| |
Smegma
|
When it comes to their rules of engagement, toms have a very specific -what to us may seem "weird"- approach to actual sex.
Not exactly that ALL toms keep ALL their clothes on, but yes, things along those lines. Most toms are also virgins (and proud of it) from a technical physiological standpoint: they are never penetrated -and if a tom ever is, well, it is then "true love" and it has to be with woman with a very strong personality who got her way, and it is also a big secret that the woman is not supposed to tell anyone.
|
Thai Girls : Meet Sexy Thai Girls
Posted on: 11:25 pm on July 10, 2003
|
|
Arcadius
|
badfish
Interesting anecdote. One thing I don't quite understand though:
she did have encounters with other women before but never considered herself gay or even bi
Do you mean other women who weren't Toms? If so, then I find her position difficult to accept - unless, of course, she was going with these other women for reasons other than desire.
Perhaps Thais define bisexuality differently from us, and just don't count occasional dalliances which lie outside their normal sexual desires and behaviour. If so, I think that's a defensible viewpoint - and it would reduce the whole problem to a simple one of semantics.
However, this being LOS, I suspect it's not quite as easy as that...
|
Bangkok Women : Meet Sensual Bangkok Women
Posted on: 11:46 pm on July 10, 2003
|
|
Kaymanx
|
Arcadius,
Congratulations on a very sensible and cool expostulation of the issue. It is just the way I saw it. To make matters a bit clearer to X, let me add that when an otherwise "straight" man goes ahead with a LB, he does so because he is fascinated -- and attracted -- by her femininity and not by the male lurking beneath.
Arcacius is spot on, this is no role play, but virtually the real thing. She not only looked like a woman, she behaved like one, she felt like one, she thought like one. And, during the time that I spent with her, she treated me like she was a woman. Her ministrations were genuinely feminine, and in many ways she did a better job than many other regular girls would in a hurry. I saw her male organ but I did not see it as a male organ. In some weird, intoxicating way I saw it as a female penis. Does it confuse you even more ? I am sure it does.
These words are not to "defend" my actions as such but to try and clarify a riddle to X, why there is no ambivalence involved here. The LB does not seek to satisy a man's gay cravings, if any (even if many gays mistakenly think so). She is out to please him like a woman. An LB DOES NOT LIKE being called a man. You would hurt a LB if you call her a man. She wants to be seen, and thought of, as a woman. She wants to be a woman. I will not forget her parting words, "My dream is to have a pussy."
My experience with her was memorable also because I think she too got some satisfaction out of it. I guess it is all about on what wave length each of us relates with another. Probably she hits it off well only with SOME guys, not with every guy who "tries" her out. Just like any relationship between different people.
Once again, Arc, good job!
|
Thai Girls : Meet Sexy Thai Girls
Posted on: 2:21 pm on July 11, 2003
|
|
Smegma
|
The text below is a post that I read in another forum. The poster there does not seem to be the writter himself as he makes reference to other links where to find the original article, but those links do not work any longer. Thus, I have no clue where the original piece comes from.
Somehow this seems a bit relevant to what was being discussed above.
=======================================
Apparently, the 20th Century Kinsey Scale takes into account sexual acts, fantasies, love, experiences, and sexual partners to formally categorize individuals in a spectrum of sexuality.
0- Exclusively heterosexual with no homosexual
1- Predominately heterosexual, only incidentally homosexual
2- Predominately heterosexual, but more than incidentally homosexual
3- Equally heterosexual and homosexual
4- Predominately homosexual, but more than incidentally heterosexual
5- Predominately homosexual, only incidentally heterosexual
6- Exclusively homosexual
Informally speaking, the way things currently look in our society, human sexuality is not just the three little old categories of Straight, Gay, and Bisexual any longer. In reality, everyone has their own unique orientation and preference. Rather than a straight-bi-gay trichotomy*, it's more like a "spectrum of fingerprints". The scale above was used to classify individuals for sexuality research by the Kinsey Institute, but when it comes to informally classifying ourselves on this scale, even a range like this seems a bit too strict, rigid, and outdated. Yet it seems to be the most realistic and widely accepted sexuality classification system we have to date. As we can see through looking at world history, human sexuality is very complex and everchanging based on the views of society in which we live. Contrary to popular belief, it's interesting to see that we've outgrown our sexuality classification system in the modern Western World -- the straight-bi-gay trichotomy.
