I think sexuality should be categorized more into "interested in making babies" and not "interested in making babies" do you call a cuck that never has kids and raises another man's kids willingly gay?
People who like futa on male are gay?
- Thread starter kiroplan101
- Start date
- Jun 29, 2021
- 392
- 1,117
I would guesstimate it's now safe to say... we're not allowing (or else guiding) our own children well enough to make a proper decision of their own preference before... allowing them to demand their own right to go "under the knife". It's spectacularly insane, in my opinion.
I mean, I used to be dumb. Or not exactly know what I was after.
It's my right to be an idiot, when I have parental people above me meant to pick up the slack and swat my butt upon a "proper" road. I can ultimately agree with their assessment, or... fuck 'em, go to hell. In the end (no pun intended).
In my opinion... the Futa thing has become... more "pronounced" due to dudes with limited to no direction. Maybe even a negative opinion of their own appendage. Maybe it's a "safer" state of mind to... think of a chick with a dick, than it is your own use of what you've got born with?
It's maybe almost... too much to maintain?
- Apr 27, 2018
- 363
- 914
- Jun 29, 2021
- 392
- 1,117
What about a dude with a dead gay dad?Only a gay man can answer your question
Any insight there, potentially?
- May 25, 2017
- 3,498
- 6,277
- Jun 29, 2021
- 392
- 1,117
- Jun 29, 2021
- 392
- 1,117
Teensie story, you all ready?
I never actually shot a rope of sperm off until I was likely years beyond my peers. It was often termed "gay" in those days. And I did not want to be that. So. I... didn't. Until I eventually just... gave up, to be honest. Grabbed my dick and shucked it back and forth. It was the middle of the day and I was very near an open window. I felt especially mechanical about it. But then... WHAT THE FUCK?! My shit shot out. Splashed upon the red bricks of the fireplace nearby. I fucking came all over everything. And I can confirm I was absolutely feeling humiliated. I'd just done the very DUMBest thing ever. Until... I'd do it again one week later. Cuz I'm a... "fag"?
- May 25, 2017
- 3,498
- 6,277
- Mar 28, 2024
- 4
- 3
- Jun 29, 2021
- 392
- 1,117
I'm so spectacularly glad there are random people out there in the universe who can qualify things more properly into a box we can consume as more readily. Yum.
- Jun 29, 2021
- 392
- 1,117
- Aug 24, 2020
- 1,641
- 6,459
Don't you like trans men? What makes you like them but dislike that image? The extra dick, the poor art, cringy text?My eyes
How do you see things like a medical enema or a prostate examination? Gateway drugs too?
The thing is, this is kinda what was already said about straight masculinity, but in more political and controversial language. It introduces a level of "in what decade were you born?" that could be avoided with different language.
And, "you can't possibly say..."?
You don't have permission to view the spoiler content.
Log in or register now.
Not enough nuance. Try breaking it down like:
Except you don't have to accept that futa and dickgirls are "certified hetero" of course.
But more seriously, seems you see futa as a least a bit bi or pansexual, and you obviously like futa, if only futa on female. Can I ask how you identify as sexually?
- May 25, 2017
- 3,498
- 6,277
Straight as an arrow. If I had to explain it, futa on female is removing as much "man" from the equation as you can, while still doing normal bang sex stuff, so I don't see it as this inherently "super gay" thing like some others do. It's more so what the futa is actually doing that matters to me. Does that make sense?
That... thing between his legs. I prefer a dick OR a pussy, not both. I didn't even get to read the cringy text
Sexual orientations are probably the dumbest way throughout all of history to define sexuality and all the attempts to salvage the idea by making more of them have only called attention to how they instantly fall apart the minute you poke them with a challenge. Sexuality is fluid and nuanced; orientations are fixed and banal. I'd compare it to insisting that all of our sentences be forced to conform to strict rules of grammar, pounded into ""proper"" shape, rather than acknowledging that communication never needed or followed these forms in any strict sense.
Giving this question a satisfying answer demands that we throw this garbage framing device in the trash where it belongs. The actual common thread of masculine sexuality, one that can be found running through just about every culture, and what this question is actually asking is this: is it unmasculine to fantasize about being penetrated? The classical answer is yes. Pick a culture, any culture - there will be a history behind this idea, rooted in the dynamics of both war and peace, and practices will have reflected it. Whether it's men conquering and enslaving each other during war - an act consummated by sodomy - or an older man courting a young and beautiful athlete, the dynamics paint a picture of the penetrator keeping or even gaining masculinity and the penetrated losing it to some extent. While that's not the be-all-end-all (or even the prevailing) way we think of the subject today, that idea is far from dead.
But if we're talking about futas that's not -exactly- what we're asking about here. The whole concept of a futa presents the idea of a woman who is not confined to these classical social (or even the biological) dynamics - that is to say she can take both the social and sexual role of either sex or transcend both. Part of what we're asking, then, is "does putting the woman in the man's role necessarily mean that the man must be emasculated?". Now or then, that's not as clear-cut. The lion's share of femdom certainly takes that approach, but it doesn't -have- to; there's gentle femdom and even femdom that leans on mushy romance to the point where the label is more incidental than pathological - in other words 'respectful and lovey-dovey in tone, only female-dominant in the sense that she's setting the pace'. What we're brushing against this time is the old notion that a woman cannot respect a man - and a man cannot respect himself - if he's not completely in control.
