bunch of horney and liberated women with free time are almost overwhelming to all those males who stay home. The females are probably homosexuality’s worst threat today. Males who are distainful of pussy just won’t do-men are needed to satiate the horde of lusty gals. Patriarchy seems to dim,relative to all this.
    It seems that we may need to promote more of these fleshlight situations, or whatever seems to work.

20. Mark Walsh Said,

    Someone thing that makes this fleshlight anotomically questional as a truely heterosexual pursuit in which an normal woman would be involved is the anotomical consideration.
    Contrary to asumptions put forth in movies like ‘deep throat,’ where the starlet has her clitous down her throat, women don’t get the stimulation that homosexuals do , which has something to do with a form of empathy I think. Similarly women don’t enjoy getting hammered up the rear end since they lack a prostate, the stimulation of which males enjoy. So the only real route of entry which is not done solely for the insertee’s pleasure or at his command is into the one orifice where we find a clitora as well perhaps as a G-spot which seems to be accessable only which the female on top.

    So unless you get a female who has an interest in circus stunts or is very masochistic for a pair of “straights ” who want to watch one another perform, you won’t have a regular female who normally has one port of entry. If both guys use that they will surely be touching each other, in fact they would be quite well squished together.

21. Mark S Said,

    Mark W: I know some women who say they enjoy a good buggering, even sans prostate gland/male g-spot. But it’s interesting how popular anal sex has become with hetero men: enjoying putting their penis in the ‘cunt’ they happen to share with the ladies.

22. Mark Walsh Said,

    Certainly women may get the same kind of joy that an herbal enema supposedly gives. I suspect that the enjoyment comes not from stimulation as much as pleasing their partner. Also, in the heterosexual maze of motives, it’s said that anal sex allows a prolongation of virginity: this could also still be a convenient way of doing it but not using birth control devices: for Catholics of course. I know that women will ask for anal sex just to demonstrate a competitive parity with potential gay partners.! One of the few convincing films of heterosexual sex is in “Savage Love” with Julienne Moore in which her husband flips her skirt up and approaches her from behind; it is clearly played out -more or less like getting a surprise colonoscopy. It was fun to watch but she didn’t look very happy.

    The practice of ‘pegging’ (female into male) is something which I know from a sexology class is the revival of an old South American custom in which glass rods or knotted cords were placed up the males ass and manipulated or pulled out by the female. A possible correlative to this is your claim that straight guys prefer being fucked buy men. I’ve seen that in other places.

23. Mark Walsh Said,

    Oh yes, Mark S, in addition I saw figures from a CDC study (05) which indicate that actually more heterosexual men(40%) than women(35%) have had anal intercourse, giving verity to the old wives tale that the way to a man’s heart is through his ass.(something in that general area? ).

24. Pedro Coderch Said,

    @Stephen Watson

    Call it whatever you like. Modern straight men are defined, arbitrarilly I agree, as men who don’t have any sort of erotic contact with other meh and no desire to. The men who “enjoyed dick without being gay or homosexual”, as you put it, would still not be regarded as straight.

25. P Coderch Said,

    @Mark Simpson

    “Dogmatic” is just a word, Mark. I don’t know if the cause of male homosexuality is biological, sociological or a matter of volition. I am not rigid in my thinking, except when it comes to being logical. The reason why I believe in a biologicl explanation for tings like homossexuality is because it makes a lot more sense than any other explanation. The social explanation doesen’t cut it. Society doesen’t condition boys to beome homosexuals, on the contrary, so we can rule out this explanation. As for volition, I asked all my gay friends and they were all unanimous in that they never chose being gay. There was no choice involved. I never chose my sexuality either. You are pretty much alone when it comes to believing that homosexuality is a choice, Mark. If it is a choice, then why choose being a homosexual? It is much easier being straight. Very obviously, it’s preference and not a choice. It’s such a strong preference that most men with it go along despite all the negative characteristics associated with it. And because Society doesen’t encourage it, this preference can only ergo be biological. You are wrong, Mark.

26. Mark Walsh Said,

    I don’t like to butt in, Pedro, but but I can’t help but wonder where you got the peculiar and colorful notion that society had any preconception of what it was up to?

27. Marcelo Said,

    “As for volition, I asked all my gay friends and they were all unanimous in that they never chose being gay. There was no choice involved. I never chose my sexuality either. You are pretty much alone when it comes to believing that homosexuality is a choice”

    Pedro, your partly correct – these “choices” or conclusions come about during your up bringing. They happen when your a kid (I’ve observed this personally via witnessing nephews and nieces grow up around me). This is why some ‘gay’ men say that they were born that way.