It is also interesting to note that the above formal scale truly only applies to 20th century American society. Ancient Greeks (and many other civilizations) had no conception that homosexuality and heterosexuality were opposites in the same way that we do (or did). What we call "homosexuality" was so common in other civilizations that they saw every mortal human as capable of both homo and hetero sex. So, can we call the Ancient Greeks bisexuals? No. The term "bisexuality" is only the term for a midpoint in our own current sexuality spectrum. Even today, other cultures in the world have a whole different way of looking at sexuality and men's relationships with women. They also have entirely different views regarding the roles of men versus women.
Sexuality definitions have changed even in our own country over the years. The term "bisexual" was completely unheard of until a few decades ago. There were only definitions for the two opposites -- "homosexual" and "heterosexual". There was a time when homosexuality was considered mentally ill or criminal. In fact, at one time, anything less than pure heterosexual-penis-vagina intercourse was considered perverted. It was assumed that any manual stimulation between partners, masturbation, anal sex (sodomy), oral sex, general homosexuality, etc. all existed at the same perverted level, equal and opposite from heterosexual intercourse. It seems that when we examine the history of sexuality, even in the 225 year old U.S., it's definitely everchanging.
To me (and others), the term 'bisexual' connotates someone who would sleep with either gender at just about any time. In other words, a rather 'slutty' individual. 'Bisexual' seems to have become a modern term to describe how often, in conjunction with how diverse an individuals sex life is. Upon writing Confidential Biography, I discovered something about sexuality labels. Labels, in general, are only a human's way of categorizing things that are too complex for the mind to see all at once. We've attempted to boil sexuality down to three little labels of Gay, Bi, and Straight but it's just not that simple anymore. In the past, these labels may have been adequate but views of sexuality have surely changed once again. To describe me, the term 'Straight' doesn't seem to apply because of my experiences. The term 'Bisexual' does not really mean what it's supposed to mean. And the term 'Gay' carries the connotation to describe a strange, feminine, or gutless male regardless of his actual sexual preference. I don't fit into any of the above and neither do many others. In fact, the majority of us do not fit into them. I think it's important to illustrate how our informal classification system of sexuality labels is almost entirely worthless at this point in time.
To use terms like 'Gay', 'Bi', or 'Straight' to describe a person completely underestimates not only an individual's sexual capacity for fantasy and experiences but also underestimates an individual's capacity to be something above their sexuality category. In other words, a gay carpenter or a gay lawyer can be accurately described as a carpenter or lawyer more than they can be described as 'gay'. In most cases, even stereotypically speaking, they will almost undoubtedly hold to the stereotypes of being a carpenter or a lawyer long before they would meet the stereotypical qualifications for being gay. Yet, we as a society, would be more shocked to find out either of these two men is a homosexual. Unfortunately, it is a very juicy detail! Therefore, many people would call them: "Tom, the gay lawyer" or "Jack, the gay carpenter" or even more simplistically say -- "You know, the gay guy that works over there?"
Problems arise when peers attempt to classify each other as pre-teens and adolescents. Some males go through the equivalent of sexual harassment as other teens try to seek out and label people who seem 'gayer' than themselves. It's like nobody wants to be the 'gayest' so who's called 'gay' eventually gets displaced from person to person. Sometimes, the guys all the way down the bottom of the spectrum end up having no choice in the matter of their own sexual preference in the future. They've been rejected by mostly all heterosexual peers and can not identify with their own gender. These males are forced to identify with either female oriented activity and/or seek out males with similar queer or feminine characteristics in the future. Ultimately, sex with another male will be the quintessential form of gender acceptance and assimilation to maleness.
At first glance, I thought I had come up with the cause and cure of homosexuality when I examined my theory as stated above. I also thought that everything stated would also be true for the inverse -- the cause of heterosexuality. In other words, those who were well accepted, masculine, and had male characteristics would easily identify with the male gender and ultimately become heterosexual (same for females identifying with the female gender). Unfortunately, trying to prove such a theory as statistically significant would be difficult. There can be so many more factors in what goes into an entire human being's sexual preference. Suppose for example, a male who had enjoyable sexual experiences with another male when very young ended up entirely gay as an adult. He may have been accepted by other guys and had masculine characteristics yet his mind became quite homosexual at an early age. Many other sexuality scenarios can arise but I think there is still great worth in my theory mentioned here. For the most part, by general observation and interviewing people who call themselves gay, it seems to hold true for the majority of the cases.
