"straight", as compared to faggots, queers, and the rest of us

[liqueur]

100% accurate. The best example I can think of is demonstrated by the song "Meet The Flintstones" by legendary composer Hoyt Curtin. I somehow doubt that when he penned the line " we'll have a gay old time! ", he was envisioning Fred going balls-deep in Barney... (but think of how fun that would be! )

I remember in the early 60s, plundering my father's Playboy stash, and finding a Christmas edition, and in that edition, a cartoon of a man in very scanty, very feminine clothing, decorating a Christmas tree. The caption was “Don we now our gay apparel, fa la la lalla, la la lah!”

For years I was confused— I thought “gay” must mean “crossdresser.”

 

[KinkStevens]

This is about words. I'm posting it here instead of over in one of the main forums because this is where I've seen the most chatter (and nagging) about the word “straight.”

We all know that traditionally, “straight” (an identity) meant “heterosexual”, and was used as a distinction from from “gay” or “queer” (both identities). Things got complicated when men who identified as “straight” started openly talking about sucking cock or being ass-fucked (note: both of these are activities, not identities.)

So the self-identified purists started to get shirty— “you can't call yourself straight if you do homosexual things!" “You're not being honest!" Etcetera.

These assertions could be challenged in several ways, but the most important is that the “purists” are confusing identity with activity. Nobody can challenge another person's identity; that's equivalent to you telling me what I feel. Your identity is how you perceive yourself, not how anyone else does. But I think this is an age-old problem: I think people have always thought “You are what you do.” In fact, I think “identity” is a fairly new concept, an important step in our cultural evolution.

I think “straight” men sucking cock is an age-old occurrence, as well. The only thing that's changed is the freedom to talk about it. And I'm not here to philosophize, I'm here to propose a solution to the purists’ problem (because in the end, it is their problem, not ours):

What I know is this: language is not rigid and static. Language is a living breathing thing that is constantly growing and evolving. This is not “my opinion”, this is reality. Ask any lexicographer; they'll tell you the same thing. if it weren't true, we'd still be using Samuel Johnson's 1755 Dictionary of the English Language.
What I believe is this: we are watching the term “straight” (which of course is very new in this usage anyway) be redefined before our very eyes. It no longer means “engaging in exclusively heterosexual activities” (if indeed it ever did). It now means “heteronormative in appearance, and hetero-romantic”— and has no bearing on any specific activities.

If we could accept this new definition, we could move on from some endless and circular discussions.

Your thoughts?

Words Smurbs. There ARE men who do not desire to have anything to do with other men or dicks. They are straight. Hey, if anyone wants to venture to the other side, does, and goes back then I don’t consider them straight at all. If it makes anyone feel better to call themselves straight when they can cum to cocks or sucking one, then have at it.

 

[liqueur]

Words Smurbs. There ARE men who do not desire to have anything to do with other men or dicks. They are straight. Hey, if anyone wants to venture to the other side, does, and goes back then I don’t consider them straight at all. If it makes anyone feel better to call themselves straight when they can cum to cocks or sucking one, then have at it.

Fortunately, how other people self-identify is not your concern, and the labels they choose to communicate their identities do not require your permission.

 

[TallOne]

Sure, you can absolutely self identify how you feel. You just may need to clarify.

The definition of bisexual does include simple activity with multiple genders.

 

[KinkStevens]

Fortunately, how other people self-identify is not your concern, and the labels they choose to communicate their identities do not require your permission.

You’re right, how people label themselves doesn’t require anyones permission, so why look for a buy-in from others on your opinion of the ‘new’ definition to-come of the word. Its all very silly. If your dream comes true, a new word will be put in play to replace the word ‘straight’ anyway.

Bucketing bisexual men with straight men can be offensive to some on both sides.

Not all men desire sex with other men. Theres currently a word for that. Its ok. If a person is confused, then its ok to be confused. And I think we all agree, that sexuality can change over time.

Others are going to agree, disagree, contribute to the idea, etc. The made up definition is delusional at its core. Its perhaps a convenience. Perhaps some need to feel better because the silly word ‘straight’ means so much them. I think its actually the people who are not straight with the problem, not the other way around. In my experience, its often men who give bjs but desperately want to hold on to being ‘straight’ who argue these things. They are cocksuckers, bisexuals, transsexual lovers, etc. Not straight men. They already agreed what the word means and generally aren't wrestling with their own identity, like some on this post are. They’re not trying to bend the world so their frail mind can find a safe space.

People can delude themselves as they like. Its completely up to them. I applaud all of the straight men who have sex with other men, whatever that means.

With all that said, I myself am not straight. If it mattered I could argue that I’m only romantically involved with women, but the bottom line (pun intended) is I enjoy a thick rich cock. I want one now actually.

 

[liqueur]

Sure, you can absolutely self identify how you feel. You just may need to clarify.

The definition of bisexual does include simple activity with multiple genders.

Not exactly. The most common definition— the one Merriam Webster espouses — is this:

“Of, relating to, or characterized by sexual or romantic attraction to people of one's same sex and of the opposite sex.”

