Homo faber: “Homo Faber, from Latin, can be translated as man who controls his environment through his abilities and tools, or tool-worker and man – maker of things.” Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I’d rather carry a horse than ride it — Gimli
Anything you can do I can do better — Annie Oakley
—————————-
Ditto, VS, I feel the same only in reverse. I think it’s a common feeling. I really can’t say that two men are any more elementally sexual than any other combination, but the idea of two [insert your preference here] lovers to play with, watch, and choose from seems like a perfectly reasonable fantasy for anyone. It’s been cliché for years that straight men would like to see or be with two or more women, and the assumption has always been that it’s some kind of harem-building and/or innate promiscuous male thing. It’s also fairly common these days for people to claim that women are just more naturally bisexual so they’re somehow “happier” or more willing than men to have sex with each other.
I’m not so sure it’s that simple. I think instead that as women are beginning to own and enjoy their own pornography they’re as naturally attracted to two men together as men are to women. And I think the reason has as much to do with a) being able to project themselves into either role and b) not being naturally “more” bisexual and thus able to enjoy either role in heterosexual porn. If women (or men) don’t turn you on, but you like watching people have sex, then it makes sense that you’d rather watch two men (or women) because then you don’t have to filter anything out.
I suspect that over time, as heterosexual men become more exposed to male porn (perhaps watching it because it makes their partners hot) a lot of the stigma will evaporate. A gay friend who shares your enthusiasm for fellatio says he can’t remember the last time a nominally straight guy under age 25 turned him down when he offered to eat them. If it gets out that doing it, or a willingness to, excites their partners I’m guessing as many men will be inclined to at least play with other men as women are to play with other women. (That doesn’t mean everybody will, of course, but the tendency will probably increase.) So my guess is that well within a generation it’ll be pretty easy for you to fulfill your fantasy. (I’m guessing it might already be easier than you think.)
Laura the Tooth has proposed that she’ll let someone have anal sex with her if and only if she can then have anal sex with him with a strap-on. (A reciprocal construction appeals to me: I’d be willing to let a partner apply a strap-on to me anywhere she’d allow me to apply my cock to her, and either way we’d each probably be more considerate with the other knowing what was coming next.) Similarly the “service top” in me says I could conceivably do something with another man, though it would have to be if and only if it were a prelude to sex with my female partner. In other words I could imagine being the middle of an MMF sandwich but I can’t imagine having another M between me and an F — but if and only if she was equally to play a similar role in a FFM three-way with me.
Question: If a heterosexual guy made that proposition to you, for an MMF three-way, would you as a heterosexual woman be able to reciprocate with a FFM for him? I’m not trying to put you on the “talk is cheap” spot — it’s perfectly fine for you to say no. (As a very heterosexual male it would be — in fact was — very difficult for me to say yes to someone else.) But it’s not only a fair question, it’s also good opportunity for self reflection. (It was for me — I hadn’t considered it till you brought it up in this post, so thanks.)
———————————
virgin-slut said…
Figleaf,
RE: “If a heterosexual guy made that proposition to you, for an MMF three-way, would you as a heterosexual woman be able to reciprocate with a FFM for him?”
It all depends on who is asking and how much I like him ;) so yes, I’d do it for the right person.
Some guys want MFF for the FF part, and I’m just not into the FF thing, so if the guy wants me to get it on with the other girl, I’d have to do a whole lot of acting to make it convincing. Having said that, I’ve always wondered what it would be like to have a girl eat me out, so maybe that would be the time to find out.
Other guys want to be worshipped my 2 girls, and I’d have to be madly in love with the guy for this version of MFF because this version would be all about pleasing him.
Ideally, I would want a guy who doesn’t bargain; although, I do believe in equality, so anything I want, he can want too. But what turns me on is someone who wants to experience the MM part, and is turned on by that factor. It would have to be someone who enjoys receiving anal sex. I don’t want a guy who is not into it to do it to please me.
As for what your gay friend said: I suspect it is true. Most guys won’t turn down a bj (though fucking is a different issue). Also, I’m sure a lot of guys (of my generation) are curious enough to try a same sex encounter, to find out how a guy blowing them is different to a girl doing it. But would a straight guy be willing to get a bj from a guy in front of a girl, in other words, not behind closed doors? And how many would be willing to try more than a (received) blow job?
And I totally agree with you that porn is changing the shape of “regular” sex.
10:45
———————————
figleaf said…
“But what turns me on is someone who wants to experience the MM part, and is turned on by that factor. It would have to be someone who enjoys receiving anal sex. I don’t want a guy who is not into it to do it to please me.”
