Cav, and when double teaming a chick, giving your buddy a reach around is pretty gay, too.
and all this time i thought six was the norm
The reach around is very gay, especially if it involves an ass slap.
Moreso, if it involves the scrote squeeze.
Or a slap-on of a muscle stimulator on yer gootch...
Whew! Is it hot in here, or is it just me?!
You guys are weird.
This is just ... no, it's not right. Too much. I would never do a high-five in the middle of all that.
Oh my stars, this thread sure has taken an interesting turn!
You see what happens when females turn each other on?
It's a survival trait, I tell ya. Things start to happen!
heeheehee, maybe. Hmmm.... survival.... I'll have to think about it from that angle.
Why yes, you see, early hunter-gatherer tribes spent far
too much time hunting and gathering.
When hunting, it's best to spread out across a wide
territory. So when one hunter male sees another, they
are genetically predisposed to react "Eeewwww, a man!
I'd rather go kill a buffalo and make a big mess."
And when two men are caught with their pants down,
it is a moment of great danger, when they are easily
trampled by any passing buffalo.
But for women huddled back home, for protection,
being attracted to one another is a survival trait.
Closeness at home is a good thing.
Besides, men have to wait so long for a woman to be most
receptive (Jeez, once a month? What's up with that?)
They get tired of waiting and waiting and just wander off
into the countryside, where they can take out their frustrations
by killing whatever happens to walk by. But if a few females
at home are able to arouse each other, then the scents and
sounds give men ideas, and make everyone come running home!
Living so closely together, most women in town sync up with
each other, and often with the moon too!
So once a month, in the carousing light of the full moon,
the whole village has a big fiesta and nine months
later ... ka-boom!
All because women can arouse each other, and men like to
see it finally happen.
And we're all part of the ka-boom! I wonder if that's what is meant by the big bang.
Uh, cborg, nope, sorry. I was an anthropology major. That doesn't sit well with what all I learned. H&G worked very little for their subsistence, the men hunted in packs and the women and children gathered in groups.
HAHA! and women weren't huddled at home for protection. There were pre-adolescent boys too young to hunt, older men and women too old to hunt....etc etc...
two men caught with their pants down in the bush, excuse the irony, aren't prolly all that interested in - oh maybe thet's your point.....
And, whaddya mean once a month? And how did you address the arousal thing anyway?
Heehee, very funny though.
LOL!
(at multiple posts ..)
Soz, interesting ... I've only ever met one woman who was aroused by visualisations of gay men making love ... err, no, two ... well, that I know of, 'f course ... (refer back to degrees of taboo).
Sozobe wrote:Women are supposed to be turned on by identification. So straight women are turned on by heterosexual sex, in which they imagine having whatever is being done to the woman done to them
But, but ... I
did meet several women who were turned on by (the idea of) watching a man touch himself ... how's that go with the "identification" theory, then?
errrrrrr, the idea is nice, but the reality is better :: sigh ::
Codeberg, I thought men were supposed to take out their frustrations of waiting for sex...by humping other women, no?
CB, the other problem with that (I agree with littlek) is that there is a lot of speculation about the role of homosexuality in war. In the Greek tragedies, for example, many of the warriors are also lovers. The function of an army, in part, is to do anything to save/ help one's comrades, and it makes sense that adding sex to the mix makes that all more intense.
Since the whole hunting thing has lots of tie-ins to war, it would make sense that they'd strengthen their bonds so to speak so that they would do anything to save their comrades from a rampaging woolly mammoth. Or whatever.
nimh, it's pretty common among women I've talked to. And it's an ongoing topic on shows like "Will and Grace" and "Sex and the City" -- not unusual at all.
Note my use of "supposed to" -- obviously, I'm more towards visual than identification. (I don't actually literally want to be a gay man in any way -- I like being a goil.) I think in actuality it's all mixed up, with men slightly more likely to go for visual rather than identification, and women less likely to be freaked out/ have a fear response when imagining themselves in a homosexual situation.
