How Do We form Our Taste Sexually?

[BigDirtyBear]

After lots of long hot sweaty football practices and the ripe lockerroom afterwards

[hntnhole]

2 hours ago, NWUSHorny said:

smorgasbord

Did you know that the original meaning is "butter & goose table"?  Smor (with umlaut, 2 dots over the vowel, changes pronunciation to something like "air") means 'butter' - gas (with umlaut, small circle above the vowel, changes the pronunciation to a long "o") means 'goose', and bord means table.  

[BootmanLA]

7 hours ago, hntnhole said:

I'd like your input on the following: 

I never cared much for girls, since my earliest memory.  I always liked playing with boys better as a little kid.  Not at all in a sexual way - that issue was deeply and thoroughly repressed until I went away to school.  Since I have no formal education in sexology (is that even a proper term?), once I did discover sex, I didn't fantasize about girls, I started having sex with boys.  I have never been "patient" or "entertained" or "excited" by feminine wiles; they irritate me.  I get along well with women who seem to instinctively know I am not susceptible to that kind of manipulation, and I do not deal patiently with women who think the possess gold between their legs.  I even came up with an excuse (what it was I don't recall) to not rent a property to a woman, recently divorced, with gigantic breasts tightly covered by a thin skimpy tank-top shirt.  The minute she sauntered up the driveway to view the property, I knew she thought she shit crushed pineapple just because of those flabby, unsightly tits packed into that little shirt.  

It seems to me that I simply have an in-born distaste for women, and their flirty, giggly, silly, useless behavior.  By contrast, even before I had any notions of what sexual drives are, I enjoyed spending time with boys, and what must be an in-born affinity for my own gender. 

My gut feeling is that there's a separation in most people between "the kind of people I'm physically attracted to/want to have sex with" and "the kind of people I like to be friends/have fun with." Either, or both, could be focused on one sex or both sexes; and I think the things that motivate each could be different.

In fact, I would guess that your dislike of women who use feminine wiles may well be tied to your being gay. Most of us probably don't relish being hit on by people we don't find attractive in the slightest, and for a purely gay man, I'd think women all fall squarely into that group. But that doesn't mean the dislike of women is as innate as the attraction to men; rather, it could be that it's more "How the fuck does she not know I don't give a damn about her tits and snatch?" that produces that reaction. As evidenced by the fact that you do get along with women who don't try that sort of manipulation.

[PozBearWI]

I have to agree, playmates and sexmates can be very different.  At least in my personal experience.  

WRT sex first vs friends first; I've experienced both (with men).  I have met manipulative men as well as women; although "the fairer sex" (which to me is an utterly stupid term) seems to dominate in manipulation.  Like you @BootmanLA I have experienced "how does she not know I don't give a damn about her tits or snatch?".  

[gingerdaddyG]

1 hour ago, hntnhole said:

Did you know that the original meaning is "butter & goose table"?  Smor (with umlaut, 2 dots over the vowel, changes pronunciation to something like "air") means 'butter' - gas (with umlaut, small circle above the vowel, changes the pronunciation to a long "o") means 'goose', and bord means table.  

I don’t know why, but ‘butter’ reminds me of the infamous scene in ‘Last Tango in Paris’ where butter is used as lube… now, push the goose out of the way and bend me over a table!

 

sorry, I digress!

[ErosWired]

28 minutes ago, gingerdaddyG said:

I don’t know why, but ‘butter’ reminds me of the infamous scene in ‘Last Tango in Paris’ where butter is used as lube… now, push the goose out of the way and bend me over a table!

You’ve obviously never roasted a goose. Rendered goose fat is wa-a-a-ay slicker and greasier than butter. Anybody eating your ass would want a bib. It would probably make a delicious lube…

[gingerdaddyG]

7 minutes ago, ErosWired said:

You’ve obviously never roasted a goose. Rendered goose fat is wa-a-a-ay slicker and greasier than butter. Anybody eating your ass would want a bib. It would probably make a delicious lube…

Thanks for that top tip!  My ass is always available…

[ErosWired]

I would want to see the study the OP is referring to, so I could pick out all the flaws in it. There is absolutely no way that a result that says, like clockwork, every fourth son behind three straights is gay. That’s absurd. It would only take one incongruous case to disprove a such a theory.

But even if the paper is only describing a likelihood or tendency, the whole premise overlooks two things well-researched and supported since Kinsey - 1) sexual orientation is a spectrum; and 2) an individual’s position on that spectrum may fluctuate over time.

What the OP described sounds a lot to me like somebody generated some statistics and got carried away. Color me skeptical. Not every study is a good study.

That orientation has at least partly a genetic origin is I think largely accepted at this point, but even so, if one were to give credence to results such as claimed here, the opportunity arises for certain elements of society to stand up and say, “People with three sons should be made to stop at three! Stop the gay proliferation!” or “Abort the Fourth!” I mean, for such people any excuse would do, but this would be available.

[NWUSHorny]

3 hours ago, hntnhole said:

Did you know that the original meaning is "butter & goose table"?  Smor (with umlaut, 2 dots over the vowel, changes pronunciation to something like "air") means 'butter' - gas (with umlaut, small circle above the vowel, changes the pronunciation to a long "o") means 'goose', and bord means table.  

I did not know that. I did know it was of Swedish origin but not much more.  My only real familiarity with the word smorgasbord was limited to what we now call buffet style restaurants, where I had lots of variety and could eat my fill. It definitely works, since I have definitely buttered a few goose (and gander) as well as been buttered myself on the table, so to speak.

Edited November 11, 2022 by NWUSHorny

[Fillitup57]

I think it is an interesting question- some things would be physical in nature- getting fucked, nip play etc.  But what about fetishes- piss, sucking cock, leather, being tied up, being a sub, etc.  Frankly while interesting, really do not care- just know what I like and no reason to figure out why. 