Aye, there’s the rub (pun intended) — what other reason would a heterosexual partner have unless it were to please you? :-) For what it’s worth, as a curious, egalitarian, and passionately straight man I’d far rather perform fellatio or receive anal sex because then I’d have a better understanding of your heterosexual experience.
Conversely (and perhaps, perversely considering popular conceptions) the common argument for trying bisexuality is that a man’s mouth or anus doesn’t feel any different than a woman’s. And this is supposed to be pursuasive how? If it doesn’t feel any different and you prefer women then why on earth would you want to try it with a man?
(By the way, I admit I’m clearly not responding well to your fantasy/ambition and it’s probably not polite to hijack your post with my own ruminations. I am going to post further about this on my own blog. Thanks again for the wonderful inspiration, VS.)
——————————-
virgin-slut said…
Figleaf,
re: “what other reason would a heterosexual partner have unless it were to please you?”
The reasons you’ve given are good enough … curiosity, adventure, etc.
As for: “the common argument for trying bisexuality is that a man’s mouth or anus doesn’t feel any different than a woman’s.”
I wouldn’t know, but it doesn’t really matter because it will NOT feel the same, unless it is direct penis to orifice contact, and no touching of other parts. But won’t there be some touching? Will a man’s pubic area feel the same as a woman’s? Won’t his stubble affect the overall feel of the bj?
I think whoever came up with this argument is missing the point, which is that you want to experience something different. Even if the orifices feel the same, you still have to consider the other senses, especially vision.
There is no way a man can have sex with another man and not know it.
———————
Virgin-slut said…
The guy in the middle of the MMF is on the receiving end of the other male’s advances, so he is the one taking on the “femaleâ€? role of being violated. If guys are so opposed to being fucked, why would they want to be in this position? I have two theories to explain this:
A. Contrary to what most guys say, they actually do fantasise about being on the receiving end of penetration.
They like the idea of receiving anal stimulation.
They are probably more submissive than they are willing to admit.
B. Straight guys are so attached to the belief that a female must be penetrated during sex that they are willing to forgo the stigma attached to being penetrated by another man, if it means that they will get the woman.
The woman brings a sense of security to this manhood.
Which theory is more accurate? Hang-up A, or Hang-up B?
—————————————————-
I guess it depends on how you define hangup. If you mean “what a heterosexual man is willing to do with his partner” then for me it’s hangup B.
I don’t agree with the assertion that a hole is a hole is a hole. Otherwise a child, or an animal, an assault victim, or a dead person would be just as good gratification-wise as (in terms of my preferences) a consenting adult woman.
I’d also challenge the assertion that penis-receiving sex is inherently passive or non-masculine. I could be totally wrong about this but I don’t imagine most gay men see it that way.
(Aside: I remember reading an anecdote in an early men’s-theory book about a matador in Spain who, after some crowning achievement in the bullring had friends over for dinner. After dinner, when he collected the dishes and began washing them one of his guest asked if he didn’t think that was a womanly thing to do. The matador flew into a rage and said “everything I do is masculine!” It’s a good point. I’ve worried about a lot of things since, but never about being feminine. Turns out men who’ve figured that out can be gentle, men can knit and cook and change babies, and “even” buy tampons and change diapers and still fuck the dickens out of their partners. Men who haven’t figured that out evidently can’t.)
Years ago, before I’d really thought about it, I realized my romantic assertions that I’d swim through sharks or crawl through burning sands for a partner was empty because I wouldn’t join a threeway involving a bisexual man even though I desired the woman so much my teeth ached.
Now I’d put receiving a cock somewhere between desert crawling and shark swimming. I’d do it, and I’d do a damn good, active job, but for the reasons I explained in comments to your previous post: to better understand what she does for me, to help excite her, and so that ultimately we could have sex together. Otherwise why get out of bed in the morning (or do I mean into bed?)
As for where I prefer to receive my own gratification, that’s not so much a choice as an orientation. Women turn me on and men aren’t very interesting. If there are three of us in a room and the other guy can recieve his pleasure wherever he prefers that’s actually pretty cool — for every Jack there’s a Jill or another Jack — but, VS, I’d only have eyes for her. As heterosexual hang-ups go I could do a lot worse than be hung up on my partner.
On second thought, I suppose my real hang-up would be my inability to regard another guy as a legitimate sex partner. I’ve always rejected that kind of objectification, and to that extent it really doesn’t matter if he’s the active or passive party. If I couldn’t acknowledge him as a partner I shouldn’t have sex with him, and I certainly shouldn’t use him for my own gratification.
