Business meeting pick-ups

Originally Posted by thekunk07

Click to expand...

^because you're also sexually questionable?

I think every **** on the forum is hoping this is the case.

And we're ALL here to help him through his transition.

Originally Posted by thekunk07

Click to expand...

^because you're also sexually questionable?

People keep taking my jokes these days. Was gonna post something very similar.

Originally Posted by rach2jlc

Click to expand...

In short, really how do men "go about" actually having a relationship with each other that isn't affected, isn't reactionary, or isn't a parallel/mirror image of straight relationships, only that it is between men?
Straight relationships are so varied that if you try and shun everything that is a mirror image of straight relationships, you don't have many possibilities left.

Originally Posted by Étienne

Click to expand...

Straight relationships are so varied that if you try and shun everything that is a mirror image of straight relationships, you don't have many possibilities left.

Agreed, but they can't SIMPLY be that mirror. They need to take into account what makes them unique, what works for them, and create their own rules of formation rather than just try to adopt in one motion relationships that weren't created/formed/conceptualized "for them."

re: mafoofan jr.

Originally Posted by Dakota rube

Click to expand...

If you've simply neglected to include a smilie here, then nm.
But if this is in earnest, why don't you shut the **** up.

+ ******* 1!

Originally Posted by Eason

Click to expand...

I like Why more and more.

+1 again.

Why: I'm going to go out on a limb here and just say that the high bar in question is really "no-BS", which is a hellish standard for most people, particularly in terms of initial encounters. How much you choose to tolerate it or try and wean people off their facades is really up to you.

Originally Posted by rach2jlc

Click to expand...

They need to take into account what makes them unique, what works for them, and create their own rules of formation rather than just try to adopt in one motion relationships that weren't created/formed/conceptualized "for them."
I don't really know what you mean. How is that different from any relationship, straight or not? Apart from traditional marriage, I don't see what "rules" there are to avoid actually.

Originally Posted by Étienne

Click to expand...

I don't really know what you mean. How is that different from any relationship, straight or not? Apart from traditional marriage, I don't see what "rules" there are to avoid actually.
I just mean that the way in which we can conceptualize or think of relationships in general... gay, straight, or anything else... are not neutral and not based simply on your own individual "feelings." Currently, the model of "normalcy" for relationships has been a heterosexual one with homosexuality as the "non-normal" subset in that, the deviation from the norm. Gay relationships have largely been formed, conceptually, as a reactionary type of relationship rather than from an even-handed, honest feeling that such a relationship might be beneficial and positive in its own right. I'm saying that we are seeing now a changing of how men view themselves and their relationships with other men. Gays are starting to become mainstream enough that they aren't reactionary, they aren't granted simply "deviant" status. Nevertheless, we aren't there yet and so many of us feel confused about the TYPE of relationships that are open to us. I just feel that we aren't yet in a position, at least in most places in the USA, to know what a real "way of life" for gays would be like. That "way of life" won't be like what straights have, though it might share some similar facets. Nevertheless, it will or has to exist on its own. And, I can tell you that it probably won't be about shiny lip gloss, pink Hollister tees, and Musical renditions of "Miss Saigon."

Originally Posted by rach2jlc

Click to expand...

I just mean that the way in which we can conceptualize or think of relationships in general... gay, straight, or anything else... are not neutral and not based simply on your own individual "feelings."
I like to think that this is not the case, or ought not ot be. Somewhat naive, I guess.

My current relationship is a straight open relationship. Is this in any way influenced by a heterocentric model of normalcy? I like to think it isn't.

I'm saying that we are seeing now a changing of how men view themselves and their relationships with other men.

Click to expand...

I think you think too much. I don't know why the fact that gays (and straights, and bi, and so on) can have individual relationships based on what works for the individuals concerned does not have to rely on a conceptualization such as the one you describe.

And, I can tell you that it probably won't be about shiny lip gloss, pink Hollister tees, and Musical renditions of "Miss Saigon."

Click to expand...

What? Then I don't want anything to do with it!

Originally Posted by Étienne

Click to expand...

I like to think that this is not the case, or ought not ot be. Somewhat naive, I guess.

My current relationship is a straight open relationship. Is this in any way influenced by a heterocentric model of normalcy? I like to think it isn't.

I think you think too much.

Touchà . Admittedly I over think EVERYTHING (haha) and everybody tells me that.

My suspicion, though, about "heterocentric models of normalcy" is that, at least in many parts of the USA, they are ingrained in everything that is our culture. I subscribe to Sociocultural models of learning, which basically say that everything we "are" and think is socialized. As such, the way in which we can even "think" of ourselves is conditioned by the discourse in which we are enmeshed.

Growing up where I did, sadly my conceptual make up of reality is a certain way and it's taken me many years to try and undo it.

I wonder if France is different? Japan, for example, most certainly is. It was a very unique and interesting experience to see how things fundamentally are different from "the ground up" in the way identities are formed.

Originally Posted by thekunk07

Click to expand...

^because you're also sexually questionable?

I have my moments, but the guy would have to be either THUPER butch, or THUPER fay, there could be no middle ground.

Originally Posted by Eason

Click to expand...

I have my moments, but the guy would have to be either THUPER butch, or THUPER fay, there could be no middle ground.
Ah, so SoCal did pound your boypussy!

Originally Posted by Étienne

Click to expand...

I think you think too much. I don't know why the fact that gays (and straights, and bi, and so on) can have individual relationships based on what works for the individuals concerned does not have to rely on a conceptualization such as the one you describe.
Realistically they don't, but necessarily they do. I think my main issue with gays at the moment is that they're...well, gay. Homosexuality isn't a big issue to me and doesn't carry to same societal connotation that 'gay' does. When people think of 'gay' they think of George Michael, Richard Simmons, effeminacy, and lisps. They're generalizations that don't bother me personally, but because other people may be bothered by gays and their conceptualization of what 'gay' is it does create issues within larger social circles and ultimately social dynamics. Homosexual couples are not something that's accepted (see bans on homosexual marriage under the guise of 'marriage' semantics). Most people will say they don't care about homosexuals and treat them like anyone else, but the reality is that there's a deeply-ingrained aversion that most people can't shake. It's the social version of NIMBY, if you will. I personally think the gay community shoots themselves in the foot with pride meetings, parades, and such. The rampant hedonism and constant overt sexuality is a big turn-off to the gay community for me personally, but my main reason for generally only dating women is strictly biological.

A lot of physcological mumbo jumbo going on here. No need to overanalyze this. Why, you like kack. Nothing wrong with that. Just don't kid yourself, dating women will lead to disappointment for you and them. You want to bang this guy, bang him. You are gay. Eason is gay. Accept it, enjoy your men and move on with your lives. That is why I have a lot of respect for guys like rach/gosurface/randallr, they know who they are and they lead their lives for them, not for others. If a man makes your peepee feel funny, follow it's lead. I think you posted a pic once and you and randallr would make a cute couple.

Wait.
Richard Simmons has teh ****?

Originally Posted by Dakota rube

Click to expand...

Wait.
Richard Simmons has teh ****?

He also has teh huge sauseeech, allegedly.