Sex with straight guys

[Phallarchist]

Sexually-normal men necessarily define masculinity by the sheer force of their overwhelming preponderance in the population. And that includes reproducing as a matter of course. I definitely give a man more points if he fucks women and makes babies, because, well, that's the basic purpose of a man, his penis, and breeding. All other things being equal, I'll choose to be penetrated by a man whose seed has been successful. Such choices hardly ever present themselves in my life, but the hierarchy of value is straightforward.

In general, it's irrational to expect people who are attracted to males to desire anything other than the archetypes of the dominant hypermajority. That such men are largely unavailable is irrelevant to the fact of desire.

[fskn]

On 2/25/2022 at 6:29 AM, Phallarchist said:

Sexually-normal men necessarily define masculinity by the sheer force of their overwhelming preponderance in the population. And that includes reproducing as a matter of course. I definitely give a man more points if he fucks women and makes babies, because, well, that's the basic purpose of a man, his penis, and breeding. All other things being equal, I'll choose to be penetrated by a man whose seed has been successful. Such choices hardly ever present themselves in my life, but the hierarchy of value is straightforward.

This is true too (the evolutionary biologist Robyn Baker argues, in Sperm Wars, that having more descendants, not necessarily immediately, but over multiple generations = success), so it might justify the gay sexual fetish "pecking order" that @BlackDude posits.

Baker adds that homosexual sex also serves evolutionary-biological ends, in that it provides hetero- and bisexual males convenient opportunities for sexual experimentation and practice with other males, years before sex with females would be readily available and/or socially acceptable.

Last but not least, Baker argues that homosexuals may help successive generations by taking on nurturing roles.

Edited February 27, 2022 by fskn

[Phallarchist]

9 hours ago, fskn said:

...Robyn Baker argues, in Sperm Wars, that having more descendants, not necessarily immediately, but over multiple generations = success), so it might justify the gay sexual fetish "pecking order"

I would say that it's neither particularly "gay", nor a fetish, nor in need of justification.

10 hours ago, fskn said:

[H]omosexual sex also serves evolutionary-biological ends, in that it provides hetero- and bisexual males convenient opportunities for sexual experimentation and practice with other males, years before sex with females would be readily available and/or socially acceptable.

I'm sure I should read the book, but to what genetic benefit is such experimentation? There are plenty of males who make do with their hands alone until first use of a female. Do these men have lesser lineages?

[daemien]

I know that the number of gay/bi men who have put a load in me and the number of straight &/or married men who have used me to get off in the best way are aboutthe same, and almost all of them were cheaters. 

So hot 🔥  

Edited February 27, 2022 by daemien

[fskn]

3 hours ago, Phallarchist said:

I'm sure I should read the book, but to what genetic benefit is such experimentation?

Basically, that young men will already have honed their sexual skill by the time the opportunity to fuck women arises. For sexual prowess and peak fertility to coincide would certainly increase the chances of procreation. 🙂

[BBArchangel]

Duck a straight guy? Maybe in desperation. Otherwise, why I he hell would I want to?

[rock-cock-jock]

 

On 2/25/2022 at 7:29 AM, Phallarchist said:

I definitely give a man more points if he fucks women and makes babies, because, well, that's the basic purpose of a man, his penis, and breeding. All other things being equal, I'll choose to be penetrated by a man whose seed has been successful. Such choices hardly ever present themselves in my life, but the hierarchy of value is straightforward.

Man, that's such a hot concept. I think rather than it being 'purpose' as an attractive factor, it's more like a perceived placement on a male social hierarchy (hierarchy of value as you said). Strangely though, even though I understand the concept of taking a successful man's seed, for me after reflecting on it, maybe it's because I'm wired differently, but generally I actually am more turned on by the reverse. I think I get off more typically speaking on the 'dominating' sensation of topping and breeding a 'successful' straight guy, or even just arranging things into a sexual situation of my design, the more 'alpha' and straightlaced and closeted he is, the more it turns me on. In trying to psychoanalyze myself to understand where this comes from, maybe it is a perceived hierarchy thing. Although I'm doing alright for myself casual sex-wise, I think assessing myself objectively, I'm probably a 5 or 6 out of 10 on an attractiveness scale - not hideous or hot really, but passably fuckable with bonus points based on context and personality. I'm also not at all submissive personality-wise and my liking for bottoming is not linked to an inner craving for that dom-sub dynamic that I think many if not most bottoms tap into. The way I see it is that there are two worlds - the normal everyday world based on the conscious mind (including things like ranking people based on attractiveness, success etc and treating them as such) and then there's the deeper darker world of sex based on our more primal urges (that's more raw and organic and can completely disrupt the rules of the conscious world). So, whether it's because 'successful straight dude' is drunk or high or has low self esteem or is inexperienced or whatever,  I def get off on this mental aspect of having him submit - especially if he's face down ass up taking my cock and I don't need to give a shit what kind of facial expression I have on atm. I'm not even one of those guys that go extreme with the humiliation/bullying/cruelty aspect (maybe I'm too Canadian) but there's definitely a connection between social status and how a certain dynamic plays out in some sex scenarios. I think @Phallarchist your model is probably more pure to the straight guy fetish, but I think that, such as with me, there's an element of control here and there's something about 'fucking up the hierarchy' that's a legit turn on that's also part of the fetish. 

