>all these ads/profiles by "versatiles"
>always looking for tops
Well, I guess that says everything I would've.
There it is. You know *exactly* what I'm saying.
Will you fuck me if I admit I'm secretly just a bottom?
>>6354181
I don't think there is anything wrong with *being* versatile. I just think its a useless label that invites contention, much like the term 'gay' itself.
I think we would be better off it sexuality was left to simply men who are attracted to males and men who are not. Then there would be less tension about the difference between men who have sex with men, as the CDC calls it, and men who actively and exclusively seek male partners. It would be a lot more realistic.
When you use the same word to describe a sexual interest as you do to name a lifestyle, and then a further fringe identity that most males who either are attracted to males or have sex with them decidedly reject, its deliberately confusing.
To me its fine that a bottom *can be* versatile. But its still a division of 'bottoms' not an exceptional group of people outside of bottoms.
As an adjective, I'm fine with it. As a noun, it makes no sense to me, because versatile bottoms seem to be implying they are not bottoms somehow.
There is also then confusion about what it is they actually prefer. I just think the whole thing is a reaction to the disproportionate amount of bottoms gays have to contend with in their internal dating options.
Likewise, terms like top or masc or straight acting seem like deliberate denials of certain realities, as well as what is actually the difference between a man who has sex with men, heterosexuals, bisexuals, hetero'flexibles' etc.
There just seems to be way to much over reach to include people in a polarized term that sounds like a sexuality but is used to ascribe values that the people may not have just to glom on to legitimacy as males.
This corruption of our language is deliberate and creates paradoxes culturally just to repeat irrational ideas. How is it that people are born gay but while straights can turn gay, gays cannot turn straight? Why is homosexual contact treated by gays as a contact disease that changes ones values and obligations?
I like to be bottom but I like to switch once in a while.
>>6357286
Theres nothing wrong with that either. You still have a sense of who you are. I dont want people thinking I am attacking the activity. I am just vexed about the self delusion people try to push in labels rather than deal with realities.
Some people may truly be versatile in their hearts. But it isn't the majority of people claiming it as an identity, and using it as a noun instead of an adjective is just misleading people.
Its not that people cant be *a* versatile, its that a lot of people are claiming they are for reasons that have more to do with the options they have from social missteps in our values than their real preference.
Yes yes LGBTQPIABBQXYZ people are very preoccupied with their precious labels, now hurry up and put your dick in my bottom
Here is something else grinding my gears. Or Grindring.
Some asshole posting dating ads calling themselves a top.
A day later the same asshole is posting a different (always faceless) pic, and this time he is a bottom, usually with the age changed by one year as if I am not going to recognize the same camera, room, writing style etc.
This is why versatilism is a gateway/symptom of mental disorder if not an identity disorder itself. It's a bottom that can't resolve who the fuck they are and what they want out of some personal issue
So why the fuck is the public obligated to indulge this ridiculous term of 'versatile' just because some bottoms can't figure out what they want or who they are.
I get it. They have dicks and they'd like to fuck. Fine. Topping or being able to top does not *make* you a top, or a 'versatile'. It just means you are a bottom that likes to top.
Goddammit we are going to get to the bottom of this shit one way or the other. Call it 'gay culture'. Call it whatever you want. But if we are going to have some shared sense of reality, we are going to have to come to some consensus on what words actually fucking mean.
Here are some fun ones: "Masc". This is a complete contradiction. Masc is one of the faggiest words in our language because actual masculine men never use it. When you call yourself 'masc' you are revealing yourself to be a complete fairyqueeriepansysissyfruit.
How about 'straight acting'? How many straight people do you know that call themselves "straight acting"? Ok, so if its acting, then why the hell mention it? Granted, there are plenty of men who prefer skinny women who will fuck fat women or use a fag as a cumdump. But they aren't gargling balls themselves or taking it in the keester.
I have a butthole, I have a dick. Sometimes I like to get fucked in my butthole, sometimes I like to fuck. Sometimes both at the same time.
It's just sensation. Why bother thinking so much about this?
>>6366948
Here is another worthless term "Bisexual". Do they exist, Sure. There are people who like and indulge of females with genuine sincere interest as well as gargle cocks, distinct from men who prefer skinny women but dont turn down head from fags or fat chicks.
But is that most guys calling themselves bisexual? No. A lot of them are the same insufferable group of faggots who were able to get it up for a chick one time, but 99.999% of their sex life is gargling cock.
