Straight smokers

I am putting this theory out for correction.

I think that young men generally are straight, bisexual, or gay. But there seem to be two things which occur somewhat independently of that basic sexual orientation. I have come to think of them as neural circuits hardwired in the newborn: one of them is enjoying anal sex, and one of them is enjoying oral sex. In both cases, the people get sexually excited.

So, to spell it out, there may be a gazillion boys who have been "trained" to smoke you, and smoke you they will. But their jade whisks remain in a tender state. Similarly, other boys may have been "trained" to receive via the back door, but their jade whisks remain tender.

What I am talking about here is a guy who gets turned on by the act of smoking. That is, to spell it out: he may enter the bedding of pleasure with a limpish jade whisk, but once he wraps his lips around a rockish sort of jade whisk, his own jade whisk begins to emulate a rock, and demand attention. Similarly with those who enjoy the visitation by the back porch: if they REALLY enjoy it, you will know it from touching their personal representatives.

Now, the strange thing here is that these two hypothetical neural circuits apparently exist totally independent of the gay/straight orientation!!!

I will cite a few examples:

Example One was a boy from Adam's Apple who lived with a girl-friend, was VERY muscular and handsome, and also was a smoker whenever he was offed. The telltale symptom was that smoking made his jade-whisk grow very energetically! Put all those details in your pipe and smoke it! :-)

Example Two was a boy I heard about from a reliable source: when he was taken off, the thing he enjoyed most was watching the cow-porno while entertaining a male visitor at the back porch. (!) Apparently, both things were highly pleasing to this boy.

The third example (American) was an American pair of guys....their friendship had outlasted marriages, and every so often Straight Dude A would go down on Straight Dude B. They had been doing this for decades, and they were not "gay."

Well, the next time a boy smokes you, watch his jade whisk. If it grows, you may have something interesting going on! If it remains in its primordial wilted state, you will know you are dealing with a pro.

[Wesley]

http://books.google.com/books?id=fTJadA ... 52&dq=jade whisk&source=web&ots=KdxpuD0vnV&sig=a08gCf7NHb28RT FpGcKLnSt247U&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&c t=result#PPA52,M1

..but it can hardly be a new thing, can it, Wesley?

[piston10]

Some interesting thoughts here from Henry Cate, but I am not quite convinced by the absoluteness of his last paragraph. I'd say that there are passive men whose sexual satisfaction and arousal are simply not experienced in their penises. I have met guys who are gagging to be f*cked (I'm not speaking of money boys or commercial transactions) who achieved no erections, or only very weak ones. Their own erections did not seem to be a matter of any interest to them; and, indeed, to take an interest in their having an erection could prove an embarrassment to them - they can have a feeling of failure. Personally I find it reassuring if a passive partner gets an erection - I must be doing something right! - and it makes the experience feel more 'mutual'.
In general, of course, I'd agree that a reactive erection tells us something about a partner's involvement, but there are so many variants of sexual behaviour and response that I don't always put it down to a fault in myself that a partner doesn't get an erection. The ideal for me is a passive partner who cums during sex without touching himself - do they call it 'prostate ejaculation'? I'm looking forward to the next time it happens.

and thanks!

This is very muddled.

Let's sort things out with a little logical layering.

Starting at the genetic level there is some evidence that some gene patterns are related to some behaviors.

There is some evidence indicating womb conditioning.

The evidence that a sexual orientation is learned is fairly strong, but indicates that the learning is so early as to be non-optional; your orientation is effectively determined before you are sexually active. There seem to be recurring patterns e.g. strong mothers and gay guys.

So that deals with the setting of the gender orientation.

The case studies that Cates cites are problematic for the following reasons. There is an assumption of national or regional behaviors. These may exist but if they do, they probably come from the value structures of the cultures in which the exist.

In the last case, what is being demonstrated is that the participants are self-identifying in one cultural structure but occasionally acting out other needed behaviours. I find that slightly sad.

MPR.