That's why I think @Dubconforlife is really talented at this niche. Aside from just good writing skills, he really gets the power dynamic right (though dialed up for the sake of hot erotica pacing) as well as the appeal of 'fucking up the hierarchy'. If you haven't already, go check out his stories.

Having said all that, although @Phallarchist  your model is hot, I wouldn't internalize it and I'd probably just try it out as roleplay occasionally and then drop it once the sex is done. I feel like internalizing something like that is a recipe for an inferiority complex which, given that I'm always stressed out and chronically anxious, is the last thing I wanna deal with in my normal life

Edited February 28, 2022 by rock-cock-jock
typo

[hntnhole]

On 2/23/2022 at 1:02 PM, Opensesame said:

Seems to me that it depends on who you’re taking to. As for the pecking order For instance on this site, the chasers would far prefer a poz person and many prefer BBC to any straight guy.

I'd have to agree.  I think every man should fuck whatever he's drawn to fuck.  For me, that disqualifies "straight" men, because I love men who love raw Cock, are willing and able to say so without equivocation, and in any situation that presents itself.  In the darkrooms, who gives a rats ass whether the Hole bent over taking loads off any/every Cock calls himself "straight"?  His mouth would be full of something other than injurious self-deception anyway.

[rock-cock-jock]

haha, the devil is in the details man! 😈

It's not about the label or his mentality or where he's positioned exactly on a fluid sexuality scale, speaking strictly on what turns me on, it's simply the act. All those 'straight behaviors' that he's picked up subconsciously ( the look, the walk, the speech, the clothes, etc) those are all purely sufficient to satisfy my fetish. He could very well be gay or a ftm or whatever but as long as he can act out all the right cues legit enough, it's enough to trigger my fetish button. As least for me it is. It's honestly the same thing for any other fetish - eg gerontophilia: based on elderly phenotypes; uniform fetish: purely a clothing related cue; poz chasing: a bit trickier but maybe the biohazard/scorpion tattoo is a cue that plays into the intensity of the fantasy? maybe? So yeah, my point is that it doesn't need to be objectively based in reality, it's just simply perceiving the right cues that triggers a fetish if that makes sense.

[Phallarchist]

21 hours ago, fskn said:

Basically, that young men will already have honed their sexual skill by the time the opportunity to fuck women arises. For sexual prowess and peak fertility to coincide would certainly increase the chances of procreation.

It seems like wishful thinking to me that the male function requires any skill. The penis just needs to finds its target. The first thrust might need some guidance. All the rest are automatic, as is the delivery of seed, the only moment that actually matters genetically.

The only skill I could see a man possibly needing would be cunnilingus, assuming the relatively rare event (historically) in which the woman could choose a partner for this skill. It's quite unlikely that he would practice analingus on a boy beforehand, and even if he did, it wouldn't translate very well.

[FelchingPisser]

I am guessing that a fetish for straight men may be more a bottom thing than a top thing. 

I don't want a straight man's ass.  He has no idea how to prep it for me.

[rock-cock-jock]

Nope, straight guys dont know the first thing about douching and university ones have the shittiest diets (pun intended). But even if mud is inevitable, it's still fucking hot. Love love love straight man ass. I'll eat it out all day every day no hesitation. But then again, I'm a pig and not really huge stickler for requiring my bottoms to douche.  Bred my Alberta farmboy fuckbud twice Saturday night and once Sunday morning completely natural. Was awesome, minimal mess and the spontaneity of it was awesome

[ronnie4u]

I have had a few party's when guys of guys drinking too much and smoking weed - they gotten silly and goofy ! Showing a few porno movies - guys parading around naked - hung dicks bouncing !  Some guys laying there - maybe fell asleep - guys laying their cocks on these guys !   Some of them telling the others to start sucking them off !  Sometimes  things becomes surprises - the one's you thought were straight took a small push and they become liking it - comes back to the parties I give !  Especially seeing cocks rubbing butt cracks - raw fucking / breeding !

[fskn]

7 hours ago, Phallarchist said:

It seems like wishful thinking to me that the male function requires any skill. The penis just needs to finds its target. The first thrust might need some guidance. All the rest are automatic, as is the delivery of seed, the only moment that actually matters genetically.

The only skill I could see a man possibly needing would be cunnilingus, assuming the relatively rare event (historically) in which the woman could choose a partner for this skill. It's quite unlikely that he would practice analingus on a boy beforehand, and even if he did, it wouldn't translate very well.

I'm just reporting the material. You'll have to take it up with the evolutionary biologist Robyn Baker, who wrote Sperm Wars — and check the research referenced in the book. The author also maintains an online addendum.

One thing to consider is that sexual skill is multidimensional. If reproduction were simply a matter of inserting the penis into a random vagina and ejaculating, we'd have a much larger population. Baker is no doubt referring to confidence, ability to interact before and during sex, stamina, and so on.

Apparently, the Boy Scouts do (did?) prepare young men, on multiple levels! 😉

[ErosWired]

6 hours ago, rock-cock-jock said:

So yeah, my point is that it doesn't need to be objectively based in reality, it's just simply perceiving the right cues that triggers a fetish if that makes sense.

This seems accurate to me. I have no idea what you’re referring to specifically in terms of ‘straight behaviors’ (look, walk, etc.), and probably wouldn’t recognize them as ‘straight’ if I saw them, so it seems likely that you’re responding to a set of stimuli that triggers you on a personal psychological level - a fetish - rather than reacting to something universal in a general way.