Worthless. If you allow people and indulge them in letting them pervert the language as they have done with fifty other terms, most recently 'male' and 'female'. this is the chaos you get.
I am slowly realizing that self-loathing is built into faggotry whether we want to admit it or not. It's not actually bad, its biological, so to speak.
Last week or so, I realized I had been conditioned by society to harbor a mental weakness in order to have a more pro-social attitude, the tolerance of ideas, opinions and positions that are know are bullshit but have been conditioned to treat as possible simply to indulge others in allowing them to make their case for discussion, even though I know it is utter bullshit. Thankfully, I have detected this flaw of reason and now no longer entertain other points of view besides my own, once I am wholly convinced of my accuracy just to mollify others so they feel they have a chance to voice their own bullshit. When I know I am right, it is a mental weakness to dignify wrong opinions just to make others feel included in a discussion. There is no need for discussion if I am certain beyond doubt that my views are right, which therefore implies any other view must be wrong.
This emerged again this morning in my easy chair sipping my coffee when I began to wonder why fags go to such lengths to distance themselves from their faggotry.
>>6366972
Theres absolutely nothing wrong with the activity. Of course you do. But what differs in you from the majority of males is that you like getting fucked in the ass. This makes you a bottom who can also enjoy topping. It doesn't merit a third category with endless fluidity to the point where the term itself becomes meaningless, and people like to use it to distance themselves from other bottoms. I can speak to why that may be, but that is deeper in the weeds.
So you're a bottom who likes to fuck also. Thats fine. But you're still a bottom because most men who like to fuck don't also like getting fucked. There are also bottoms who dont like topping. They are still just a type of bottom.
I have to move on, but you contributed a valid question. I have to go back to enlightening the rest of these poor lost bastards for now.
>>6367070
I know many men, that are not gay, that liked getting fucked in the ass by their girlfriends.
Nothing merits a category.
Bottom is just an activity, not a condition or a personality.
Topping is an activity, not a condition or a personality.
I think you are having some trouble understanding your own desires.
Within tantric practices a woman is supposed to massage a mans prostate, its a lingam massage.
You on the other hand, have a very western pornographic mindset about sex because to you sex must be about domination, not pleasure so no wonder your mind is garbled down with words words words.
Go outside and hug a tree in the deep woods, do it naked if you can. And stop thinking about bottoms and tops because that's just images told to you that you are projection on to the world. For your own good, stop now.
>>6367113
Well personally, I know exactly what I want and its very polarized.
And I agree these are more precise as activities than types of people, but people assume these as identities, presumably for ease in conversation to relay an idea.
Likewise, I dont really believe in 'homosexual' and 'heterosexual' as terms to mean a person, a noun, but I am forced to use them because otherwise I have to lecture a whole new frame of reference to communicate offshoot topics. They don't really exist, of course. There are just variable activities with greater or lesser occurrence over ones life, situational, and heavily influence by both real and perceived factors in the environment.
And yes, I understand the concept of anal stimulation, and have reached the point in your post where you become a condescending dick, so I see no obligation to interrupt myself again to dignify you with the other half of what I thought was becoming a discussion. Clearly you are not capable.
>>6367034
Ultimately, they begin toying with language, and from there, toying with math to create a reality in their heads they push on others that have less and less to do with fact.
This is how you end up with gay guys eventually insisting they are 'born' some way with genetic mandates, yet convinced they can turn straight men gay and retroactively activate their hidden gay gene, while shrieking outrage at the suggestion that gay men can change also.
Or how you can have a set of characteristics bound together under the term female that apparently have nothing to do with anatomy, and yet are defined precisely as belonging to a particular type of anatomy that has to be imitated.
Self loathing. So I was trying to understand this, and it seems to be the collision of ego with social caste. I use the terms social and caste very deliberately. Pro-social behavior by definition means that one is serving the self by making greater or lesser sacrifices of the immediate self for perceived reward later by enabling something in the herd for others. It is in contradiction to immediate self interest over the society, or anti-social- more accurately- pro-self behavior.
If there is one pattern we see again and again in society, it is the roles of domination and submission in nearly every interaction, and the universal transactional nature, even in the abstract, of human interaction.
What we also see is is strong versus weak mindset. I could go into *why* females are smaller and irrational and why thats okay, necessary even. But I will leave that aside for a moment and just underscore the point that form follows function. Presently, that a creature will normally choose behavioral options that return reward the most often. Since humans are social, humans are other creatures that a human has to calculate into how they behave for the most reward while also offsetting the most amount of personal risk.
