I kind of have to say - if you have to ask, you might not be straight.

I'm not asking for my own definition, I'm asking what it means to other people. I'm asking due to the fact that for at least 80% of the active people calling themselves heterosexual, a lot of homosexual activity is included for them. This becomes problematic when, for me, heterosexuality does not include desiring sexual stimulation from males or wanting to give sexual stimulation to males.

I don't see how you thought I was asking for my own personal definition... so I don't know why you would post that at all.

I wanted to weigh in on this topic. I consider myself bisexual, its a label that is comfortable for me as I do enjoy sexual things with both men and women. That said, I consider us all to be sexual beings - we were created and designed to enjoy sex. Some of us remain exclusively straight or gay, while others see themselves somewhere in the middle.

Straight to me implies that other than what may be considered experimentation when we are adolescents, exploring, getting off with other guys.... if that stuff stops (it did for me about 16) without ever happening again, or if I become involved in male/female sexual relationships for the rest of my life with no desire or m2m experiences again... I'd say that is straight.

If though my desires for getting off with another man occur, as they did for me, then I think I've crossed that line into "sexual being" and simply enjoying sex with whomever I choose at the time. For me, a sexual act does not "make" me anything, while sucking a buddy off might be a homosexual act, that does not make me homosexual as I feel there is so much more to being homosexual than an act.

I'm rambling but hope you see the point here. Labels are tough because we're all on this continuum of sexual thoughts, desires, behaviors and preferences. More than glad to chat more if you'd like.

The problem is that I have been pretty explicit, perhaps not on my profile but in something like, let's say, skype listing. I just stopped posting for skype listing because, despite me placing explicit likes and dislikes, folks don't seem to really care. It's not just the gay stuff; hell the edging folks seems about 80x more thoughtless. I post that I don't like edging a lot, and that if that's your thing then don't add me. Yet, 90% that added me are 3+ hour edgers... I don't see how that makes any sense if the person reads the listing.

It might be that the level of perv is just way too extreme for me, and while I can understand one thing about being explicit about my likes and dislikes, I think it's also equally bogus that folks assume that you wanna talk like that. I mean I can understand my profile not being explicit, but in conversation I usually tell people what I like, which includes me pointing out that I do not like gay porn of any variety. Now I don't know about anyone else, but I would at least think, "Hey, maybe this guy won't appreciate me talking about wanting his dick"... is that completely unreasonable to assume?

I just feel that it's perhaps the perv level that doesn't allow for folks to consider being respectful of certain limits. Again, I am not too surprised because of the perv level, nor am I saying that people should change the way they are. But for it appears that being perved out does not lend to certain degrees of understanding the importance of limits that may or may not exist for you, but do exist for others.

I mean, you got a problem with misogyny in here, but to me it makes perfect sense that this would be the case. This is a site where there are pron addicts galore, and porn is rarely ever anything but extremely misogynistic. I mean, how often are pornstars popular because they are considered "whores",
"cumsluts", "bitches in heat"... I mean you could fill a library with the many terms used to describe female pornstars as sex-crazed dick fiends that are there to give pleasure to penises. So with porn being so misogynistic, isn't it reasonable that porn addicts are going to also being heavily misogynistic?

So can you understand how I might be confused, perturbed and annoyed when heterosexuality, which by no regular definition includes the desire or active pursuits of receiving and giving oral, genital, manual, or even aural sexual stimulation from the same sex, but your beef involves a current of thinking and acting that is synonymous with one of the primary focuses here? Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of the misogyny either, but I expected it because porn is a huge focus here, and porn heavily emphasizes exploiting women. However, I don't think it is terribly unreasonable to assume that people would at least consider, for their own benefit as well as the other guy's, that heterosexual might mean that homosexual fantasy is not something that is included. Even if some people have a loose definition of it, I think that because some others have a tighter definition of it, that would at least prompt any thoughtful person to at least confirm that certain fantasies are ok. I think it would also prompt any thoughtful person to refrain from such things when, in conversation, they are explicitly told that cock loving is not on the menu.



Again, I don't understand how this is such a difficult thing to define, as sexual orientation is about, first and foremost, sexual desire. Romance is about emotion, but people can be sexually attracted to several things that are not romantically appealing to them or romantically necessary. I love big tits, but I can be romantically involved with women who don't have them. Does that mean that I am no longer a tit guy? Not even close, but romance involves facets that have nothing to do with sex intrinsically.

So with sexuality, the relevant factor is sex, not emotion. I know several people who, for many reasons, do not like the spend their time with women. They don't like what they consider womanly things, and find talking with them to be annoying. However, sexually speaking, the only thing they want is a woman; I know a guy who regularly purchases time with escorts because he does not want a romantic relationship with women. But he shells out $4000 a month just to fuck them... that's a guy committed to having sex with women. However, he cannot stand the idea of having a romantic relationship with them... so is this guy no longer heterosexual? I don't think anyone could considered him anything but heterosexual unless they knew his sexual desires to be different.