A futa acting more or less masculine, taking the masculine sexual role, and emasculating the man during it will be insisting that anyone getting off to it couldn't possibly be manly. On the other hand, a futa acting feminine in the masculine sexual role, reinforcing and showing attraction to the guy's masculinity even though he's on bottom, would be sending an entirely different message. And it doesn't need to follow the strictest view of the roles as an either/or; a masculine-acting futa could be entirely respectful of the man's masculinity or a feminine-acting futa could infantilize the man by doting on him to the point where he comes off as boyish as opposed to manly or a sissy-boy altogether. Androgynous forms are special precisely because they can mix and match these frequencies or even rewrite them entirely. When we turn the aim away from pointless and reductive categorical word games and toward the actual psychosexual undercurrents an answer can emerge. It won't be the same answer for everyone, whether someone can deconstruct those associations between masculinity and sexual dominance will depend entirely on their own mindset, but finding it requires that we look at the source of the attraction.
Giving this question a satisfying answer demands that we throw this garbage framing device in the trash where it belongs. The actual common thread of masculine sexuality, one that can be found running through just about every culture, and what this question is actually asking is this: is it unmasculine to fantasize about being penetrated? The classical answer is yes. Pick a culture, any culture - there will be a history behind this idea, rooted in the dynamics of both war and peace, and practices will have reflected it. Whether it's men conquering and enslaving each other during war - an act consummated by sodomy - or an older man courting a young and beautiful athlete, the dynamics paint a picture of the penetrator keeping or even gaining masculinity and the penetrated losing it to some extent. While that's not the be-all-end-all (or even the prevailing) way we think of the subject today, that idea is far from dead.
But if we're talking about futas that's not -exactly- what we're asking about here. The whole concept of a futa presents the idea of a woman who is not confined to these classical social (or even the biological) dynamics - that is to say she can take both the social and sexual role of either sex or transcend both. Part of what we're asking, then, is "does putting the woman in the man's role necessarily mean that the man must be emasculated?". Now or then, that's not as clear-cut. The lion's share of femdom certainly takes that approach, but it doesn't -have- to; there's gentle femdom and even femdom that leans on mushy romance to the point where the label is more incidental than pathological - in other words 'respectful and lovey-dovey in tone, only female-dominant in the sense that she's setting the pace'. What we're brushing against this time is the old notion that a woman cannot respect a man - and a man cannot respect himself - if he's not completely in control.
A futa acting more or less masculine, taking the masculine sexual role, and emasculating the man during it will be insisting that anyone getting off to it couldn't possibly be manly. On the other hand, a futa acting feminine in the masculine sexual role, reinforcing and showing attraction to the guy's masculinity even though he's on bottom, would be sending an entirely different message. And it doesn't need to follow the strictest view of the roles as an either/or; a masculine-acting futa could be entirely respectful of the man's masculinity or a feminine-acting futa could infantilize the man by doting on him to the point where he comes off as boyish as opposed to manly or a sissy-boy altogether. Androgynous forms are special precisely because they can mix and match these frequencies or even rewrite them entirely. When we turn the aim away from pointless and reductive categorical word games and toward the actual psychosexual undercurrents an answer can emerge. It won't be the same answer for everyone, whether someone can deconstruct those associations between masculinity and sexual dominance will depend entirely on their own mindset, but finding it requires that we look at the source of the attraction.
- Aug 7, 2017
- 651
- 1,218
No one's going to question the reliability of the survey OP initially saw? We have no idea what all the options were, and it probably didn't attract an audience that would be actually representative of the male population as a whole.
(And I think anyone pointing out, like, prostate exams must be "gay" are missing an important aspect. You'd have to like it, wouldn't you? IF any of this were reliable tests of anything, which they aren't.)
I like futa because I don't like men. When I first started watching pornography, I only watched lesbian porn. Then I discovered strap-ons were a thing and there's something about a woman plowing another woman. (Then I discovered Virtual Sex, which is no men plus the added bonus of the illusion of intimacy, etc., but that's a whole other discussion. I have a lecture on all this on the 14th if you'd like to know more.)
(And I think anyone pointing out, like, prostate exams must be "gay" are missing an important aspect. You'd have to like it, wouldn't you? IF any of this were reliable tests of anything, which they aren't.)
I like futa because I don't like men. When I first started watching pornography, I only watched lesbian porn. Then I discovered strap-ons were a thing and there's something about a woman plowing another woman. (Then I discovered Virtual Sex, which is no men plus the added bonus of the illusion of intimacy, etc., but that's a whole other discussion. I have a lecture on all this on the 14th if you'd like to know more.
)
- May 25, 2017
- 3,498
- 6,277
No one's actually done that.
You don't like men and, according to your signature, are afraid of girls? That's rough, buddy.