>>6367206
People assume these activities as identities because that is what they are told and they agree with it. Language is a way of giving away your true self to description.
The less that can be said or written, and the more that can be felt - that's where the importance lies.
Two people can experience great things together but only if they are willing to leave words and identities behind. This goes for any pairing, man with man, woman with man or woman with woman.
Not all sex is spiritual, but spirituality and sex are closely connected. This is easily forgotten in our world because sex has is consumed just like fast food through hook up culture and flings. People just want to get off and feel validated. They are not interested in where or what their bodies can achieve.
Just sitting alone with another human in a dimly lit room and staring into each others eyes for an hour without speaking. That can be more erotic and intimate and intense than any hard, quick fuck can be.
>>6367241
Not to be crude, but this is how animals are tamed and domesticated to become pets. They can be predators, but learn that in a social context of a household, it is better to submit than attempt to establish dominance. For this, they get reward, shelter and protection.
We love our pets. And yet we still have lower regard for them as animals. So the strong side of the mentality is present here. But what if we are in the jungle and see a tiger, or in the woods and see a pack of wolves. Suddenly we realize that among other dogs and cats, we are not so strong, and take fight/or flight behavior. In fear, there is submission. Few people are stupid enough to try and establish dominance over tigers and wolves. So we are the ones who become defensive, In trying not to provoke aggression, we will flee, a behavior indicating a refusal to attempt domination. Just like our dog or kitty, we realize we are capable of getting our asses kicked, and adapt.
So here we see the weak mentality. Mind you, these are not character judgements. This is about survival and perfectly natural.
What I am setting up here is the understanding that in domination, we also find the strong with some measure of contempt for the very things they dominate because they perceive weakness, even if, as with our pets, we love them very much. We still see them as lesser beings and when they make a mistake, we immediately cite the fact that they are lower beings as explanation so the anger at tearing up the couch or whatever doesn't linger. We simply attribute it to the sort of mistake a foolish being will make.
>>6367341
You can also see this in how a parent might tolerate the mistake of a child. We accept the child is mentally inferior. We love them, but we still reserve some contempt for their shenanigans. You can also see it in far more pronounced situations, for example when hostages begin to accept the domination of their captors and try not only to curry favor with them, but genuinely convince themselves, and perhaps even the captors that the hostages have indeed become broken and loyal to prevent aggression and earn kind treatment. We often hear of the 'Stockholm Syndrome" where captives actually come to like their captors. We see submission, the weaker trying to please the dominant stronger, just as your dog or cat (or mate) may nuzzle you for reward.
Having invoked pets, I realize some here will try to derail with accusations of fetishism. I will simply have to ignore them.
So the strong and dominate can love the weak submissive while still reserving some contempt for their weakness. Likewise, the submissive can love and worship the dominate while resenting their power. In gender, this is sometimes referred to as 'penis envy'.
Yet submission is extremely prevalent pro-social behavior. Human hierarchies are absolutely replete with them. Humans can be conditioned to submit to mere symbols such as flags, badges, uniforms, even posted signs indicating an authority. Its absolutely everywhere.
Submission serves a vital role in social order. A declaration of authority means nothing unless people are willing to submit to it. Submission consolidates power and leadership, thus creating social order. This allows the pack to end any rivalries within and unite towards shared goals for the group now possible because peace in the pack has been secured.
Nonetheless, those submitting will still resent the power of the leader, while the leader will reserve some contempt for the people he rules over.
>>6367423
This contempt gets us closer to understanding the self loathing that I think is built into faggotry.
Historically, males who were used for sexual gratification were already dominated in some way, often as slaves, or as the young captives in a battle victory, or institutionally, such as squires in militaries. A more common example may be in prostitution, where young males in many cultures simply submit for reward to someone with money to give. In many of these cultures, then as today, the one being penetrated is viewed as the inferior role, while the one penetrating holds some sway over the other. In many cultures, especially where there are rigid gender roles or high restrictions on male-female interaction, the practice is so common that the males who penetrate other males reach a consensus that while the act may be immoral vice, only their morality is open to question, not their manhood. They are the ones dominating another male, so their manhood remains intact, while the one penetrated is looked upon as the weaker inferior. In such societies, such inferior males are looked at as a relief from the far more articulate rules governing sexual release with a female which comes with many social complications, not the least of which is pregnancy outside of marriage.