An even better approach seems to be to study the inverse -- the cause of heterosexuality. In other words, something has to 'cause' a person to become heterosexual. One possibility is this: Heterosexuality is caused by acceptance from one's gender and assimilation to that group. There may be some homosexuals who have had this acceptance and assimilation, but it's unlikely that there are very many heterosexuals who haven't had it. All of this seems to support the theory of a sexuality spectrum very nicely (or at least a newer style Kinsey Scale). We each need different levels of acceptance from our gender, we each have different levels of feminine and masculine characteristics, and we each meet fulfillment of sexuality development at different levels and different times in our lives. Therefore, a spectrum would exist rather than a trichotomy of conditions. If this is the case, we may be able to change sexual preference to some extent but an all out 'cure' for homosexuality would be out of the question. With these circumstances taken into account, it's hard to say that there really is any actual sickness to cure. Sexuality, in general, seems to be a combination of how we are innately (biologically) designed and society's influence on us as a youth.
Even the Kinsey Scale above seems a bit to restricting to describe something as complex as human sexuality. The inventors of the scale created it to classify people for scientific research. I'm sure it serves that purpose just fine if the same criteria are used on all people for evaluations. However, when it comes down to examining that scale, we as individuals can have difficulty identifying with the categories. For example, how 'incidental' is 'incidental homosexuality'? If you think about other guys 1 out of 10 times in fantasy, does that mean incidental? Or does 1 in 5 relationships qualify as incidental? It's quite difficult to to come up with a system of judgment to classify ourselves on the scale. However, the Kinsey Scale is important because it illustrates the fact that there is some sort of sexuality spectrum -- possibly even a continuum.
* trichotomy - division into three parts, elements, or classes. (Merriam-Webster on AOL).
========================================
|
Bangkok Girls : Meet Sexy Bangkok Girls
Posted on: 1:32 pm on July 12, 2003
|
|
Ballsburstin
|
Smeg,
You did your homework! When I was talking about the "continuum," it was in reference to the sex research done in light of the Kinsey scale. Until then, things were considered in more absolute terms, largely influenced by the whole Freudian "gay is a disease that can be cured" bullshit.
Arcadius has hit the nail on the head, I think, with his comment about Thai's not defining sexuality the same we do. They don't, per se, though the Sino Thai's and monied Thai's have a more rigid view of sexual roles and the downside of deviance from them. "The book" about Uncle Go talks about this in detail, with a lot of 1st person accounts. My impression is that some of the gay info in that book may be a little dated (goes up to the mid-90's), in that Thai society has moved forward a bit since then (which is probably a good thing for gay men in Thai society).
Anyway, an interesting thread Smeg, you are opening a lot of eyes here, and I find this discourse entertaining and a tad educational too.
- Balls
|
Thai Women : Meet Matured Thai Women
Posted on: 5:28 pm on July 12, 2003
|
|
X
|
To make matters a bit clearer to X, let me add that when an otherwise "straight" man goes ahead with a LB, he does so because he is fascinated -- and attracted -- by her femininity and not by the male lurking beneath.
Thanks Kaymanx... it's a slow and ongoing process... but I am getting there... the penny is definitely rolling around, even if it hasn't actually dropped yet! ÝI'd never really thought this stuff through before, superficially maybe, but not to such a degree as I have this last week. Ý
I can at least now see some of my previous thoughts on this were totall illogical bullshit... and the rest I am still strugling with, lol.
Smegs, interesting post! ÝI think the author had me in mind with this bit...
Labels, in general, are only a human's way of categorizing things that are too complex for the mind to see all at once.
And I think I totally agree with him!
Arcadius, you are most probably dead right about me having most likely seen "toms", but didn't register as I assumed they were just handsome young Thai guys. ÝI think that is half of my stumbling block... I KNOW with the prettyThai LB & Kelly-type women here - I have zero problems understanding they are women, and anyone attracted to them are heterosexual men. ÝSo why can't I just accept the same is true in reverse? Ý
(rhetorical question btw Ýlol)
|
Bangkok Women : Meet Beautiful Thai Girls
Posted on: 4:24 am on July 13, 2003
|
|
Kaymanx
|
Smeg,
Thank you for an eye-opener post there. We live and we keep learning, however far up or down the continuum we see ourselves. I like the bit about the unfortunate reference to a lawyer's or carpenter's gay orientation. I am in total agreement there. And, let me also say that until this particular thread came up I hadn't come across the continuum theory before, and therefore found it a highly useful reference to explain individual preferences and degrees. Also, I think, part of everybody's problem in accepting gay behaviour is the fear that a gay would unabashedly proposition any guy if given half the chance. A "normally heterosexual" man is seen as a lesser danger to a woman in this respect. Ý
This I think is an exaggeration. A hetero man picks and chooses a woman according to his own preference and thereafter the woman has to be willing for him to have her. (Pardon the apparent male superiority complex here which I am employing only to discuss a stereotypical Ýsituation in which a "vulnerable victim" of sexual targeting would be). Here I am not considering the hetero brute who will have his woman by force. Such men are surely in a minority even though we may argue that they are in a minority only because there are manmade laws to ensure civilized behaviour in a decent society. Be that as it may.
