Language disconnects

[NWUSHorny]

I feel like I've had this same discussion about what constitutes "sex", not just "making love" at gay bathhouses, ABS, and other cruising spots in Portland, Seattle and Vancouver hundreds of times over the years. It's not just a Gen Z thing, I was having it with people here since before they were sexually aware, and probably since before some of them were born.

[think before following links] https://www.instagram.com/reel/DOzQemajznk/

[BruxoCub]

I’ve crossed into intimacy with people at bathhouses in moments of lust, but I wouldn’t say I was making love. Every encounter is different, and everyone has their own threshold for what feels too intimate in a hookup. For some men, kissing is off the table; for others, it’s essential.

While both are physical acts, it’s simplistic to treat “making love” as purely innocent intimacy.
Sex is something you do with someone; making love is something you share with someone.

My bathhouse motto tho:
"I'm into havin' sex, I ain't into makin' love"
- 50 Cent - In da Club

[hntnhole]

48 minutes ago, BruxoCub said:

Sex is something you do with someone; making love is something you share with someone.

True, and there is something akin to "making love" when that particular thing, characteristic, whatever, that just turns your crank is present in the other guy. 

For example, I just so happen to adore a hairy hole, for a number of reasons, and while I don't demean 'making love" at all, it's possible to get really close to "making love" when a physical characteristic that really pushes your buttons is present.

[NWUSHorny]

My problem is that I've heard the arguments that holding hands, cuddling up with, making out, doing role play, and numerous other things that do not involve a dick let alone penetration all constitute gay sex. I'm presuming that the guys making those arguments in a bathhouse would say that holding hands is sex and a way to make love.

Edited 22 hours ago by NWUSHorny

[BruxoCub]

2 hours ago, hntnhole said:

True, and there is something akin to "making love" when that particular thing, characteristic, whatever, that just turns your crank is present in the other guy. 

For example, I just so happen to adore a hairy hole, for a number of reasons, and while I don't demean 'making love" at all, it's possible to get really close to "making love" when a physical characteristic that really pushes your buttons is present.

Agreed, there are definitely specific kinks or physical traits that act as a bridge to that feeling of deep connection. When you’re in the zone trading oral or fucking while riding that high, it feels incredibly connected. It’s like a physical euphoria that creates its own version of making love, even if it’s more about the intensity of the sensation in that moment.

We spend so much of our sexual lives chasing those different zones, and it can become unhealthy if we aren’t honest with ourselves. It’s easy to use that intensity to mask what’s actually going on, and if we don't respect our own limits, that "chase" can turn into something a bit more self-destructive rather than connecting.

[BruxoCub]

2 hours ago, NWUSHorny said:

My problem is that I've heard the arguments that holding hands, cuddling up with, making out, doing role play, and numerous other things that do not involve a dick let alone penetration all constitute gay sex. I'm presuming that the guys making those arguments in a bathhouse would say that holding hands is sex and a way to make love.

The homophobia calls coming from inside the house is always wild to me lol.

[NWUSHorny]

2 hours ago, BruxoCub said:

The homophobia calls coming from inside the house is always wild to me lol.

I've always thought they are either functionally lesbian (a lot of them are into tit play, and few of them are into penetration with fingers, toys and even fists, just don't ask them to consider penetration with a penis), or asexual.

[PozBearWI]

I've had bathhouse moments that were what I might call momentarily intimate.  We're aware of each other and that we're each trying to satisfy ourselves while satisfying someone else.  But none of those has ever moved outside the front door.  Almost always if I came in with a buddy; I left with him - but that mostly because "home" was 2 - 3 hour drive and we shared a vehicle.  

[tallslenderguy]

Language disconnect. Yeah,  probably more often than we realize. Even the courts wrestled with what constitutes sex when Clinton was brought up on the carpet re Monica Lewinsky.  

Ultimately, i think language is subject to the individuals using it at the time (context) vs a carved in stone meaning that everyone always agrees on. Seems the word sex is a polysemy. 

For me, from a strictly physical perspective (and i don't believe sex is ever "strictly physical)  sex involves the Top having an orgasm in me.  Without His orgasm in me, it's still foreplay.  But i believe trying to reduce sex to 'just' a physical act requires repression/suppression/denial of our other parts (emotion, thought).  i think that's where we encounter all the differences on what constitutes sex. 

i'm really specific when i am communicating with another person about having sex... i spell it out: "i want you to penetrate me with your cock and have your orgasm inside of me." lol, that's the simple, quick explanation, i can get way more complicated , but i never just use the word "sex."  i see a lot of profiles where the best guys can come up with is the vagary: "looking to have fun."   wtf? i won't even approach those guys lol 

Making love?  For me, that happens when lots of my parts holistically (i.e., physical, mental, emotional...'spiritual?') and lots of His parts  engage/connect while penetration with the cock is happening.  And i've had that happen with anonymous walk in with a complete stranger... i'm not sure how well it can be quantified?  I've literally had to bite my mattress to keep from declaring my undying love for a Guy when He manages to fuck me in such a (seemingly) intentional way that (i perceive) all those parts are engaged and connecting from  both sides. And i consider that explanation a gross and inadequate simplification. 

i think words are only a part of language and communication, and we have to do a lot of asking and exploration, listening and hearing to truly communicate.

 

[tobetrained]

I think it's important to remember the love and lust responses are different in the brain. Here's a link I tried to find quickly: [think before following links] https://neurosciencenews.com/hormones-sexual-behavior-neuroscience-29459/

So, there's conversational-speak and sciencey-speak (love vs sex/lust). But, importantly, a person can love asexually and have great sex without love and everything in between.

It's also the foundational logic as to why discrimination against gays is ludicrous, a rationale our broader community has kinda forgotten -- a Millennial/GenZ trait. There's nothing wrong with two men or two women loving each other, but in such a pairing natural reproduction is impossible. But reproduction, an outcome driven by the lust/sexual impulse, is not love.

Equally, there's nothing wrong with an asexual person but being so makes reproduction tough. Again, reproduction is not love.

"Making love," it seems, was an invented phrase to allow "having sex" to sound more meaningful.