So then we see the hierarchies as a matrix in which these attitudes of domination and strength exist. And there are indeed social outlines that accommodate them, often simply as gender role: the gender of strength, and the gender of strength removed, conquered, taken, tamed, however you choose to look at it.
Now we return to that collision of ego and social caste I spoke of earlier, and while self loathing, to include 'penis envy' may be built into faggotry.
>>6367633
Historically, this was never a discussion until egalitarianism surged as a social philosophy in the mid 20th century, with "equality' presented as not only an attainable goal through legislation, but an unquestionable if very new concept, first towards females, then homosexuals, which was at least as nebulous a group to define as it is today. However, even when not discussed previously in history as beyond consideration, the dominant/strong contempt for the social under-caste, whether females or homosexuals was still prevalent as the cultural norm. It did not individually necessarily mean any sort of hatred, simply contempt for the weaker, if only as gender or minority.
But here it may be important to pause and consider how men, the power class between genders, divides their perception of females, because later it will be necessary to distinguish women who have unmarried sex as comparison to the use of homosexuals, both essentially as whores, to the socially elevated and sanctioned sex between a man and wife.
Most people discussing marriage today seem to have lost sight of the fact that marriage began more or less as the first human trafficking, a somewhat elevated form of simple sex slavery. A woman was purchased from her father and compensated; in polygamous societies, a wealthy man may be able to afford more than one. But of what need was there for marriage? Why did this need ratified by a third party governing authority? Well, the alternative would be a society riddled with orphans and women who could not be re-sold outright; to wit, a increasing glut of prostitutes available where supply would eventually exceed demand, a growing slave class with less to offer in the way of labor, ultimately both being social burdens.
>>6367751
The marriage then announces ownership of the female for which penalties can be imposed if the female consents to sex with someone outside the marriage, as well as penalties for men who might take the female by force, socially ruining the investment of the husband, as his children would be shamed.
Often, marriages were (and still are in much of humanity) arranged. The arrangements remain very transactional. However the female, despite have an inferior role, still holds a measure of respect above a slave, because she is charged with producing quality children. Because she is given an important role for the future of the society, she is given a class above simply a sex object and possession.
In a egalitarian society where women are taught they are equal to men and should imitate male roles in business etc, it may be difficult to see both sides of the equation at work here. There is the subjugation of the sex object, yet if it performs well, it remains elevated beyond simple use as, put simply, a cumdump.
Which brings us to that distinction from prostitutes, and closer to detecting that subtle thread of self loathing inherent in faggotry.
As mentioned earlier, males taken as sex objects usually were already in some form domination; slaves, captives, or institutionally such as pederasty or military squires, often both simultaneously. Among slaves and captives, a young male may be sexually used in youth to break him of any normal male rebellion, to strip away his ego as to prepare him for a life of servitude where his loyalty could be easier kept as obvious shame of his state of conquest by another male. Many armies in ancient history were known to rape young male captives to humiliate and socially degrade them, as to remove their identity as males from the opposing society and rebuild their now missing identity as slaves to the victorious army (if in fact they weren't simply killed for being excessive in supply).
>>6367871
The male image is a social construct within a society assumed from anatomy and purposed intention of the gender role. If you remove the males social image from one society, the male is more willing to accept being re-purposed to have a role in his new society out of sheer need to be useful to save one's life. Here again, the submission becomes a survival tool, as he cannot be viewed as a normal male among his own people after obvious suspicion of rape and always be viewed as 'broken' by the enemy.
So males used sexually in all these contexts do not enjoy the elevated status that married females are afforded. Women have a social life cycle in historical cultures as well as most of those outside the modern egalitarian West, in which they are kept chaste until marriage, where their value persists as mothers and, to a somewhat lesser extent, wives, while still being an inferior class but ranking above slaves, which is to include whores.
And here is where the social caste of homosexuals and whores begin to merge. Both represent a class defined by non-procreative sex that doesn't enjoy a sanction from society for their sexuality. As such, both are seen as immoral purveyors of non-family values, that is a threat to social order, because both provide an escape from the restrictions of sexual regulation towards promoting male attention to family and family building, which is especially targeted at young males, lest they wander away from their social obligation to bear the burden of procreation.
>>6368024
For the sake of clarity, I am going to narrow our modern if unwieldy definition of homosexuals to the concept understood by most of the world through history and even today. You can argue this definition elsewhere, but here, the discussion encompasses the whole of humanity, not semantics and neologisms manufactured in one culture during one period of history, indeed this one still current now, if only in the West. We must distinguish between the concept of a male using a male for sexual release while possibly and even likely navigating their social life as a man who will or has produced children, contrasted with a male who has taken the inferior caste of servicing men as his plan to navigate his life through society. This is recognized as a submissive approach.