So an ordinary man is not seen as a danger to a woman although he is plainly hetero. On the contrary, an ordinary gay is not - I think -- seen similarly to be "undangerous." A lot of men would recoil at the thought of traveling 30 floors in a slow elevator with a gay for company, although women would not similarly fear traveling with a male stranger in an elevator.
The point I have in mind is that whatever our sexual preferences - or deviances, as some may like to call it - unless we have the critical "taste" Ýfactors in place we are not going to be aroused. A hetero man is not aroused just because he has a woman for company in an elevator, unless she - in his perception -- is plainly sexy, is dressed sexily, behaves seductively and shows her willingness to seduce and be seduced.. ÝThis I suppose applies to any hetero man. I am still only talking of arousal, nothing beyond. If you are not aroused in such a situation you are probably not all that hetero as you think, or sex comes very low down in your list.
The same argument should apply to a gay traveling in the elevator with another stranger male, in my hypothetical situation.. Yet most people dread a gay for company in any everyday situation. Probably a woman would fear the company of a lesbian less than a hetero male would the presence of a gay man.
Part of this fear would have something to do with the consideration that a gay being a "deviant" or a "furtive" -- as most people see it - could pounce on any opportunity to have another male, much in the manner of a thief who would thieve at any opportunity. Smeg's extensive post is so useful here - the gay orientation, or any orientation other than hetero, any "kinkiness," Ýis still in vast sections of world society seen as either a sickness to be cured, or as a perversion or as a criminal bent. Ý
|
Bangkok Girls : Meet Attractive Thai Girls
Posted on: 3:30 am on July 14, 2003
|
|
Arcadius
|
the gay orientation, or any orientation other than hetero, any "kinkiness," Ýis still in vast sections of world society seen as either a sickness to be cured, or as a perversion or as a criminal bent
Indeed - and very easy for someone like me (from a sophisticated metropolitan environment) to forget. I'm more used to homosexuality being presented as something to celebrate and admire - an attitude which strikes me as equally silly, if less sinister.
In general, we seem to have arrived at 3 viable explanations for the attitude of Smeg's TG:
1) Rationalisation to cope with social disapproval (Haam Sup & Smeg?)
2) More flexible cultural conception of heterosexuality (Ballsburstin)
3) Judges personal response to Tom as heterosexual in nature (Arcadius & Kaymanx)
I would that say ë2í is the neatest solution, but itís too easy. If thatís all there were to it, Smeg & TG should have sorted this out quickly - and in any case, that doesnít seem to be what sheís saying. ë1í is entirely possible, but it requires us to think that TG is bullshitting (if only to herself) which is uncharitable as well as boring.
At this point, we really need TG to re-enter the fray. No doubt if Smeg explains that heís thrown open the issue of her sexuality to intercontinental public discussion, sheíll be more than happy to give the world the clarification it demands. Ý Ý
|
Thai Girls : Meet Active Thai Girls
Posted on: 6:03 am on July 14, 2003
|
|
Smegma
|
"No doubt if Smeg explains that he's thrown open the issue of her sexuality to intercontinental public discussion, she'll be more than happy to give the world the clarification it demands." Ý Ý
LOL 555 Well, I guess it is my duty now to find out what is it that really she thinks and thus explains her attitude.
But problem is: what if she does't care anyway even to understand her own attitude? Then she will care even less bothering to explain it.
We may just have to give up on this attempt at understanding and remember that we often think too much, and .... that things only seem kinky the first time. 
|
Thai Women : Meet Matured Thai Women
Posted on: 6:21 am on July 14, 2003
|
|
rezyek
|
Quote: from Smegma on 12:21 pm on July 14, 2003
We may just have to give up on this attempt at understanding and remember that we often think too much, and .... that things only seem kinky the first time.
We think a lot .. and go into certain topics very deep ... but I don't think we will ever find "THE explanation" beacuse there is two things that are too difficult to get around ...
1) farang and thais think differently about sex/relationships
2) it's hard for straight people to imagine how gay/bi people think about sex/relationship
maybe we need some input from a gay man/woman
of course there's is no universal truth on this subject ... but it is very educating to read the different views ...
(then again according to this website: http://www.thespark.com/gaytest we're all a little gay ... 38% for me ... that's below average ... note: i don't consider this website very serious)
|
Bangkok Girls : Meet Attractive Thai Girls
Posted on: 9:03 am on July 14, 2003
|
|
| |
|