Many people (almost invariably men) claim themselves as straight without even thinking it through, just a knee-jerk reaction (fear) to the extreme stigma against homosexuality they were raised with. But those who do think it through will point to this definition, confuse the “or” with “and”, and say “I don't feel any romantic attraction to men. I don't even feel any sexual attraction when I look at a man. I just love cocks.” The penis, and the cultural image of male, are completely disconnected in their minds.

Meanwhile, those who only receive (oral) or fuck (ass) take a simpler approach: “I'm not attracted to men. Always prefer a woman, if there's one around. But hey, when ya gotta get off, ya gotta get off.” It's like the old sailor's saying: “Any port in a storm.”

I've sucked off a great many men in my life who identified as straight. I used to laugh at them behind their backs, but I understand better now— I don't think there was a single one among them who wouldn't have preferred a woman.

 

[AlexBailey]

There is a ‘straight’ couple who lives down the street from me. I’ve only met them briefly in passing. It’s a wife who yells at their kids a lot and a very blue collar mechanic husband who comes home greasy every day and yells at all of them.

They’re pretty redneck and often have a toxic vibe, but every now and then a trans-pride flag shows up on their porch. During the presidential election the pride flag was often up next to a Trump banner.

I just recently found out by someone who went to school with them that the husband is very binary and trans-masculine.

I wonder how they identify themselves and their relationship.

 

[BBCfan]

Words Smurbs. There ARE men who do not desire to have anything to do with other men or dicks. They are straight. Hey, if anyone wants to venture to the other side, does, and goes back then I don’t consider them straight at all.

This is actually a great segway to hopefully give those with open enough minds a deeper understanding of the "concept" Of straight guys who have fetish for gay acts.

What if you are not quite a man and you're straight, then you are forced into a gay act By someone in authority at an impressionable age.

You likely don't tell anyone, As you don't want the shame of being called gay or shamed or feeling tainted by everyone. You try to move through it and have a normal life as you always desired with a female.

Yet at some point this gay act that was forced on you has a mental pull for some reason you do not understand.

To show how strong this "pull" can be...The person that did this to you had such a strong pull that even though they had a super successful career and life with a family, They threw it all away for this act and went to jail. That's how strong the pull was for them.

You're thankful that your "pull" is legal, towards someone bigger and more mature than you.
But yet you still fight it your whole life , Cause you just want a normal female partner and life so badly... it never goes away, only seems to get stronger...yet through therapy and understanding you realize It likely won't go away so you find healthy outlets to deal with it.

You are not someone who chose this, it was chosen for you.
So you indeed are Professionally diagnosed as someone who is straight and has some complicated fetishistic wiring.

Thanks to priests and scout leaders in the 60's and 70's there's many of us that had their wiring potentially complicated at an impressionable age.

Those of us who identify this way shouldn't be Chastised or called disingenuous at best.
Every Straight guy thread on this section Has the gay police on it trolling us.

I don't get on Trans threads or anything that doesn't interest me and troll people.
I've given more detail than I wanted to for a Professional explanation, so hopefully a few open-minded people will understand.

And if you don't just please respect our right to identify as we desire.

 

[TallOne]

Yeah, the APA's definition:

n. sexual orientation characterized by romantic, emotional, and/or sexual attraction to, or engagement in romantic or sexual relationships with, more than one gender. —bisexual adj., n.
https://dictionary.apa.org/bisexuality

Given the various definitions of straight and how so many focus on a lack of deviation. I think such a person would be better identified as straightish or heteroflexible.

In any case, not the sort I would hook up with. As that's a red flag for someone who could go into a crisis and become violent in the 'post nut clarity'.

 

[AlexBailey]

Labels.

I was a queer kid growing up. “Queer” was mainly a derogatory term at the time but I remember that it resonated with me from an early age. I was attracted to hanging out with soft males and tomboy females and was always drawn to wearing feminine styles.

My mom had found my stash of girls clothes, and though she never came out and said anything about it, she washed and folded all of my girl stuff and put them away in my closet and dresser several times throughout my early years.

In my senior year of high school I somehow hooked up with the captain of the cheer squad who happened to like femme guys. She called me her “fairy boy” and liked to dress me up as a girl, but just being her boyfriend gave me enough ‘straight’ cred to get my parents and all of the toxic male shit from guys at school off of my back.
Perception and reality were very different things. I always felt out of place with labels until I heard the terms non-binary, gender-fluid, pan, and finally ‘queer’ used in a positive light.

I’m not gay, I’m not trans, I’m not straight. I’m “queer-pan.”

Labels aren’t the most important part of identity but it was comforting to find shorthand terms I can use in conversation when I want to describe myself without taking a whole tangential sidebar.

 

[liqueur]

During the presidential election the pride flag was often up next to a Trump banner.
...
I wonder how they identify themselves and their relationship.

I wonder how they reconcile the two loyalties.

 

[liqueur]

In any case, not the sort I would hook up with. As that's a red flag for someone who could go into a crisis and become violent in the 'post nut clarity'.

I'm glad you would avoid us. Because we sure don't need that kind of generalization/judgement in our lives!

 

[liqueur]

Labels aren’t the most important part of identity but it was comforting to find shorthand terms I can use in conversation when I want to describe myself without taking a whole tangential sidebar.

Lovely post. Thank you.

 

[1960curious]

I am a married (43 years)
I am very straight acting.
Nobody would think that
I love to suck cock and be fucked by a hard cock!