Bummer, I’m a libertine prude. Back to the drawing board.
—-
Going back to the active/passive role thing, if fellatio is supposed to be passive then I’m going to have to find another word for the very active things my partners do to me with their mouths, hands, and wilful intentions.
—-
This a wonderfully complicated issue clouded by any number of cultural assumptions. It’s also, evidently, a fairly new one. I’m very happy you’ve brought it up, I think you’re great for continuing to follow up on it, and I really appreciate the opportunity to participate. Thanks!
———————————-
virgin-slut said…
Figleaf,
I’m really not sure about this active/passive idea. In my opinion, no consensual sexual act can be passive. I reject the notion that masculine is active and feminine is passive; that theory is too Aristotelian, and we’ve come a long way. However, in general, one assumes that the role of the male is to penetrate, so the person on the receiving end of his cock would be assuming the role of the female … you bring up a really good point here … I wonder how this theory holds in gay sex.
Also, I’m curious by what you mean when you say, “I suppose my real hang-up would be my inability to regard another guy as a legitimate sex partner. I’ve always rejected that kind of objectificationâ€?. What kind of objectification would that be? For some reason when I read that I understood it to mean that you cannot objectify a guy, but you objectify women you have sex with? I could be totally wrong here.
16:26
————————————-
figleaf said…
“What kind of objectification would that be? For some reason when I read that I understood it to mean that you cannot objectify a guy, but you objectify women you have sex with? I could be totally wrong here.”
Glad you asked that question, I’d hate to leave it unspoken. In the scenario I have in mind, based on one of your original posts on this topic, is that the female partner would like to be in an MMF three-way because she’s interested in the MM component. I projected myself into that scenario, based on an invitation I declined many years ago, where I was invited to join a couple because she wanted me to have sex with him as well as her. I was really only interested in her, and considered “putting up” with him so that she and I could have sex again. (The first, and turns out only, time we had sex was wonderful!)
Anyway, I came to your question in terms of a strongly heterosexual male trying to accomodate a partner who wished me to enhance her enjoyment by playing some kind of role with another man. Now we finally get to the objectification part. If I’m not relating to the other guy as an equal sex partner in such circumstances, but only as a vehicle for my preferred partner’s enjoyment, then I’m objectifying him in the literal sense of viewing him as a “marital aid” in the quaint parlance of an earlier day. I balked in my earlier comment precisely because I don’t want to objectify anyone, male or female. (For instance I prefer to say “I want to make love with you” rather than “I want to make love to you.”) Consequently, if I can’t interact to a male partner to the same degree I’d relate to a partner who’s a woman, then I don’t feel I should interact with him at all.
It’s been a long time, as I mentioned earlier, since my invitation to an MMF, but I recall her saying he’d be satisfied if he could just suck me. Your observation elsewhere that that shouldn’t be a problem made me realize that in fact that was the problem. For whatever reason, my experience of heterosexuality is such that I’m not interested in receiving pleasure from a man. What surprised me when I first replied, is that my experience of heterosexuality would appear to make me indifferent to, and therefore able to accept, his receiving pleasure from me.
Closet bisexual men have a remarkable ability to rationalize their activities as “really a heterosexual who’s slumming.” Recognizing that I’m engaging in similar constructions I’ll only observe that while I would agree to sexual behavior with a man in a three-way with a woman, I can’t imagine agreeing to engage in exactly the same behavior with only another man. (Which loops back to the problem that I’d be doing it for her rather than him, which means I’d be objectifying him, which means I probably wouldn’t.)
I ought to mention that I’m not uncomfortable with the idea of sex with men. I’m aware that nowhere in the scenario I’ve visited have I addressed the possibility that either sucking him or being anally penetrated by him would arouse me sexually. I don’t think it would, but if it did then cool, I’d learn something new about myself and I could say I was bisexual after all. I gotta tell you, though, that even then I expect the first thing I’d want to do is talk to my partner about what would then be our now-common experiences.
I hope that makes sense.
...
Oh, and for the record I have no problem with having her strap-on anywhere in me if she’ll have my cock in the same places. I don’t mind the idea of penetration, I’m just not interested in men.
...
And finally, I can’t speak for all gay men, but my closest gay friends would probably balk at calling receiving a cock as taking the feminine role. They’re pretty male oriented and I think I remember one of them just calling it “man on the bottom.” Others may see it differently but I’m not sure.
