• CLICK HERE To Join Broke Straight Boys & Instantly Get Full Access To Entire Site & 3 FREE bonus sites.

Tell me..

Please consider the following:

You are so right, Cumrag27. Any gender can be an "alpha male" and there is no absolute biological certainty to the "male" aspect of alpha. There are some interesting theories posited about the lack of violence in matriarchical hierarchies such as bonabo primates versus the inherent violence in patriarchical social structures of primates such as chimps. But these remain theories. So biological imperative may or may not be the reason for how our current human world is structured.

But the fact remains that, currently, straight men from a specific ethnic, religious and socio-economic group run things, by and large. The ethnicity and religion of the ruling class may vary from country to country depending on whether you're in Asia or the Middle East, etc. but the one thing that doesn't vary is gender, sexual orientation (at least professed orientation) and socio-economic status of the ruling class. And varying from this norm generally results in subjugation and marginalization, whether by economic means or physical violence.

It's kinda like the difference between prejudice and racism. Not every white person in our country is prejudiced against or discriminates against people with darker skin. But that doesn't change the fact that our socio-economic and political system is racist, which makes it more dangerous to have darker skin when seeking health care, employment, housing, political office, or assistance from law enforcement.

Just do the math and compare the percentage of racial minorities in our population to the percentage of these same minorities in our prisons, in the Senate, below the poverty level, in the top 5% wealthiest Americans, or in college. Then it becomes glaringly obvious, because the difference in percentage in the general population with the percentage in the categories mentioned is so drastic.

Dear str8grrrrl,

I agree with much that you have to say. "But the fact remains that, currently, straight men from a specific ethnic, religious and socio-economic group run things, by and large..."And varying from this norm generally results in subjugation and marginalization, whether by economic means or physical violence." Certainly we have the "glass ceiling" which is another name for the "Good Old Boys" paradigm which keeps at bay less-powerful others, you might call them outsiders, that aspire to high positions.

I have had 36 years of personal experience that when a male is employed in a field predominated by women, such as "public education", this same subjugation and marginalization has been my experience coming from female co-workers(black or white) in the "majority" position. Although fully certified and equipped to function effectively in my chosen field in education, I found no particularly welcoming open arms from the ranks of my co-worker female teachers who outnumbered me sometimes by a ratio of 30:1. Try as I may, I remained an outsider most of my 36 years due to my sex(not sexual preference).

On the one occasion in 1982 that I became the classroom teacher negotiator and spokesman for pay increases(receiving no monetary compensation), I was able to get almost 95% support in a signed petition from teachers(predominantly female) throughout our school district. Yet, when I was to actually make the presentation before our School Board on all teacher's behalf, all teachers were invited to this pivitol meeting. The vast majority of teachers failed to stand with me in support for the actual presentation. Before the School Board meeting actually started, I could see from a window teacher cars slowing down out front as if they were about to stop and turn into the parking lot and, then, they would almost "peel out" scurrying away before completing their turn as if to avoid being identified as some rebel or troublemaker.

Although my 5 year plan was originally rejected by the board, once the next administration came to power, this plan for teacher pay raises was accomplished in less than 5 years and salaries were at the level projected in my original proposal. Only a handful of female teachers regardless of race were brave enough to stand with me, their co-worker and representative, when they were most needed to be present. If nothing else, I feel the sheer numbers of teachers could have provided enough intimidation to our School Board that my negotiations could have possibly succeeded on the first attempt. Besides me as a white male, my support from the administrative staff was comprised mostly of white males with a few white females (with limited racial diversity in both groups) and they were in total support at the time of the proposed pay raises for teachers(black and white mostly females district-wide).

So again, I must conclude in my own personal experience as a white gay male that not all in power(regardless of race or sex) are there expressly to subjugate and marginalize..."whether by economic means or physical violence." I would suggest that there are exceptions to this mindset, if you would look for them and not assume the worst. Probably the exceptions along the way are way too few, but they do exist. Sometimes you have to think outside the box and then precede as if the normal obstacles do not exist. After all, life is not always fair in all circumstances.

Respectfully submitted,

Cumrag27, aka Stimpy
 
Phil,

Everyone offers such interesting and all valid points! I think I would be even more confused if I were young and just starting to formulate my own opinions about things. I myself have been, literally, with hundreds of straight men in my life and this is what I have found from my own experiences.

First, Merriam-Webster defines homosexual as: of, relating , or charcterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex.
Note that the definition does not say anything abuot this "tendency" to being exclusive. Hence, it is quite possible to have a tendency towards a member of the same sex, but does not mean that you cannot also have a tendency towards a member of the opposite sex. Also, tendency does not dictate a permamnent state of mind or being, it is merely that, a tendency.