    Biologically speaking there is still no evidence to suggest that sexuality is genetic. And I can personally clearly remember how my sexuality evolved, and I am highly dubious about there being anything as a genuine fixed ‘gay’ persona or a ‘Bi’ or ‘Straight’ one. Although I can see how one could go either way – especially if fear and insecurity brought about by the understood ‘sense of separation’ kicks in at an early age. That sense of separation kicks in around the age of 2 – 3 (this can vary). Once it kicks in – of you go on this crazy ride, lost in ego and all it’s ramifications. Until, if your lucky, you realize that the ego is an illusion, and that that ‘sense of separation’ is an illusion.

    Neuroscientists have also yet to find evidence of free will. So, no biological urge to suck dick – but we also have no control over our choices. Every thought or movement is spontaneous.

    These choices are part of the human biological makeup, of which you have no control. Thoughts and choices are biological. Choices are clearly made though, in the same way that your heart beats.

    You don’t tell or control how your heart beats – your body does that. And likewise your body produces movement and choices.

    As Mark W says “…where you got the peculiar and colorful notion that society had any preconception of what it was up to?”

28. straightonlyinbed Said,

    @coderich and Mwalsh.

    A counter example, if I may:
    MY gay friends have, on occasion, mentioned their strong erotica attraction to the occasional girl. But they feel (as the say) like they can’t even try to make an advance because it conflicts with their being “gay”. (and here another reason to be exclusively “gay”, fear of interacting with women!)

    Not all of society knows what it’s doing, but factions within it each have goals. Gay identity has become a successful cultural authority, backed up up by the police powers of political correctness. They KNOW what they’re doing, those “liberal” advocates.
    There are many feathers of sexual man. One of them is the natural bisexual who feels constrained to picking one side only. Straight married men are one kind. I’ve also seen single, self proclaimed gays, who constrain themselves away from bisexuality.

    Furthermore, when on the one side you have the cultural force of millions of conformist non-warrior males pushing themselves and their sons to “be like men, not pansies” and on the other side you have the genteel women pushing males to be as boyishly nice and darling as any pretty boy pass-around toy ever could,
    that’s 2 cultural forces that know what they are doing. In conflict, of course.

    With so much in the environment, the nature of the individual can be made to take a back seat.

    I suspect all of coderich’s “gay friends” think more alike than for themselves. And Mwalsh, I was also speaking of the advantage gays have when it comes to reciprocity in rough sex: no one’s “wrong” to have thrown a punch if both do.
    Aside from a little gentle spanking and not very much more, most anglo hetero women are pretty over sensitive and timid in the sack, when it comes to receiving (and doling out). That you may have discovered a few steam rollers that like to push the boys down into the mud still offers only a new hierarchy, which remains very PC and restrained. I don’t know of ANY man who could still call himself a man if he couldn’t “take it” from a woman, whether a slap in the face on the street or a big whack in bed.
    David Beckham non obstante.

    We’re talking well, WELL, below anything as rough as “broken bones” here. Let’s get to light “bruises” first, which is the term I used.

29. Mark S Said,

    Straightonlyinbed: Nice to see there’s a male commenter on here who knows something about women. I certainly don’t. Though I have noticed that when I get very drunk I have a tendency to snog the occasional unfortunate lady. I suspect your’re probably right that some gay men have to maintain their gay identity by resisting confusing messages from the female of the species. Others of course do it by becoming their mothers.

30. Mark Walsh Said,

    You beat me, Mark ; nonethe less
    straightonlyinbed Re; social conditioning: I suspect that your gay friends are feeding you a line to assure you that they have the “right” attractions now and again.; there aren’t too many gay people who are stifled in unapologetically sticking it in what thy want if they want to badly enough. In addition to Marks observations, your friends might also be confusing their “attraction” with wanting to wear the girls dress.

    In your other example of social formation, fathers who push their sons too hard to be straight end up most often with a sadomasochistic sissy. So their intention hardly matches the outcome.

    If a woman is just laying their shes either a lesbian or you’re not doing something right.
    I say this from sufficient wayword experience, but wouldn’t besoot the site with those tales of terror.

31. Mark Walsh Said,

    Also, with men if they both start throwing punches it’s a real mess: it has to go one way or the other hopefully; otherwise it turns into a boxing match.! It is usually S/M it comes out very bad if its either S/M or M/M . My mother would love boxing with you in bed, as she was a fine boxer and very pugnatious, but not most gay men.

32. Mark Walsh Said,

    correction: above: :” bad if its S/S or M/M” (not S/M)

Add A Comment