I would also like to note here that "inferior" is simply used as an adjective of role, not personal worth. Indeed, as stated earlier, inferior roles are crucial for peace within a social order, so much that they grossly outnumber dominants in every aspect of society for basic mathematical functionality. It is not meant to be taken as a term of judgement of self worth.
So it is not difficult to see how the movement to begin re-assigning women male roles as independent persons with no obligation to society as mothers not only begins normalizing the concept of women remaining unmarried and sexually 'liberated', but how in contrast to every other society, this would be seen as a mass production of females given the choice to take command in the exchange of sex for reward. The evolution has gone from a woman having greater say in how and to who she will marry to whether she will marry at all. When it is assumed that all women are free to have pre-marital sex, the supply and value of females turns upside down. Suddenly there are numerous women available for sex with no obligations to a social role as mothers or wives.
>>6368101
Whether we like to acknowledge how this translates in other cultures or not, the fact is that we would be viewed by the rest of history and humanity as having created a massive over-supply of un-obligated sexual performers for any reward they want, when they want at their convenience.
To wit, in our appeasement of a newly disgruntled inferior class, we have given them freedom from marriage, leaving only one other historically recognized class of females: whores. We have, with no judgement or extraneous implications, mass produced half a centuries worth of whores. This is how it would be seen. While we can argue and equivocate among ourselves how outrageous this may sound, calling them whores is the only way to reconcile this class with the rest of social humanity in definition.
So then, whores, as females, still cannot mathematically receive the same elevated status as wives and nubile virgins. Because this movement is based in philosophical idealism rather than applied practical results, it can be seen as irrational, so it is not a mystery why any sense of progress perceived by this group would need to be incrementally more irrational. This does not even factor that women were naturally selected for youthful features for so long that neurophysical development becomes deliberately retarded, in the sense of being held back. Nor is this a flaw; all the attributes we prize from submissives can only be sustained in an irrational mind. Irrationality is what affords pro-social behavior. It is not rational to care about someone more than yourself, for example. So kindness, generosity, mercy, compassion- all of these things are valued, crucial to a tranquil home, necessary for a society, especially in child rearing.
>>6368213
We see this irrationality at its dangerous zenith in political ideologies that place the welfare of foreign nationals above our own. It is at once irrational and compassionate. Irrationality also provides a pause in forming ideas where there have already been conclusions that may not reflect new information, such as questioning what we already know long enough to discover new information. Therefore, the irrational mind of a female itself is a good thing, or we would be left to eternal barbarism among ourselves in endless pro-self motives rather than being tempered with pro-social ones.
So it is not difficult to see how the ideology of compassion and equality for the modern female would naturally imitate and even beget inevitably similar motifs for homosexuals as we are defining it here.
At last,now that we can see the convergent themes of non-procreative sexual performers in a society and how they essentially share the same caste, we can move on to how this plays out in dominant/submissive attitudes between them.
Presently, we have an increasingly discontented culture between what is now presumably every female than cannot be classified as married or a nubile virgin and the ruling gender of males. There is endless, incessant calls by the inferior class for the superior class to cede more and more, to the point of calls for males to keep their shirts on, sit with their legs closed and in at least one nation, urinate while sitting down.
It has been similar among the movement to recognize homosexuals as an equal class.
>>6368372
More and more, political and cultural pioneers are pushing the limits, where homosexuality is taught to school children as an equally valid lifestyle choice, where "marriages" to perhaps start raising young are recognized by the government for non-procreating males and females, indeed, where the definition of male and female is now being challenged in courts as being divorced from the science of the most basic biology proven in favor of endless theories.
This can be viewed as simply a social direction succumbing to the law of entropy. The nature of the outcome can take any number of forms, but the outcome for the society is mathematically assured. Some may even view it as having already climaxed some time ago and our current state as the natural aftermath.
Notice none of these are indictments, they are simply a recitation of facts. There is nothing in the first paragraph of this particular post that is not actual fact. So there is no need for hostile reactions. You can object to how you interpret their result, but you cannot blame me that they exist.
So here we see two parallel similar castes and their discontent with the dominant class, and we established earlier that the dominant class is compelled to feel some measure of contempt for inferior classes. as strength is frustrated by displays of weakness, even though it depends on them to legitimize their dominant role. Therefore, the contempt goes both ways. And yet the submission persists nonetheless.