Second, let me share what I have found to be evident. There is only a very small percentage of the male population that is exclusively "straight" and only a very small percent of the population that is "gay". IN other words, pure black and pure white make but a small percentage of the totality of color, if you will. There then exists a most sizable majority of color that falls into the category of being neither "purely" black, nor "purely" white. That is where the majority of male sexuality lies.

What I find, is that "straight" men define themselves, based on a variety of factors, where they perceive is the place in the great color scheme of life. Each man must and does decide for himself what he feels he can accept to engage in, sexually, and still maintain his own perception of who he is. Men, by and large then, draw an imaginary line in the sand and proclaim, albeit to themselves or others, "I can do this sexually and I am still straight, as long as I don't cross this line."

That line in the sand may lie anywhere along the continuum of sexual behaviors. I never know when I meet a guy, what he is willing to do, or not to do, until we initiate some type of sexual act. We have heard (right here on Broke Straight Boys) straight guys refer to this, when David asks them to kiss. Many men feel that kissing is only for women, or kissing is only for intimacy, or whatever. The bottom line is, they are telling you where they draw that imaginary line.

Now, let's cloud the issue with one more tidbit. Men are typically horndogs. Men are completely capable of detaching sexual behavior from emotions, and can and do engage in sexual activity without "feeling" anything emotionally. And that goes for both straight and gay men. That masculine trait alone is what allows some straight men to engage in man to man sex without the guilt or the stigma of being classified as "gay". Granted that is not true for all straight men, but indeed for quite a few.

I have also found that straight men who engage in man to man sex, often, overtime, begin to lose their inhibitions and may begin to engage in activities they once considered taboo. We have all witnessed that in our favorite Broke Straight Boys models. Even so, they still refer to themselves as straight. And then having witnessed changes in those models, many forumites insist on labeling the models as gay, or even , gay for pay.

that leads me to labels. People are who they are and while many refuse to ever enlighten themselves remain as they are. But someone else spoke the truth, people can and do change, if they have an open mind. And the gay society is just as bad as the straight society, wanting to place labels on people and insist, as with our models, that they be labeled as what fits their preconceived notions.

Remember two things:
1. Homophobia is rooted in ignorance and/or fear.
2. Name calling stems from the need to take that ignorance and fear, and dominate it by using words to elevate themselves above the fear and ignorance, in other words, cope.
And yes, some straight guys use name calling to direct attention from themselves, these are ususally people who are full of doubt and fear about their own sexuality. I have known those also, I think we all have. I have always found straight friends who are sure about their own sexuality make the best friends.

So, what differentiates a straight man from a gay man? Their own notions abut who they are and what they are willing to do. Generally, a truly straight man, may have sex with another man, but he does so because he wants sexual gratification, NOT because he is attracted to the other man. Take our Broke Straight Boys model Leon, he put it to words in one shoot when he exclaimed, " I just love sex". I have known straight guys who like sex so much, they don't consider the gender, they consider only their sexual gratification. Afterall, does a male's mouth feel different from a woman's mouth? NO! Both feel just as good when applied to a hard cock! Does that make them gay? NO! that just means they are horndogs! Willing to do whatever to get off! And hopefully, enjoy the process.

I enjoy Broke Straight Boys becuase it shows all these straight guys and you get to see where they draw the line and how quickly they lose their inhibitions and perhaps end up doing more than even they thought was possible. And of course, the money helps!
 
JLipps4u,

I enjoyed reading this. It dittos my sentiments for the most part. Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this with us. :thumbup1:
 
Dear Phil,

So many people have responded already with very articulate responses to the issues you have raised. Although some have already touched upon this aspect I would to share this.... Many people are driven by ego to simply invent a justification to feel superior to another human being. Insults over sexual orientation, and even assaults over same, are to some people just one more tool in their arsenal to be used towards that end. If they weren't putting down someone over their possible sexual orientation they would be insulting them over their clothing, hairstyle, income bracket, type of home they live in, their religion, the type of car they drive, the type of job they hold, the color of their skin, etc, etc.

So while some homophobic straights, and some closet cases, are truly obsessed over the sexual orientation of others...there are many who grab onto the excuse of another person's sexuality as a matter of convenience. Strongly ego driven people have an absolute need to look down on others so that they may feel superior (in their own minds) by comparison. It matters not to them what kind of insult it is.
 
