Some words of advice for the many bisexual/bicurious men on this site

I think sex between married man and woman is 'right' for moral, philosophical, natural and religious reasons. My self examination of 'paleo' living vs modernity has led me to change my views on many things, including this and general promescuity and even the 'use' of sexual energy - I believe men can particularly channel it to do incredible things.

Even St.Paul who I noted did not particularly condemn homosexuality per se but 'adultrey' which simply mean sex outside biblical marriage.

I don't know what is 'right' for other people but for me, given the dark and trauma related origins -a fantasy - just like binge drinking is wrong for me.

There are plenty, plenty of decent men who are gay, kind, caring, good natured. Let's say two of them live together and have sex but otherwise, save sea turtle nest and other good things...

not my job to condemn their behavior, but I can offer my own experiences for someone who might have experienced or suffered the same thing I have. It might not be those two hypothetical guys who seem 'happy'. Its more likely something who feels a compulsion and urge in times of anxiety similar to a drug or alcohol pull, and somehow feels its not part of them.

 

I didn’t know this and I am so sorry to hear this. I can relate. I recently had a vivid dream (and on careful reflection I think it is a recurrent dream) of the terror of being molested by an older man. It is difficult to express in words the sheer terror of such an experience. I do not have a memory of such a thing in this life, but I sometimes wonder about how deep trauma can bury our memories. Predatory gay sexual behavior does exist and it is as terrifying and violating as heterosexual rape, and it needs to be called out as such.

You are also right that until someone gains solid control of their sexual urges (which are way out of control for 99% of the population in WIERD countries), it is unwise to believe them about what is natural or unnatural about sex.

A person who is not in control of his senses and sexual organs cannot be trusted to dispense advice to all and sundry. Caveat emptor. Peace.

 

Please don’t confuse love with lust.

You can love without sex. Lust is sexual.

simple difference often overlooked.

 

And people who 'think' they have progressive views turn out to have bigtoed views when viewed by another generation and time.

Not really- you're reasoning is circular - I am actually pointing out the ignorance of someone condemning millions of people they don't know as bigots.

 

as mentioned the reasons for my objections to any sort of promescuity or lack of self control are way beyond religious - it is in fact primarily moral and philosophical with me. the basic stoic principle that man is not guided by his passions, that in fact indulging in any (sex, drugs, pleasure) is the sure path to misery, ironically.

Please re-examine what I wrote about 'using' sex (like using 'eating') for other needs - and sexualiztion or trauma and/or unmet needs.

if for example, I masturbated (to whatever) everytime I had a problem - that would not be helping the problem and would be damaging to my 'normal' use of sex.

 

What is your criteria? Where does it come from? Who decides? Especially if you say you disregard past wisdom. Everything you say for example about sexuality goes against most philosophies and is just what's now fashionable in mainstream media (which leads me to believe you're easily led by it)

 

What if I am hurt by what you just wrote?

Nope, once again you don't understand what I wrote, I was pointing out your baseless moralizing -calling people 'homophobic' who you disagre with .

I have stated, repeatedly, the reasons for posting the information I did. Other people who have suffered from escalation posted similar things on your thread and you ignored their objections too - I was warning people that the path of escalation or the idea that your sexual fantasies or urges or tastes represent your 'true self' and anything else is repression is a damaging one.

I admit I struggled with these ssa fantasies is that something someone insecure about their sexuality would say?

I have learned to distinguish between sexualization of needs or using sexualized fantasy to process trauma vs what i am 'naturally' attracted to.

not to get graphic, but for example, in real life (other human beings, not fantasies) at the gym i see a woman bending over in yoga pants : i get very 'excited' and naturally want to touch, feel, smell, want to have sex etc. .. in real life with a guy that's about as appealing as eating a dog shit sandwich, though I could tell you which guy is good looking, fit, etc. This is not a 'moral' feeling (oh that's wrong I feel guilty) this is a gut, visceral reaction I experience, the same way most people would, for example about bestiality (does that mean I hate animals?).

That helps distinguish what are core sexual feelings vs. what has escalted or become sexualized...

another way to distinguish unhelpful sexual fantasy is to note how one feels after.
For example, if i masturbated to the example above< I might feel like i wasted energy but I still 'desire'that woman after, if i had a ssa fantasy usually related to trauma (or for example a fem dom or sissy fantasy) I would feel disgusted like the hangover of binge drinking.

Would you tell someone who didn't want fem-dom and sissy fantasies to just indulge in it because that's who they are?

I hope this helps you and others distinguish between healthy sexual desire and fantasy and sexualized needs and trauma.

 

I would say that sodomy of any kind, gay or straight is a far more dangeous and unhealthy activity. but for example a monogamous two gay guys who generally cared for each other vs, for example a bsdm or abusive 'sex' that involved power over a woman (or visa versa, fem dom) would be more unhealthy than the gay example. it's not the only criteria.

 

oh yes, that gave us a 30 year war 50,000 clergy executed countless churches destroyed, people guillotined for just being the wrong person during 'the reign of terror'. There are also a lot of lies left over from that time 'dark ages' to describe medieval europe, for example. Just because something has a label doesn't make it so.

So you are saying all moral good comes from the 'enlightenment' - by why who/what gave them that authority as 'good'?

 

Again I disagree about that as an identity - it's a behavior spectrum, which can be morphed depending on choice and behavior. If you see the articles on YPOP i referenced, it seems there is fluidity but of course its influenced by choices and environmental factors.

 

My dear friend,
I did not say that. I merely pointed out that your argument for its justification as based on love is wrong.
Love is not about sex. Love comes from the heart, and it arises when one transcends the flow of energy through the genitals. Old couples love each other without sex.

The justification of the sexual act as based on love is a misinterpretation based on popular culture and the crippling limitations of the English language.

once one understands the difference, a polite conversation is possible. Until then i will leave you to your opinion. Peace.