Gayness: is it love or sex?

[hungry_hole]

I find it ridiculous when gayness is defined, mainly by women, as the freedom to love whoever you want. Love? Isn't sex what men want?

Confronted with two options, what would gay men choose?

1. Laws that give total protection to LGBT and discrimination ends completely in society and men can freely love other men
2. All STDs, including HIV,  Hep-C, etc, become a thing of the past either with vaccines or cures, and men can freely fuck each other

I would obviously choose #2

Edited July 7, 2019 by hungry_hole

[Pozlover1]

#2 is an unrealistic expectation. Government healthcare opens the door to outlawing ice cream, guns, motor scooters and sex acts as a financial burden placed upon low risk people forced to pay for the bad decisions of others who make good decisions. The only reason anonymous free VD clinics were started was to lower costs to charity hospitals and insurance companies, not because the Government cares about the people they treated. Private health care must compete on the open market and at least pretend to offer decent but reasonable care in order to get people to buy it. 

#1 I believe all antidiscrimination laws are largely unenforceable and blatantly unconstitutional, as private businesses and property owners have a right to choose employees and tenants for whatever reason they want. Otherwise there is no such thing as privately owned business or property. 

However.... if there are to be such laws, LGBT people should be included. 

[hungry_hole]

7 minutes ago, Pozlover1 said:

#2 is an unrealistic expectation. ...

Both are unrealistic expectations. My question is a hypothetical one.

[ErosWired]

The two choices are a false dichotomy as written, since you cannot simply legislate disease out of existence. But if you boil the two down to basics, you’re asking whether gay men would rather see:

1. An end to discrimination; or

2. An end to the threat of STDs.

Put differently, you want to know whether gay men would rather love freely but risk disease, or fuck freely but risk loneliness? As we see in the current atmosphere of discrimination and the real threat of STDs, men still fuck one another pretty damn freely, and quite a lot of them get partnered up with a significant other in spite of social hurdles. So I find myself having difficulty finding an imperative behind your options on which to base a choice.

[Guest CuriousDallas]

Option B...not even a contest. I freely admit I’m a slut and a whore. I worry about getting STDs all the time..if they weren’t around I’d be getting fucked nonstop

[Pozlover1]

36 minutes ago, CuriousDallas said:

Option B...not even a contest. I freely admit I’m a slut and a whore. I worry about getting STDs all the time..if they weren’t around I’d be getting fucked nonstop

It’s simple mathematics. Given enough time even one dick a year will give you everything eventually. Ya pays the nickel and takes tha ride. 

What I did was seek out interesting people and ignore diseases. Interesting people tend to have more bugs so my statistical probabilities were skewed. 

I have some great memories and besides obvious warts or sores the only bug I want to avoid now is Hep C. That’s fairly easy, I don’t like to be around meth or other needle users anyway. 

[Twochipigs]

16 hours ago, Pozlover1 said:

#1 I believe all antidiscrimination laws are largely unenforceable and blatantly unconstitutional, as private businesses and property owners have a right to choose employees and tenants for whatever reason they want. Otherwise there is no such thing as privately owned business or property. 

However.... if there are to be such laws, LGBT people should be included. 

Individuals have the right to choose those with whom they associate.  Corporations and LLCs exist to shelter owners from personal liability, shelter that exists solely because it is granted by the state.  Businesses are also granted licenses by the state to operate in a particular jurisdiction.

If businesses want all the rights afforded by legislation, I.e. incorporation, they cannot refuse responsibilities imposed by legislation, I.e. non discrimination laws.  When one goes into business offering goods or services, one accepts those rights and responsibilities.

To say the ownership of businesses that are subject to laws is not private property is simply incorrect.

[hungry_hole]

On 7/7/2019 at 9:27 AM, ErosWired said:

Put differently, you want to know whether gay men would rather love freely but risk disease, or fuck freely but risk loneliness?

No. In terms of freedom, I want to know whether gay men would rather love freely or fuck freely. If men are able to love freely without any discrimination men should be able to establish monogamous relationships which would eliminate any fear of infection. Ridiculous, of course, but that is the perception that the general public has about gay men, men who have been oppressed just because of who they love.  Sex is never part of the gay world because the only way homosexuality can pass muster, is by leaving sex out of homosexuality.

In 1980's during the AIDS crisis many gay men, all of a sudden became monogamous, the same men who were regular sex clubs in NYC, like the Mine Shaft,  or San Francisco.

18 hours ago, CuriousDallas said:

Option B...not even a contest. I freely admit I’m a slut and a whore. I worry about getting STDs all the time..if they weren’t around I’d be getting fucked nonstop

I would also go with Option B, no contest. I don't care about same sex marriage and I just wish we could fuck in peace.

Think about, if there were no STDs it would not only provide you with peace of mind while being a whore, but the lack of STDs would also allow men who are married or in a relationships with women, to have sex with men without having to explain anything to their wives. We forget that there is a large number of so-called straight men who want an emotional/intimate relationship with women, maybe children,  and casual sex with men, no kissing or possibility of love. Some men who are have sex with women like being a top with the woman and then be the bottom with men. I've seen that a lot.