Dear Phil,

So many people have responded already with very articulate responses to the issues you have raised. Although some have already touched upon this aspect I would to share this.... Many people are driven by ego to simply invent a justification to feel superior to another human being. Insults over sexual orientation, and even assaults over same, are to some people just one more tool in their arsenal to be used towards that end. If they weren't putting down someone over their possible sexual orientation they would be insulting them over their clothing, hairstyle, income bracket, type of home they live in, their religion, the type of car they drive, the type of job they hold, the color of their skin, etc, etc.

So while some homophobic straights, and some closet cases, are truly obsessed over the sexual orientation of others...there are many who grab onto the excuse of another person's sexuality as a matter of convenience. Strongly ego driven people have an absolute need to look down on others so that they may feel superior (in their own minds) by comparison. It matters not to them what kind of insult it is.

Very well said Tampa. I often believe that there is a petty jealousy that is driven by ego or what I will refer to as their ID or inner child. I think that many people have come to the idealistic belief that they cannot display their outward feelings of affection especially for a person of the same sex. They repress those feelings themselves thereby suppressing their ID. Then when confronted by someone living life deliberately not caring what society thinks their ID throws a tantrum because it cannot come out and play in public. So, to calm their ID"s inner rage and hostility they react negatively through verbal and sometimes escalate to physical abuse. I guess in essence I believe that their outward intolerance or slanderous comments is their conscious way of reprimanding their own ID on a conscious and subconscious level. In other words to simplify this I see it as an outward manifestation of their own repressed feelings. The superiority feeling they achieve is short lived and it is just a byproduct of their illusion of asserting themselves over another person when they are in fact disciplining them self at another person's expense. Basic Freud anyone???:wink::001_unsure:
 
the weakest link

Very well said Tampa. I often believe that there is a petty jealousy that is driven by ego or what I will refer to as their ID or inner child. I think that many people have come to the idealistic belief that they cannot display their outward feelings of affection especially for a person of the same sex. They repress those feelings themselves thereby suppressing their ID. Then when confronted by someone living life deliberately not caring what society thinks their ID throws a tantrum because it cannot come out and play in public. So, to calm their ID"s inner rage and hostility they react negatively through verbal and sometimes escalate to physical abuse. I guess in essence I believe that their outward intolerance or slanderous comments is their conscious way of reprimanding their own ID on a conscious and subconscious level. In other words to simplify this I see it as an outward manifestation of their own repressed feelings. The superiority feeling they achieve is short lived and it is just a byproduct of their illusion of asserting themselves over another person when they are in fact disciplining them self at another person's expense. Basic Freud anyone???:wink::001_unsure:

Dearest Jayman,

This is so true and yet it reminds me of the definition of a "bullie" with their unquenchable need to raise their own self concept at the expense of their victim. Once accomplished, the "bullie" feels his dominance restored and all is well in the world.

Such a dog-eat-dog way of looking at life! Looking specifically for the weakest link to prey on just as a vulture looks at life. If you have seen one up close, you have seen one of the ugliest creatures in this world.

How truly contemptable must be their life as a scavenger!


Cumrag27, aka Stimpy
 
It's amazing that as time moves on that societies "pecking order" is getting wider. I'm sure you Americans have seen some of the period dramas that the UK do so well such as Upstairs Downstairs, Downton Abbey, Larkrise to Candleford etc. I absolutely love the period dramas and the aforementioned were set in the 19th century bordering on to early 20th. The pecking order during this time seemed to be fairly straightforward though. There was the lord of the manor, his wife and family, the butler, the head of housestaff etc etc. It was the same in most such households so everyone knew their place. Of course, if you were working class and not privileged or lucky enough to hold a position in such a house then you were much worse off. Most of the servants jobs included accommodation in the main home.

Today's societies pecking order is still based on wealth but the order is so much larger because there is more wealth around. It's as if you have pecking orders within pecking orders and my don't some people like to gloat on how wealthy they are. But wealth is not everything - although it helps a lot, and it certainly does not automatically bring happiness.

As Christmas has just passed I remember my grandparents saying to me that all they got on Christmas morning was some fruit and maybe a home made woollen cardigan or jumper but they really enjoyed the festivities and it appears that families were that much closer not just within their own families but also as a community.

Today's greedy society is all about more and more and how to upstage what the Jones' have etc etc. If a kid doesn't get a roomful of presents he or she kicks off like Violet Elizabeth Bott lol - google her if I'm confusing you. But today's parents are also to blame for allowing this competition culture on haves and have nots to evolve and by encouraging it by actually buying the stuff for their kids.

Rant over.
 