We talked about 'penis envy' earlier, or the resentment females may have of the superior, dominant class. Homosexuals also display endless, endless contempt for what is viewed as the superior class, the men who dominate. Yet both of these rapports are known to be "love-hate" in nature.
>>6368586
Indeed, we have even passed the point where we see, in essence, whore pride, or "slut walks". This was inevitable. It is curious that this phenomenon actually followed 'gay pride' rather than preceded it, although one could make the argument that its less explicit form existed already in feminist marches.
So then, what of this rapport between homosexuals and men otherwise? It is clear there is resentment mixed in with worship, a worship specifically of a magnitude higher in homosexuals than even in females. Herein, we find more than a contradiction, it becomes an absolute paradox, and takes us closer to the core we call "self loathing" in homosexuals.
Homosexuals in the modern sense as defined in this particular discussion are sublimely sensitive to male-male hierarchies and male thought patterns. It could be a "chicken and egg" question of whether submission creates this heightened sensitivity to what men want, or if the heightened sensitivity is what leads to submission all the way to the personal extreme of offering the orifices of their very male body for social humiliation before a dominant male. Nonetheless, homosexuals are exceptionally keen to the clarity of roles between the man and the submissive. Where as females seem to have to overcome personal image in submission to social norms to learn this reward-for-submission to males, homosexuals appear to intuit this dynamic even to the point of requesting the man be more dominant than he may be naturally in his personal behavior.
>>6368790
What is peculiar is how this manifests in sexuality apart from actual social reward. The homosexual is driven by personal psychological motivation, not reward like a whore. The reward perceived is the sexual penetration itself. This is the behavior that was explicitly frowned upon, banned and even most punishable by law, even in societies where the use of homosexuals was either tolerated or even actively encouraged for battle captives, establishing institutional dominance or breaking in slaves. Even in pederastic Hellenist Greece, where existed a number of age-institutionalized paradigms for use of a male squire, protoge or young peer for sexual intimacy, it was considered a criminal violation to penetrate the male's anus unless he was a slave for fear of 'feminizing' the male and ruining his male ego for harnessing as a man later. Likewise, Viking laws and norms made clear distinctions in using a captive young enemy male for sex, as long as marriage and children were pursued with females, as it was even among Greece, where homosexual interest in the younger lover was encourage to end at the age of manhood, typically 20 years of age. The refusal to make children has historically been viewed as more contemptible, even outrageous, than actual use of a homosexual itself.
And yet here we are. Not only do we have millions of unmarried women offering sex for their own interest apart from societys interests, but we have legions of homosexuals offering free non procreative sex as well, where the more explicit the domination is, the more rewarded the homosexual feels.
But even here, we see themes of resentment. Homosexuals have not only of list of social access points they feel are necessary to pursue this elusive 'equality', but simple philosophical demands as well that exist entirely in opinion with no tangible reward specifically attached.
>>6368921
And here, finally, we begin to see the contradiction emerge as paradox. and in trying to resolve it, the notion of "self-loathing" emerges. There are at least two germane distinctions between females and homosexuals. For one, the homosexual is biologically intuitive of how males function in values because he is one, and has some advantage over a female in using submission to gain favor with a man if only in this regard, although it could be argued that a large portion of any male population retains males who view the sexual domination of a male as a larger conquest than that of a female, because the domination implies several levels of degradation as opposed to the more singular level attributed to a typical female encounter, excluding rape or crossing social castes, (poor/rich, black/white etc).
The other difference is more obvious: the homosexual is a male himself. While he has no social virtue to lose beyond already being a non-procreative male and homosexual, he still is assigned a male ego to follow from birth. He is constantly instructed on how to behave, what skills to pursue etc. So then, submitting sexually violates that entire claim to social supremacy. It is forfeit for the passion of being dominated by another male.
Here we see these two factors compound each other. Being dominated by a male psychologically rewards the homosexual, perhaps validating his sense of worth, or a vicarious rush of seeing the hyper-male he doesn't feel he can be himself, a sort of autoandrophiliac catharsis, which harkens back to antiquity's proscription on feminizing free young male citizens, and sex was limited to frottage, intercrural etc. While a part of the homosexual population, and even 'heterosexual' population does exchange sex for reward, it is by far a minority. For the homosexual, it is all about the psychological high, sometimes not even seeking personal release.
