Thursday, February 8, 2018
Sunday, December 24, 2017
This post is dedicated to analyze the connection between play and sexuality and aims to highlight the different meanings of sexual play in relation to sexual orientation of the people involved.
If you like, you can join the discussion on this post on Gay Project Forum: http://gayprojectforum.altervista.org/T-sexual-play-and-gay-sex
A large number of guys, if not all, sooner or later take part in or attend to episodes of play with a more or less evident sexual background, that is episodes of play which involve more or less overtly sexual content or content concerning nudity.
The play usually begins with only the verbal content, for example playing "truth or dare" when it comes to “truth phase” about sexual content, then passing through physical contact not specifically genital, as in the wrestling for fun, that, for example, when you are on the beach and wrestle with only the swimsuit on, involves a very direct physical contact, sometimes also embarrassing, and can also end up with sexually explicit play that also includes the possibility of touching the genitals, or implicates that one of the participants is expected to remain naked at the end of the play (strip poker).
The sexual play can be simple, that is it can arise without any explicit sexual purposes, but can also be programmed precisely in order to create a sexual involvement. In some cases, the sexual play verges on the edge of violence, when it comes to group play imposed on an unwilling victim. This is the case of "pantsing/de-pantsing", a play that sometimes involves also behaviors of sexual violence and is practiced in schools or universities against freshmen or in military environments. The "pantsing" usually consists in yanking down quickly and unexpectedly the underwear of a guy in order to leave him exposed in front of everyone, but sometimes the “pantsing” means stripping a guy in group, obviously against his will, blocking him and preventing him from defending himself, often the others may touch the genitals of the victim even if in a playful way.
The violent meaning of this play is considerably reduced because the rite is performed as if it was a joke and those who have been “pantsed” can change role the next time. It should be emphasized that this sexual play is characteristic of environments dominated by men (male barracks and classrooms). Today, with the obligation of mixed classes (male and female together) and also of mixed teams of physical education, the “pantsing” has almost gone and only remains in college dorms only for guys.
Among the games that are on the border between play and sexuality there is the tickling, that starts trivially as a play but allows two guys to familiarize with themselves, with mutual physicality and especially lowers the threshold of the defenses and makes the behavior less controlled. When the laugh becomes uncontrollable, physical contact is accepted in a dimension of play and fun. It is not unlikely that a gay guy gats a hard on being in a similar situation, which doesn't happen just as easily not even in explicit sexual contexts.
The laugh is the Trojan horse of sexuality that allows a guy to accept in this way, what explicitly he would not accept. Through the tickling and through sexual play often occur early signs of gay sexuality in young people who have been deemed always straight.
However, participate in sexual games between persons of the same sex does not mean being gay. In an all guys class “pantsing” was a typical straight play. I emphasize that it is not the participating in the game that determines sexual orientation but, according to sexual orientation, participation in sexual play is experienced in different ways. The straight guys, participating in a sexual play with friends of the same sex, see it as a game, as the most uninhibited game, but not as a sexual activity, on the contrary gay guys, participating in a same sex sexual play, consider it precisely as a sexual activity.
The difference in the way to participate is reflected in the fact that a straight guy who is involved in a sexual play with other guys will not load the memory of that episode with sexual meanings, what on the contrary a gay guy will certainly do. The gay guy will transform the memory of that episode, which for him is clearly a sexual experience, into a strong masturbatory fantasy and that episode will be printed indelibly in his mind.
The difference in experiencing the participation in the sexual game between a straight guy and a gay guy can create big problems in the event that the gay guy falls in love with the straight one and between the two guys the atmosphere is so uninhibited to actually allow sexual plays, what is quite common.
Each of the two guys projects his own personal view of the sexual play on the other guy, so the straight guy thinks that for his friend the sexual game is just a game with no real sexual significance, therefore feels uninhibited because assumes that the other guy is also straight. The gay guy sees the participation in sexual plays by his straight friend as if it was a real gay sexual activity and begins to fantasize about the hypothesis that his friend is not really straight but in reality is a latent gay guy who sooner or later will realize that he is really gay because "if a guy participates in sexual activities with another guy clearly cannot be straight."
Understandably these types of projections can create sexual expectations, hopes and, later, bitter disappointments. Sexual play is often used by gay men, consciously or unconsciously, as an attempt to involve their friends in a sexual dimension. For a gay guy is actually very difficult to understand that a straight guy is going through a sexual play in a completely different way. In this sense, try to involve a friend in a sexual play is definitely not a sensible system to verify his possible being gay. To find out if a guy is really gay there is only one way, that is, talk to him explicitly, what is often very difficult, if not impossible. To use various substitutes of the explicit direct speech means to choose unreliable methods.
