One of the “trends” I’ve been seeing on the forum are guys wanting to deal with men in a fashion similar to how they deal with women. They talk about dating, have great concerns about and against casual sex and the theme seems to be relationship first, sex second, which kinda plays into something I saw the other day that said that men look for sex and find a relationship while women look for a relationship and find sex. So many of the membership insist that the “being into” has to be first and foremost before they strip down and do what they really wanna do – have sex – and many become disappointed and disillusioned to find that a lot of guys want the sex first and if some kind of bond happens after that, well, it could be gravy for them – but it can also be the one thing they’d rather avoid if possible.
Now, it’s not that men aren’t interested in a more, ah, meaningful discourse beyond just sex and, yes, there is some value to be had when “Jeff” can be exclusive with “Harry” but it seems to me that some guys are kinda forgetting that, um, we’re not women in that many of us really don’t require or even desire the relationship first and treat sex as an afterthought. Yep, I guess it’s being true to our “doggy” nature but while we can be quite interested in you as a person, um, we can explore that… after we get naked and make each other cum. We believe that sex without investment is a bad thing and that this kind of sex lacks meaning and since this is deemed to be so, it’s to be avoided at all costs… which is kinda funny since some of us don’t have this “attitude” when we’re trying to get into a woman’s panties and the only reason why we’re trying to do that is because she turns us on; if a relationship happens as a result, fine but if it doesn’t, well, okay.
Yet when we turn to M2M – and many make this turn for the sexual aspects – “all of a sudden” we want to date and to be courted before we pull our cocks out for some mutual satisfaction and if the other guy ain’t down with this and is just looking to have some gratifying sex, well, that appears to be a problem. I was reading a really interesting running thread written by a member who developed a man crush on a guy, was all into him and, as such, ready to have the sex… but the other guy didn’t seem to be ready to take that step. The member was quite unhappy about that and wondered what was going on and asking what he should do to get this guy to, basically, give up the dick. In the meantime, he ran into a guy he had been talking to but hadn’t established anything but they meet and the dicks come right out and it was just what the doctor ordered and, what do you know? A relationship sprang up out of that sexual encounter! They apparently do more with each other than just empty each other’s balls and, yeah, this is very comforting to many and especially those guys who have an aversion to having sex just because it can be done.
So many of the members are sitting on the bench, itching to get into the game but they insist that, basically, if the other guy isn’t going to be into them beyond just sex, it’s no deal… even though they do understand that sex drives us; they get upset when they run into a guy and after establishing some minimum introductory requirements – what’s your name, and other basic stuff – the next thing tossed into the table is, “Let’s get naked and do something!” They get bummed out over this and when I see them writing their displeasure about this I ask myself, “Well, what did you expect? Um, do you not know how men operate?” Indeed, a lot of guys get into this because they don’t have to get into that very complex dance that must be performed with women; let’s just cut to the chase, whip out our dicks, and see what happens afterward. I’m thinking that perhaps we get used to this dynamic when dealing with women so this must also extend to men and, as such, dealing with a guy in the same manner – establish a meaningful bond before giving up the booty (or asking for it).
One member responded by invoking a rule that probably everyone knows about: If sex doesn’t happen by the third date, just walk away. And while this probably works well when dealing with a woman, what makes a guy think that this also works with men… and why are they surprised and dismayed when it doesn’t work? This isn’t about being disinterested in a person because we tend to not want to have sex with someone we have zero interest in physically or emotionally; it’s just that there are some guys who operate at a very minimal level; tell me who you are and what you’re into and if those things are compatible, let’s have sex and whatever happens after that remains to be seen; maybe something with more meaning and substance will happen as a result, maybe it won’t but I guess at the end of the day, it’s all about what one sees as a requirement for having sex and, yeah, doing the nasty just because you can and want to just seems to be a problem for some guys.
Like I’ve been saying here of late, if you think women are really funny about stuff like this, you’ve not been around bisexual men and I just find it curious that if it’s true that men look for sex and find a relationship, we want to do things with each other in the way it’s said that women do them – look for the relationship first, then consider the sex. Of course, I’m not even trying to offend anyone with this discourse but I’m the guy who’ll notice this and, yeah, I have some thoughts about that. When I tell guys that you really don’t have to be into a guy to have sex with him – you just have to be able to like and trust him enough to want to have sex with him – wow, some guys get kinda bent out of shape over such a statement and insist that a deeper level of bonding is a mandatory requirement and, again, even when you know that men can have sex without that bond being in place before the fact.
It’s curious and, for the moment, I don’t know what to make of this…