So for me, sexual orientation is about sex; romance and emotional ties are not intrinsically a part of that. For a human to be a horse, for example, they need to have several biological parameters met that would make them a horse. So yea, simply neighing will not make a man a horse. But sexual orientation is about sexual attraction and desire, and the only emotions relevant are those revolving that are intrinsic to sex. Romance can be part of sexual desire, but it is not intrinsic to it. So if you suck cock, then sexually you desire male interaction. That means that your sexual orientation involves being with men, which is not in the heterosexual template. Sexual orientation only revolves around sexual desire and inclinations.

Again, there are things here that I feel are being married to sexual orientation that have nothing to do with it. The fact that homosexuality comes with a template of also being "womanly" I think confuses the issue. Being sexually attracted to men doesn't make you intrinsically feminine, but that stereotype is so close to homosexuality that folks say they don't "feel" gay. What else is there to feel in being homosexual other than they sexual desire? It's sexual orientation; dressing up in Daisy-Duke shorts and switching like a model doesn't have shit to do with sexual desire. It might help a person feel more complete to act that way, but being homosexual or bisexual does not intrinsically necessitate those things, they are just the way some gay people act.

But hey, I think I've repeated things enough here, and honestly I don't think this is the greatest arena to get too philosophical about sex. I think people are here to be somewhat, if not extremely reckless, so I think my investment in the topic has ran it's course. I've learned what I needed to learn here, and it's helped me know that enjoying masturbation to the level that people do here probably requires a change in thought and action that I simply do not want to be a part of my life. Combined with the fact that masturbation has become a stale part of life for me in general, and I've been looking for something to jar me out of that "creature of habit" mentality, then I can thank JC for helping me get there. I have many other avenues to explore sexual satisfaction from without having to wade through several unappealing options to get there.

Thanks to everyone who chimed in, and of course I don't own this topic so everyone should feel free to use it for your own personal discussions as long as you guys like. Peace!

Yes! ^^^^^^ What he said.

I know several homosexual people and they are not interested in men just when they are horny. They love them romantically.

Standing in a garage making engine sounds doesn't make you a car any more that sucking a cock makes you gay. As the poster above said, I identify as bi to put a label on myself others will understand, but that's really not an accurate description. It's just about sex and cumming to me. Not a relationship or romance.

Oops, messed up a post.

I've always wondered why just because guys like jacking off together someone has to roll out a label ? Here in America we're quick with labels and slow in understanding .

Yep. Some folks feel they have to label folks. It's what we do. It's very sad that people are still so uptight about thinks when it comes to sex.

Everyone is different. Some guys wouldn't touch another guy in any way. I like pussy but go through periods for what ever reason am a male-male whore. sometimes i want a woman, other times to be with a male. Although I lable myself bi in this forum, it really just seems normal sex to me, and i don't think about a lable.

I think you are probably onto something there. I think many folks still see sexual orientation as a dichotomy: normal (straight) and the rest (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender etc. etc...) and are quick to assign people to one of these two "buckets". Most people like to be considered normal.

A distant relative of mine who had previously been in a relationship with a girl fell in love with another guy. When he posted on Facebook that he was bisexual he was met with comments to the effect that calling himself bisexual was obviously just a cowardly cover and how he must be gay and must have been all along.

You also wondered if some form of bisexuality was much more common than people had hitherto thought and this survey from YouGov bears that out, though it doesn't go as far as you in suggesting it may be the orientation of the majority. It is also very interesting that the proportion identifying as not 100% straight in that survey is much higher in younger people. I don't expect the proportions of people's actual orientation has changed over time, rather attitudes to being honest about it have.

Regarding celebrities, young women and fantasies I think it is fair to say the sex drive does not know the rules we make as a civilised society. It is our conscious mind that knows these rules and hopefully regulates our behaviour. An interesting example comes to mind. I was in a pub and a guy was showing an interest in a girl. An older relative of the girl noticed what was happening and rudely told the man to back off as the girl was only 15. I looked at the girl concerned and noticed that:

1. She was within the height range for an adult woman.
2. She had breasts that were a little above average for an adult woman.
3. She had adult shaped hips.
4. She was proficient at wearing makeup.
5. Her attire looked like that of an adult woman.

In other words her appearance was of an adult woman and it was clearly that womanly shape that had attracted him.