A common feature of sexual games in which a gay guy tries to involve his friend to test his homosexuality or to lead him to homosexuality (what is absolutely meaningless because or you're gay or you're not), is the “graduality” which is a typical characteristic of not spontaneous but planned sexual play. In this situation, a gay guy who does not know the sexual orientation of his partner tries to involve him in forms of sexual play in which the sexual dimension is only just visible, if the participatory response of his friend is spontaneous, after a while the gay guy experiments a play in which sexual contents are more explicit, only if also in this case the participation of the friend is spontaneous it becomes possible to program another step towards an even more explicit sexuality.
From the point of view of the gay guy, when his friend has accepted an openly sexual play, doing so he has clearly shown his homosexuality. This strategy of small steps moves ever forward the limit that separates the play from sexuality.
There are rare cases of straight guys who are willing even to be masturbated by their friends supposed to be straight. Such a thing is automatically interpreted by a gay guy as a manifested admission of homosexuality on the part of his friend. This conclusion derives from an assumption, namely, that what matters to identify a gay guy are external behaviors, i. e. that there are "behaviors" typically gay that a straight guy would never put into practice. In fact, experience shows that to identify a gay guy you must know his own interpretation of his own behaviors and of those of others. In other words, it is not the behavior itself that defines a gay guy but the interpretations that he gives of that behavior.
If you like, you can join the discussion on this post on Gay Project Forum: http://gayprojectforum.altervista.org/T-sexual-play-and-gay-sex
I got a comment on the post GAY FRIENDSHIP AND GAY LOVE VIA CHAT like follows:
“What matters is the source of your wisdom, knowledge and understanding. Man must not lean unto his own understanding but in all his ways, his comings and goings, acknowledge HIM and HE will direct your path, and he is THE CREATOR OF THIS UNIVERSE. God despises homosexuality. It’s sickening and disgusting. Satan bought that sin into the world. He came to kill, maim, and destroy mankind. You have free will. You have a choice. Go to the BIBLE it’s the true source and the road map to everlasting LIFE. SATAN IS A DECEIVER.....Peace and Light.....”
Of course everyone is free to believe what in his eyes looks better, but the use of judging reality on the basis of the Bible led to the Inquisition, to the torture and to the burning at the stake those who, following their conscience, think differently.
Already in the statutes of the city of Bologna, in 1259, citizens were urged to denounce the sodomites and the sodomites themselves were punished with exile, while those who offered hospitality to homosexuals in their home where punished with death.
Throughout the thirteenth century, laws promulgated in Germany, France and Switzerland punish homosexuals condemning them to the stake. In 1277, in Basel, Emperor Rudolph does burn a homosexual at the stake, and this practice is also attested in some regions of France. In 1293, in Italy is attested the first sentence to the stake against a homosexual, when Charles II of Anjou does impale and burn at the stake the Count of Acerra, accused of sodomy, although the reasons underlying were purely political in nature.
In Siena the constitution condemned homosexuals surprised to commit acts “against nature” to a fine of 300 pounds, and to the hanging by the genitals "in the event of non-payment."
The Papal State punished pimps, who offered guys for money, with lashes and perpetual exile, while sodomites were burned at the stake.
Throughout the fourteenth century, the death penalty through the stake is adopted throughout Italy, and will be maintained in the fifteenth century. In Milan under the Sforza, people who denounced homosexuals were rewarded with money. In Venice in the early fifteenth century a scandal that involved in questions related to sodomy the highest offices of the “Serenissima Republic” caused a violent repression of homosexuality.
A special case is the Florentine republic, where until 1400 homosexuals were not punished with the stake, but with monetary fines joined with the "castration" and the cutting of the right hand if the offender was relapsed. However, they were burned at the stake foreigners who committed sodomitical acts during their passage in the Florentine territory. In 1430, following an unpleasant event that shook public opinion, even the law of Florence became more severe, with higher fines but burning at the stake was only required in case of recidivism.
I don’t know if these are ways to oppose against the work of Satan and comply with God's will, frankly, I think these things are horrendous crimes of homophobia that have been masked under the guise of law, as unfortunately happens in some countries also today.
What is certain is that religions have in all this a great responsibility because contributed to incite hatred against homosexuals and continue to do so. Saints such as St. Peter Damian and theologians as the Bishop of Worms Burchard have supported and encouraged with their attitude, anticipating the Inquisition, hatred against homosexuals. I invite you to read an article of this blog dedicated to Liber Gomorrhianus of St. Peter Damian.
I quote here below the passages more interesting for Homosexual Persons of the Message of Benedict XVI for the World Day of Peace XLVI, 1 January 2013, on the theme: "Blessed are the peacemakers."