Modest but personalized

It's amazing that as time moves on that societies "pecking order" is getting wider. I'm sure you Americans have seen some of the period dramas that the UK do so well such as Upstairs Downstairs, Downton Abbey, Larkrise to Candleford etc. I absolutely love the period dramas and the aforementioned were set in the 19th century bordering on to early 20th. The pecking order during this time seemed to be fairly straightforward though. There was the lord of the manor, his wife and family, the butler, the head of housestaff etc etc. It was the same in most such households so everyone knew their place. Of course, if you were working class and not privileged or lucky enough to hold a position in such a house then you were much worse off. Most of the servants jobs included accommodation in the main home.

Today's societies pecking order is still based on wealth but the order is so much larger because there is more wealth around. It's as if you have pecking orders within pecking orders and my don't some people like to gloat on how wealthy they are. But wealth is not everything - although it helps a lot, and it certainly does not automatically bring happiness.

As Christmas has just passed I remember my grandparents saying to me that all they got on Christmas morning was some fruit and maybe a home made woollen cardigan or jumper but they really enjoyed the festivities and it appears that families were that much closer not just within their own families but also as a community.

Today's greedy society is all about more and more and how to upstage what the Jones' have etc etc. If a kid doesn't get a roomful of presents he or she kicks off like Violet Elizabeth Bott lol - google her if I'm confusing you. But today's parents are also to blame for allowing this competition culture on haves and have nots to evolve and by encouraging it by actually buying the stuff for their kids.

Rant over.

Dearest Jon,

It seems that it is all about electronic hardware and nothing with any soul to be found in today's gifts. Today's gifts have "disposability" written all over them.

When close knit families came together in the past and put their personal touches often making the modest gifts themselves, it may not have all the sparkle of high-tech, but your handmade gift had much more personal meaning on truly human terms. I feel the efforts expended on making custom made gifts specifically for the one person it was intended, offered the recipient something more grounding, intimate, and deeply satisfying in the long run. And something not relying on batteries, constant upgrading, or the internet.

I think we have sacrificed the joy in giving a "modest but personalized" gift for some plastic gadget that can't possibly fill that same niche as it is merely a temporary gadget preoccupying one's time which could be spent more effectively to further strengthen family bonds. Do we want this next generation to only worship technology above all other aspects of life?

Sincerely,

Stimpy
 
Dearest Jon,

It seems that it is all about electronic hardware and nothing with any soul to be found in today's gifts. Today's gifts have "disposability" written all over them.

When close knit families came together in the past and put their personal touches often making the modest gifts themselves, it may not have all the sparkle of high-tech, but your handmade gift had much more personal meaning on truly human terms. I feel the efforts expended on making custom made gifts specifically for the one person it was intended, offered the recipient something more grounding, intimate, and deeply satisfying in the long run. And something not relying on batteries, constant upgrading, or the internet.

I think we have sacrificed the joy in giving a "modest but personalized" gift for some plastic gadget that can't possibly fill that same niche as it is merely a temporary gadget preoccupying one's time which could be spent more effectively to further strengthen family bonds. Do we want this next generation to only worship technology above all other aspects of life?

Sincerely,

Stimpy

Agree 100pc. If I want gadgets such as an Iphone4 then I buy it myself which I have just done, if I want an Apple Mac then I buy it myself - yes I do like the top end of the market goods but I buy them with my own hard earned money. Presents that I gave and received from close relatives had meaning such as this gorgeous photo album that I got for my mother and filled it with pics of the family and my late departed Dad. It brought a tear to her eye but she loves it.
 
Truly wonderful and worthy

Agree 100pc. If I want gadgets such as an Iphone4 then I buy it myself which I have just done, if I want an Apple Mac then I buy it myself - yes I do like the top end of the market goods but I buy them with my own hard earned money. Presents that I gave and received from close relatives had meaning such as this gorgeous photo album that I got for my mother and filled it with pics of the family and my late departed Dad. It brought a tear to her eye but she loves it.

Dear jon,

This is the spirit I most value. Who could surpass the intrinsic value of treasured moments such as your family photo album presented to your mother. Simple, heartfelt, wonderful, and worthy! The truest measure of Chrtistmas spirit.

God bless you merry gentleman,

Stimpy
 
It's amazing that as time moves on that societies "pecking order" is getting wider. I'm sure you Americans have seen some of the period dramas that the UK do so well such as Upstairs Downstairs, Downton Abbey, Larkrise to Candleford etc. I absolutely love the period dramas and the aforementioned were set in the 19th century bordering on to early 20th. The pecking order during this time seemed to be fairly straightforward though. There was the lord of the manor, his wife and family, the butler, the head of housestaff etc etc. It was the same in most such households so everyone knew their place. Of course, if you were working class and not privileged or lucky enough to hold a position in such a house then you were much worse off. Most of the servants jobs included accommodation in the main home.