Different people may apply the rules of our society in different ways. Some may deliberately choose to avoid fantasy about someone, or doing something, that would be illegal in real life for fear of attempting to do it for real while other are happy to have the fantasy and trust themselves not to attempt to make it real. I did read another survey a while back, which I no longer have a link to, which found that as access to the Internet in the USA had improved so the rate of rape had fallen. The graphs were very close such that it seemed unlikely to be co-incidence. Now, it could be that the Internet has been really good at educating people how bad rape is but the author suggested instead that as men were increasingly able to play out their wilder fantasies while masturbating to porn they found no need to carry them out in practice.

You mention the possibility of giving up on masturbation and effectively sublimating the sex drive into non-sexual pursuits. I am sure that can be done and it can probably be measured, maybe even contributing to economic success. On the other hand it seems to me that the nations that have the most sexually repressive attitudes are also the most violent so maybe this sublimation is not without cost.

Well sublimation has nothing to do with repression, in fact is is quite opposite. Repression involves bottling up desires and the energy within them, which tends to have explosive results or cause individuals to have to seek more "extreme" taboos that are done in secret. Sublimation is about redirection; the energy is not being bottled up but directed somewhere else. Repression usually involves something that is akin to obligation; "I must not have sex because it is dirty/because I must be pure." Sublimation is often chosen at will, so it's a deliberate choice to focus on other things and use that energy to accomplish those things. So the difference is honestly that sublimation uses the energy by willful interaction, while repression is often seen as a necessity based on some outside sense of obligation, be it from some religious source or from a need to stick to a societal framework.

One thing that I would say that does bother me is that there is a lot of talk about understanding and being "open-minded", yet the focus is only one-sided. Folks who want the loose meaning of straight to be accurate ask for understanding, but these are the same people who are not respecting or even considering that one person's limits might not be their own. I don't think it is be very considerate at all to assume that someone who is straight would enjoy conversation of a sexual nature of penis attraction... that's does not reflect the type of understanding that is being asked for here in those who wish to remain in the "straight" category while still having homosexual desires.

The reason I posed this question was because I was perceiving a lack of respect for those limits, and found it quite odd that people were assuming that a straight guy would like something that does not at least fit the standard definition of straight. What I have seen, despite what people feel, is a lack of open-mindedness, because there seems to be a distinct desire to want to be considered straight. There have been assumptions that there are certain qualities to being "gay" that must be satisfied in order to be that way, even though there are certainly exceptions to that rule in a wide scope.

Like I mentioned with the guys I knew who were heterosexual but had no desire for romance, I have also met gay men who had sex with men exclusively but did not want romanticism. If romance was a necessity, then both the exclusive, non-romantic groups are asexual, because there's no romance. And yet, that makes no sense, because they actually are having sex. So how is defining homosexuality of any sorts as needing romance open-minded, when it clearly isn't necessary to be straight or non-straight?

So there is a desire for understanding and open-mindedness from this "grey area" group that is not reciprocated by this group. It would be like me trying to deny the possibility that I might be part ape or a full ape when I have opposable thumbs, swing from trees, and I have a tail. These are clearly things that humans don't have, but for the sake of trying be normal or for the sake of trying to cling to a certain identity, I make up all these ideations as to how I can still be considered a full-human instead of at least being partially ape.

That's all I'm saying, it's not particularly fair to ask for something that is not reciprocated in equal toe. I know that if I were to call myself considerate, I would at least ask a person what they liked before entering into a particular sexual conversation with them, and if I did ask, I would honor those parameters while conversing with the person. i have more people ask, and still start talking and acting in homosexual contexts then I have had people just assume. Either one is not respectful to me, but the former is just outright "fuck you, I wanna perv the way I like," and that's just not cool at all.

Maybe I got a problem because I am not even close to the basal rate of perv here, but I would think that this is just common courtesy and am surprised that people who are supposedly so open-minded could give two fucks about how to approach another person in these matters.

With that said, it's probably goofy for me to be here doing this anymore, being on a forum that advocates activities that I am not doing anymore. It's been interesting to say the least, and while I may not agree with this stuff, it doesn't mean that it might not work for you guys.

If you're a man, straight = sexually interested in women and not in men. If you're a woman - vice versa.

It makes sense to say something like "Out of 1,000 people on jackinchat, 90% are straight men". That tells you something useful. Oh, I'm a lesbian - I'll have more luck on jillinchat.

It makes little sense to say "phjacker wrote those things about Donald Trump, but he says he is straight so he probably would only like to see me fuck Hillary Clinton with a really realistic strap on and encourage me with his lewd words and bets he can finish over me first. I like those rabbit shaped ones anyway so I guess it's no go." Who knows.

Lots of horny tossers on jackinchat, so boundaries are often ignored in the frenzy to get off. I'm just glad we pervs were educated about how m_callo's particular boundaries trumped those of all others before he took his balls and went home.