“Even the natural structure of marriage must be recognized and promoted as a union between a man and a woman, compared to attempts to make it juridically equivalent to radically different forms of union which in reality harm it and contribute to its destabilization, obscuring its particular character and its irreplaceable social role.
These principles are not truths of faith, or are just a tap of the right to religious freedom. They are inscribed in human nature itself, identified with reason, and therefore they are common to all mankind. The Church’s action in promoting them is therefore not confessional in character, but is addressed to all people, regardless of their religious affiliation. Such action is all the more necessary the more these principles are denied or misunderstood, because this constitutes an offense against the truth of the human person, a grave wound inflicted onto justice and peace.”
After reading such statements it is natural to wonder if freedom itself constitutes "an offense against the truth of the human person, a grave wound inflicted onto justice and peace."
But the positions radically discriminatory against homosexuality are frequent, I quote just an example. In late 2008, the Holy See has taken a position strongly opposed to the project of a universal decriminalization of homosexuality presented at the UN on the initiative of the French Presidency of the European Union, and accepted by all 27 European Union countries. According to the Holy See it is legitimate that homosexuality is prosecuted as a crime.
But the discriminatory attitude doesn’t belong exclusively to the Catholic Church. The Chief Rabbi of France argued that the recognition of gay couples is "at the expense of the public interest and for the benefit of a tiny minority." The speech of the Chief Rabbi was widely quoted in “Osservatore Romano” (the newspaper of the Holy See) and also the Pope quoted some excerpts of that speech.
For those who think that freedom and equality in a moral dimension but absolutely secular and independent of revealed truths of any kind, are the foundation of any civil society, the idea that someone can promote a crusade against the recognition of the rights of others is unacceptable.
Among other things, the speech of the Pope and that of Chief Rabbi are not limited to the adoption but aim immediately, in Italy and in France, to avoid the legal recognition of same-sex couples, which is really inexcusable outside a confessional logic.
At the base of the speeches of the Chief Rabbi and of the Pope there is the assumption that the Bible is the foundation of anthropology, that the world is not as it really is, but as it is described in the Bible and that the world should conform to what the Bible says, statements that to a layman are absolutely immoral.
To say that gay rights are "at the expense of the public interest and for the benefit of a tiny minority" is completely gratuitous, because homosexuality is an anthropological absolutely objective and undeniable reality (gays exist even if someone does not like them and are not a tiny minority) and if someone consider gays as a "tiny minority" he probably doesn't even know exactly what he is talking about and simply repeats dogmatically what the Bible says as if the Bible and not the reality was the basis of anthropology and of civilized life.
__________If you like, you can join the discussion on this post on Gay Project Forum: http://gayprojectforum.altervista.org/T-pope-rabbi-and-gay-reality
This post aims to clarify some of the focal points of the virtual relationships (chat, e-mail and forums) that may arise between gay guys. About the definition of love and friendship in general terms many books have been written and it is not my intention to discuss the Two Chief World Systems, but if you want to give to the word love a connotation that is not too abstract, it must be assumed that falling in love may not be limited to intellectual affinity or to sharing moral values but must necessarily involve physical-physiological feelings related to sexuality in a profound way.
At this point a remark is necessary. When, in real life, a gay guy falls in love with another guy, his falling in love doesn’t start from the intellectual level or from the possible cultural affinities but from the physical attraction, i.e. by a whole set of factors that depend on the physicality of the other: smile, physique, voice, body attitudes, the tendency to behave more or less seductive.
This is so true that often gay guys fall in love with straight guys far away from them in every way, but able to embody "physically" their ideal guy. If a guy seems physically attractive we begin to ask ourselves questions about him and seek a closer contact in terms of dialogue, in practice we are interested in that guy. This mechanism of falling in love, which is typical of real life, cannot operate through the internet where everything remains detached from the physical dimension. In these situations is involved a projective mechanism that makes us imagine the guy with whom we are talking in chat according to our categories.
I stop for a moment to clarify what is a projective mechanism and how it may be conditioning reporting a concrete example.
There is a way to test the sexual orientation based on the reading a story “not sexually connoted”, i. e. that does not have in the text in any evidence to clarify with certainty whether one of the characters is a guy or a girl (lack of pronouns such as he or she, him or her and so on). The text then, in itself, is neutral.
When the story is read by a straight guy, that guy interprets it according to his categories as a straight story. But when the story is read by a gay guy, reading is not so automatic and often the guy comes to notice that the text hasn’t any sexual connotation, what a straight guy almost always doesn’t notice. On this basis it’s possible to construct projective tests for the determination of sexual orientation that have a concrete reliability. The projective reading is basically the reason of the charm of literature or the cinema because we project ourselves in the events and interpret them according to our experience.