[ErosWired]

1 hour ago, gingerdaddyG said:

Thanks for that top tip!  My ass is always available…

Not sure I was recommending you actually try that…might not be the safest, most sterile thing you could put up your ass. You might introduce harmful bacteria, especially if it had been out any time at all. Animal fats are generally not recommended (butter is usually pasteurized).

Besides, I’ve always been a little ambivalent about associating birds with sex. My Dad (a man always ready with colorful language) often used to respond to requests for cash with:

If I had ten dollars and you had a feather up your butt we’d both be tickled.

[backdoorjimmy]

On 11/7/2022 at 12:03 PM, BBBxCumDumpster said:

The point I'm making is I think orientation can be a done deal before birth.  But I wonder what forms our taste sexually.  My taste run the gamut.  I've been with guys from 40 different countries.  My taste have gotten decidedly kinkier and complex. Are our taste nature, nurture or just complimentary pheromones at work? Are tastes decided before we're born as well?

I've thought about the same thing and have come to believe that it has to be a combination of nature and nurture. I'm convinced I was born gay. It's how I'm wired. I remember being 5 or 6 and blurting out how handsome a guy in a commercial was. My cousin at the time said, "Eww, he's ugly" but I argued that he was wasn't ugly, and that he looked really nice. My mom still tells that story.

But I think my sexual flavors and my kinks are probably related to my upbringing. My mom has a pretty foul mouth and almost no filter. When I was growing up, her and her friends would talk openly about hookups. In graphic detail. One time I heard them talking about getting ass fucked and how good it felt and I think I internalized it.

Years later when one of my uncles was giving me "the talk" he mentioned that some guys shove things up their asses and enjoy it (I was already out as gay). The next thing I knew, the conversation my mom and her friends had about butt sex came flooding back and it was all I could think about. Some of my other preferences like being submissive to men are probably a product of growing up with no dad and longing for male affection. My WS fetish stems from (I think) catching a whiff of dried up piss on the sidewalk one day. At least, that's what I think.

So yeah, I think it's a combination of factors. We're born with sexual wiring that makes us prefer men, but our "accessories" are something that we add on along the way.

[120DaysofSodom]

Homosexuality is likely beneficial to every species in some capacity, otherwise it wouldnt exist through the laws of natural selection.

 

[BootmanLA]

4 hours ago, ErosWired said:

I would want to see the study the OP is referring to, so I could pick out all the flaws in it. There is absolutely no way that a result that says, like clockwork, every fourth son behind three straights is gay. That’s absurd. It would only take one incongruous case to disprove a such a theory.

That is not what the study says, and I think the OP cited it incorrectly. What it said was that for mothers with multiple male children, the odds of having a gay son rise by about 1/3 with every male child born. The rest of this post will assume (without demonstrating it) that this figure is accurate.

That does not mean 33%, 66%, 99%. What it means is that if the odds of a child being male are roughly 50/50 (it's closer to 51/59 or 52/48, but male children die more often in childhood so the numbers even out eventually), and about 5% of people are gay, then there's a roughly 2.5% chance for a first pregnancy that the child will be a gay boy (because you can eliminate 50% off the bat for being girls). For the second child, it's one-third higher than that, or about 3.3% chance it'll be a gay boy. For the third child, it's 4.4% (because the odds increase by a third over what the previous odds say.

But when you look at boys only, it's more dramatic. A first boy has a 5% chance of being born gay. A second boy has a third-higher chance, or 6.7% chance. A third son has an 8.9% chance, and a fourth one has nearly a 12% chance of being gay.

That's a dramatic increase in odds. 

4 hours ago, ErosWired said:

But even if the paper is only describing a likelihood or tendency, the whole premise overlooks two things well-researched and supported since Kinsey - 1) sexual orientation is a spectrum; and 2) an individual’s position on that spectrum may fluctuate over time.

True. But a few points: 1) a huge portion of people cluster at one end of that spectrum (straight), at least as far as we can tell - ie there is no classic bell curve distribution or anything like that; 2) there's a much smaller, but still substantial cluster at the 'gay' end of that spectrum, with apparently fewer people along the "bi" spectrum than at either extreme (although that number may be undercounted), and 3) while it's true that individual positions fluctuate, it's largely in one direction (ie straight to bi to gay), with very few people at the gay end of the spectrum shifting back to bi and even fewer shifting to the straight region.

This isn't to say you were arguing otherwise; just to clarify that things are not evenly distributed or even classically distributed along that spectrum and it's not something where people move all up and down the spectrum equally.

[ErosWired]

53 minutes ago, BootmanLA said:

the odds of having a gay son rise by about 1/3 with every male child born.

Like I said, it sounds suspiciously like an exercise in construed statistics. That’s why I said I’d be interested in seeing the study - I’ll take some persuading.

58 minutes ago, BootmanLA said:

a huge portion of people cluster at one end of that spectrum (straight), at least as far as we can tell

But almost certainly not as heavily as is generally represented, due to ingrained cultural factors that heavily tilt surveys toward straight because men are strongly socially influenced toward self-identifying in traditional binary masculine-role oriented ways. Also, most people still think of orientation as a binary system rather than a spectrum, so in that situation the tendency for bisexuals given only the choice of straight or gay are more likely to skew straight for the reasons above.

Additionally, men who would otherwise land in bisexual or gay areas on the orientation spectrum end up weighting the straight end because they’re either in denial or in the closet and give inaccurate responses. I haven’t run across a study yet (though my reading on the subject has been  casual and perhaps there is such) that has devised a way to accurately account for this factor.