Is being straight a social construct?

[Guest]

I can't imagine that there is any normal human being doesn't like cock, I think being straight is just a social construct and a manipulation by the religious people 😅

Edited March 10, 2023 by Tsjul

[gingerdaddyG]

Well I suppose when straight guys watch straight porn they must like seeing hard cocks (and apparently the naked women too), and I’ve been to the gym with straight buddies who have passed comment on other guys in the changing room/showers/sauna, so you may have a point @Tsjul

[hntnhole]

3 hours ago, Tsjul said:

I can't imagine that there is any normal human being doesn't like cock, I think being straight is just a social construct and a manipulation by the religious people 😅

Actually, I think that sexual orientation is something that's inborn in us.  It may take years to bubble up to the surface (to your religious comment), and depending on how steeped in that bullshit a kid is, it may never rise to the surface of his consciousness.  

I think that the control exerted by the hets, the religious, is the "construct".  We live (at least here in the US) in a social construct that disavows our legitimacy, and thus our humanity, all based upon our sexual identity.  They exert cultural control, and choose to disparage us, repress us, consider us 'less-than' themselves.  Nice belief-system, huh? About the farthest thing from the belief-system they - like the proverbial "noisy gong" - loudly claim for themselves.  

[marriedsub]

Probably has to do with survival of the species primarily.

[ErosWired]

Sexual orientation is a social construct. Reproductive function by gender is not. Homo sapiens reproduce by binary gender as a species - it isn’t optional. The whole modern debate about whether there are more than two genders, or whether someone can straddle or cross lines between genders, has little practical bearing on how babies are made. Baby-making is firmly a heterosexual function whether the persons involved are heterosexual or not.

Given that humans are biologically evolved to reproduce in the “straight” way, and are thus in the main biologically programmed for sexual attraction to opposite-sex partners as a matter of species survival, and given that the human body was not practically evolved for homosexual intercourse, I think it’s pretty safe to say that we came by “straight” the natural way.

[PendragonSpirit]

I would argue the concept of sexual orientation and the terminology thereof is a social construct.

However, actual sexual attraction is not. That's biological. 

[NWUSHorny]

Only partially, the biological imperative to reproduce is not a social construct. Most animals including humans can and will participate in sexually motivated activity with members of the same sex. In humans, many cultures have developed a social construct to prohibit acting on sexually motivated behavior with the same sex, which I believe is what you are referring to as "being straight". I think because of this social construct, there are a lot of people who are to varying degrees bisexual who will never act on the homosexual urges. To some extent the same thing has happened in gay sub-cultures where peopled who are mostly homosexual have been conditioned not act on their heterosexual urges.

As a bisexual who enjoys having sex with both sexes, I think these social constructs are destructive.

I think there is a relatively recent social construct, where people who are mostly asexual have tried to join the gay subculture in their quest for companionship. In some regions they have become a major impediment in finding gay hookups.

[funpozbottom]

Yes.  Obviously, making babies is biology, however, societies have always used couple dynamics as a means of building a power base (through arranged marriages) and controlling the masses (by requiring the permission of the church or government to wed). 

The term, "straight", as it refers to sexuality, has only been in use for about 50 years. It was coined as a response to the use of the term, "gay", that was gaining popularity to describe it's opposite. The problem with these terms is that they preclude the possibility of something present in the middle. Strict adherence to the terminology disrupts what should be normal friendships and interactions between people. Same gender friendships can no longer be close for fear of being perceived as "gay".  

The terms used to describe sexuality are relatively modern constructs, and even at that, the meaning of these terms has changed over time.  I recommend this article if you're interested in how some of the terms were created:   [think before following links] https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20170315-the-invention-of-heterosexuality

[Sfmike64]

The older I've gotten the more I think these labels are useful but should not be constraining on people. We've all sucked off a "straight" guy or fucked him. Is he less straight because you fucked his butt and he went back to his girlfriend (maybe she won't peg him or he's too ashamed to ask her). I think that we would have less conflict about orientation if people dumped their religious nonsense (ha! good luck with that, although younger generations are definitely becoming less religious overall in the US and Europe) and just did what makes them feel good and makes their partners feel valued and gives them enjoyment. 

[Fillitup57]

Frankly I do not know nor care and further I do not think anyone knows.  It just feels right to me to be with a man- when a good looking man walks down the street I look at him and his package.  

[408curious]

37 minutes ago, Sfmike64 said:

The older I've gotten the more I think these labels are useful but should not be constraining on people. We've all sucked off a "straight" guy or fucked him. Is he less straight because you fucked his butt and he went back to his girlfriend (maybe she won't peg him or he's too ashamed to ask her). I think that we would have less conflict about orientation if people dumped their religious nonsense (ha! good luck with that, although younger generations are definitely becoming less religious overall in the US and Europe) and just did what makes them feel good and makes their partners feel valued and gives them enjoyment. 

Good reply. 

I am "straight", I like girls (and gurls).  ... but I'm also bottomy,  and crave the sense of submission.   Preferably submission taken more than given.  And appreciate the power of the phallus.   

There are always people who say,  " you're not straight if you...  xxxx...and xxx."   But that's how I feel.

...and more importantly,  I use "straight" to let Dom guys know I'm not going to be into them other than (semi-resentfully) under domination.   Some guys aren't into that.   They should know asap,  and I hope the ones that are into it get even more into the role knowing it.

[Sfmike64]

I also think that if straight men were in touch with their butt holes, there would be no more war. They'd be too busy taking it up the ass.

[Rillion]

On 3/10/2023 at 10:21 AM, Tsjul said:

I can't imagine that there is any normal human being doesn't like cock, I think being straight is just a social construct and a manipulation by the religious people 😅

Yeah especially all those cock crazed lesbians. Of course any lesbian that doesn't love cock doesn't qualify as a normal human being. This is seriously one of the stupidest egocentric self centered posts I've seen on here.

[Guest]

On 3/13/2023 at 9:31 AM, Rillion said:

Yeah especially all those cock crazed lesbians. Of course any lesbian that doesn't love cock doesn't qualify as a normal human being. This is seriously one of the stupidest egocentric self centered posts I've seen on here.

Chill out, you are taking shit too seriously. 

[Guest]

i thought we are to be nasty [banned word], pigs and faggots......not socially conscious.....(poking lightly  in jest)