An exchange of mail, a conversation via chat or a dialogue on a forum creates a text, more specifically a text written “with four hands”. This text has the characteristics of literature, even more accentuated by the fact that it is built with four hands, that is the better situation for projective readings but while the projective reading of a book is not aimed at the construction of an interpersonal relationship and everything remains inside the mind of the reader, in exchanging texts via the internet the projective inclination must sooner or later come to terms with the fact that on the other side there is another guy with his projections on the same conversation. There is basically the risk of misunderstanding, compounded by the fact that many chats remain at extremely symbolic and sublimated level and therefore are extremely open to projective interpretation. The projective mechanisms in contacts via the internet can be so important to bring even to put aside the idea of meeting the other guy in person because that could disturb or destroy the projective mechanism which in itself is apparently rewarding.
I would add that often in conversations in chat among gay guys is common the mechanism of the "drift towards the language of love" that is, the gradual and automatic indulge in a language that looks more and more like a language of love. It’s not at all uncommon that two guys who have never met in person end up talking like lovers. The emotional investment in these mechanisms is often very high and the projective dimension is so strong that the risk that the conversation is only the starting point for the construction of stories that exist only in fantastic projections is very real. Basically we create a partner to our measure, completing in a projective way the real elements (often of very low significance) that emerge from real dialogue. This is so true that a gay guy gets to fall in love with a straight guy, reading every single element that does not appear 100% straight as a sign of possible homosexuality and devaluating all those elements, usually very clear, showing that the guy is 100% straight.
But I must underline that the mechanism also operates in relationships between gay guys, that is, between guys who know with certainty that the other guy is gay. The projective mechanism reaches the point of attributing to the other guy a projective physical identity that doesn’t belong to him at all, that is, to embody him in an image that represents the projective ideal for the gay who fell in love with him. It gets to the point that the projective image of the other is also loaded with sexual values and it’s possible for a guy to experience a true sexual attraction towards another guy who he has never met. In practice we can fall in love also sexually with a person that 90% has been created by our projective imagination, that also attributes to him a body according to what we want. The drift towards the language of love does the rest and gives the distinct impression that you are building a true love story. But in all this there is a fundamental error, in practice the natural mechanism that leads from the physical attraction to the affection and love is quite upset.
Just remember that to fall in love in the true sense of the word physical and physiological involvements are essential but must be addressed to a real person, not to an image created by the projective fantasy. Some substitutes of the physical presence, such as photos or images sent by a camera cannot in any way replace the physical presence itself that remains the necessary element of the real falling in love, I mean that without the physical presence and without a genuine form of physical and physiological involvement there is no love.
I would warn guys who meet in chat to avoid the drift towards the language of love that only creates expectations that can be completely destroyed even by a short meeting where we realize that our projections had nothing in common with reality and that the speech (only the speech) went on to freewheel, far beyond reality. It is generally very easy to go on chatting using strong expressions, to say "I love you" and even without any real base but it is very difficult to resize these statements later, when they have already created big expectations that the direct personal knowledge has contradicted. At this point, if when the two guys meet, the disappointment is mutual, after all, the problem is easily solved because the expectations from both sides collapse at the same time, but if one is disillusioned and the other one feels physically strongly attracted, asymmetries become very strong and situations are difficult to manage.
In chat rooms or via e-mail, i.e. without direct personal knowledge, it is quite possible and I would say very less risky to create friendships, which are much less affected by projective mechanisms than possible love stories. I notice that the spontaneous tendency of guys is to look for a boyfriend to fall in love with, rather than one or more real friends in chat, but the tools are much more suited to the creation and maintenance of friendships than to the creation of love stories. As a good rule of prudence I would say that it would be good to reserve discourses with strong affective connotation only to people who you have actually met even outside the chat or forum that is you have known in person.
And here comes an important consideration. When two guys meet, being really two in front of each other, in real life after they have met in chat, the meeting gains a very strong affective connotation that makes it appear as a step towards the construction of an important and reciprocal story. This is why it is usually better to build relationships that start from friendship, meeting as a group and not as a couple, that is, starting relationships that do not create too many expectations that could turn into disillusionment. Friendship is always the first step, if the physical presence is engaging and encouraging then it may make sense to take a further step, otherwise the friendship remains and is not affected by the fact that is not followed by a story with a higher involvement because expectations have not been fed in the dark.
I would like to conclude that the internet (used with great caution, for heaven's sake!) provides opportunities but can also create heavy disappointments and that if you love someone, even if only as a friend, you must avoid to deceive him letting him run towards cold final showers that leave a sense of deep sorrow. So it is good to always keep an attitude of responsibility and think in advance about the possible consequences of what you do and you say.
If you like, you can join the discussion on this post on Gay Project Forum: http://gayprojectforum.altervista.org/T-gay-friendship-and-gay-love-via-chat