Today's societies pecking order is still based on wealth but the order is so much larger because there is more wealth around. It's as if you have pecking orders within pecking orders and my don't some people like to gloat on how wealthy they are. But wealth is not everything - although it helps a lot, and it certainly does not automatically bring happiness.

As Christmas has just passed I remember my grandparents saying to me that all they got on Christmas morning was some fruit and maybe a home made woollen cardigan or jumper but they really enjoyed the festivities and it appears that families were that much closer not just within their own families but also as a community.

Today's greedy society is all about more and more and how to upstage what the Jones' have etc etc. If a kid doesn't get a roomful of presents he or she kicks off like Violet Elizabeth Bott lol - google her if I'm confusing you. But today's parents are also to blame for allowing this competition culture on haves and have nots to evolve and by encouraging it by actually buying the stuff for their kids.

Rant over.

John you are so right. These days very few people feel accomplished in life if they have not a massed a title, wealth, or something that allows them to stand out in the crowd. Then when they do achieve it they Peacock about it. (Put it in everybody's face) This is people’s way of saying I am better than you in this arena. A recent example I have shared is the whole idea of where you got your college degree. Online -vs- brick and mortar schools. Both truly have their merits.

  • Online schools - have a lot of daily participation requirements in the online classroom but tend to be flexible with many schedules, they require a lot of internships, they have both structured and independent study and learning, they also require timely course submissions, there a strong focus on internet based learning and group project work, all testing is supervised via polymeric testing and course work is evaluated for academic standards required for graduation. All of these things require a lot of coordination and planning as well as an academic prowess with technology based learning.

  • Brick and mortar schools - have set class schedules and mandatory attendance requirements, internships, face to face interactions, some require internships, they have both structured and independent study and learning, they also require timely course submissions, there a strong focus on internet based learning and group project work, in class testing, and some technology based learning, and there course work is evaluated for academic standards required for graduation. Again all of these things require a lot of coordination and planning as well as an academic prowess with technology based learning.


Needless to say that both are regionally and nationally accredited by the same accrediting bodies in many cases. Yet, a student who attends a physical brick and mortar school is perceived as having the better education. Just another form of elitism in my book. Personally, I love education and learning but the whole degree concept and which form of learning achieves better results is meaningless to me. I only went on and acquired a degree because society said this is what is needed for us to take you seriously and help us understand that you learned something. Too me it was spending a bunch of money to get a piece of paper to prove what I mostly already knew. LOL I have never put much stock in a college degree other than the thought that they must know how to jump through hoops like a trained dog because they managed to get a degree. My thought is that when in time of crisis a degree makes a great piece of toilet paper. In other words - I believe that common sense and life long learning are a lot more valuable than most degrees in the grand scheme of life in general. It is hard to buck the popularity of mass public opinion though where these petty issues of indifference are concerned.

Being Gay, Straight, or Bisexual I think holds its own unique social status some see it as standing out in a crowd while others see it as a lower class distinction and or life style as well as other perceptions in between. People are people and fear can become a powerful political propaganda tool when wielded by the right or wrong person. Face it people fear what they cannot understand or comprehend.

A friend of mine had a visit from an Angle named Michael (you can read his recounting in his book, “On the Wings of Heaven.” Or his Web site http://www.teachonlylove.com/ I think he tells the story there too.) Joe essentially said the angle told him that there is no such place as hell and that it was created by religion to provide consequences for not following the church’s GOD – Good Orderly Direction. LOL (I am not saying this is true or not true. Intrinsically I believe everyone know the truth that is best for them where religion is concerned.) My point is that this is yet another example of how we surrender to our lower ego’s perception of fear and give away our power. :scared:
 
Last edited:
Great post Jay and as always you have fact or experiences to back your statements. I did not go to university but chose at 16 to apply for an apprenticeship with a telecoms company and out of 2500 got one of 150 places. The 4 year apprenticeship was divided into 2.5 days of attending a technology college and the other 2.5 days a week on the job triaining with various mentors. I found it a good mix and the experience of working alongside older guys is irreplaceable. Not only did I pick up job related experience but I also learned a lot about life and grew up pretty damn quick.

However, the high flyers in the company are normally ex graduates who have done their 4 years in uni but come to the company with mostly business degrees. It's surprising that there are not many ex grads with engineering degrees. I don't want to sound bitter but some of these ex grads are so immature because they have had no real life experience that it is embarrassing to call them managers.
 
Top