[tallslenderguy]

"Gayness: is it love or sex?"

i don't think this is an either/or question, and i think this question is different from the two hypothetical questions you pose?  To me, the question also has (inadvertent) heteronormative underpinnings.  I.e., it's a heteronormative (and i think they got it from religion) notion that sex is 'dirty' or 'bad' or (fill in your own negative term)  outside a (sanctioned) monogamous context, and therefor in opposition to 'love? '

"Gayness" is the desire/need to be with someone of the same sex, and even that lose definition is inadequate. i know guys who identify as gay and haven't actually had sex with a guy, and there are lots of guys who identify as straight, and yet, they fuck around and want (need?) sex with guys. i'm not convinced that if sex was just as easy with women, all those 'straight' guys having sex with men would suddenly disappear off the hookup apps. And, while i'm at it, sex with guys on hook up aps isn't all that 'easy' lol.

i think gay people can experience love with sex and i think we can experience sex without love. So can straights, or anyone?  

When it comes to "love" and "sex," sex is comparatively easy to define. What is our working definition of love here?  The Greeks had three different words for 'love:"  agape, eros and phileo.  Losely, the first refers to a sort of selfliess, sublime stuff, the second is physical love (the word "erotic" is a derivative), and the third refers to a friendship type love. We translate all three into "love" in English.  No ethnocentrism there. 

Having, or removing,  discrimination doesn't affect feelings of the heart, just makes them easier to express?  And we know laws that outlaw discrimination don't remove discrimination, they just add consequences that may or may not be enforced depending on whether or not the judge is a Baptist.  It wasn't that long ago when it was essentially illegal to be gay, yet, here we are. 

Thinking about it, both discrimination and STD's are negative consequences (unless you're a chaser) that can effect freedom of expression? But i think they are linked too. STD's are rampant because of discrimination.  They'd be a lot less of a factor if sex was not stigmatized. 

 

[Pozlover1]

10 hours ago, Twochipigs said:

Individuals have the right to choose those with whom they associate.  Corporations and LLCs exist to shelter owners from personal liability, shelter that exists solely because it is granted by the state.  Businesses are also granted licenses by the state to operate in a particular jurisdiction.

If businesses want all the rights afforded by legislation, I.e. incorporation, they cannot refuse responsibilities imposed by legislation, I.e. non discrimination laws.  When one goes into business offering goods or services, one accepts those rights and responsibilities.

To say the ownership of businesses that are subject to laws is not private property is simply incorrect.

You are correct about the law. I am more of a strict Constitutionalist and do not recognize Government Authority to “license” BUSINESSES, PETS, GUNS, MOTOR VEHICLES, MARRIAGES, HOME CONSTRUCTION, REMODELING, etc etc etc I.E NOTHING. NADA. ZIP. Just fix the fucking pot holes secure THIS COUNTRY’S border and leave us the fuck alone, THE ONLY THREE THINGS THEY HAVE NO INTEREST IN DOING

Edited July 8, 2019 by Pozlover1

[Pozlover1]

[ErosWired]

7 hours ago, Pozlover1 said:

You are correct about the law. I am more of a strict Constitutionalist

One can no more be a strict Constitutionalist than a strict adherent to the Bible - both are inherently subject to variable interpretation.

[Twochipigs]

16 hours ago, Pozlover1 said:

You are correct about the law. I am more of a strict Constitutionalist and do not recognize Government Authority to “license” BUSINESSES, PETS, GUNS, MOTOR VEHICLES, MARRIAGES, HOME CONSTRUCTION, REMODELING, etc etc etc I.E NOTHING. NADA. ZIP. Just fix the fucking pot holes secure THIS COUNTRY’S border and leave us the fuck alone, THE ONLY THREE THINGS THEY HAVE NO INTEREST IN DOING

You seem to forget there are 50 OTHER constitutions at work, those of the states, who license all those things you mentioned.  Just because the US Constitution doesn’t mention those power for the federal government doesn’t mean the states don’t have those powers.

[Pozlover1]

They don’t have those powers they just take them. But yes. Sometimes the Fed steps in and tells them they can’t make a law. 

On the theory that the “one world Government” might be a “one world Corporation” (imagine a Disney, Google and Monsanto merger) it’s possible that Governments will actually PROTECT the people in some places. 

Edited July 9, 2019 by Pozlover1

[hungry_hole]

The question was simple, if you were to choose between the (1) freedom to love men from an accepting society or (2) freely fuck with men because there are no STDs. I thought the answer was going to corroborate what I see in the posts in this site and in Grindr, Manhunt, BarebackRT, etc, SEX.

A young guy once told me that he asked a girl if she wanted to take a look at a gay cruising park. The naive woman thought that these parks were places where men go to hold hands and watch the sunset together. She had trouble understanding why guys would arrive in a car alone and disappear into the bushes and was shocked when she learned that the men were there for sex.

I'm not saying that men are unable to love but what I'm saying is that the glue is SEX and if something else happens, then fine but sex is first. I've never heard of an App dedicated to men in love.

Society may be delusional about men being sex machines and pretending all we want is be able to "love" (what a joke!)  but I don't understand why guys in this site are so reluctant to admit that sex is the main motivation, and the only motivation for many men.