The following is a response to a friend's post that I felt was poignant and meaningful enough to deserve its own post on my blog.

Here are my thoughts:

I remember when I cuddled with a man for the first time. I was 22. Until that point I had never cuddled with another human being in my life. I was taught by the youth leaders in the LDS faith that cuddling was wrong. Cuddling leads to fornication. That was the mantra. In addition to my upbringing, I was also VERY inhibited by my own self-loathing fears of being gay. I intentionally denied myself the pleasures of physical intimacy with males AND females because I felt I was wicked and twisted in my homosexual desires.

SO, when a gay man (whom I refernced in a previous blog as "my first kiss", marcus) snuggled up to me for the first time, I was unprepaired for the intense borage of emotions and hormonal combustion.

That sets the stage and back-ground for the following response that I offered to a friend's blog about his ideas of male-on-male cuddling. He is a married man, with little experience in homosexual cuddling (like I was when i was 22). So he is still experiencing the "pre-cuddling" condition and posted a message that talked about the innocense of homosexual cuddling, which is a very cute idea to me. I decided to illaborate on this.

I suppose its only fair to provide the actual link. Just reference "Dichotomy" and his most recent blog post.

As a man who is very aware and accepting of my own sexuality and of my various states of sexual arrousal, I would be very curious to hear him tackle this same topic AFTER he's engaged in various cuddle-sessions with men. I agree with mostly all of his comments, except that his ideas regarding "male-on-male" cuddling to be a bit juvenile and naive. He approached cuddling with the expectation that it can be completely "non-sexual" and I think this is a very niave expectation. Sexual tension tends to sneak up on the male creatures even when it is least expected.

Now, let me illistrate something to help stir the pot. (I love this part)

On occasion I enjoy going dancing with my gay male friends. I never go alone and I never go with the intention of meeting a stranger at a dance-club. I am always with friends. A phenomenon happens while dancing on the floor. I end up dancing very closely with my dearest gay friends, whom I consider my brothers. While we would never engage in sexual behavior together, it is very common for all of us to become aroused while dancing together. We know it happens. It's a natural reaction. We don't draw any attention to it. It's just a very normal thing for all of us to be turned on while dancing together. In some ways it is a bonding experience. It affirms, validates our masculinity. It says "yep, I'm still gay and the plumbing works like normal. We're all normal gay men." And we enjoy the moment. Could this be construed as a "sexual experience?" I think it could be argued that way by some, but I have a different perspective on the phenomenon.

My point is, even if my friends and I are not explicitly engaged in sexual intimacy, it is certainly not a completely "non-sexual" experience. It's a sexually AFFIRMING experience to dance with another man. Lets compare that to cuddling. Take two male bodies and pu them in close proximity to one another.. .no add the catalyst of homosexual attractions. VOILÀ. (that's french. But as they say in spain- ERECCIÒN) But you are right in that it takes plenty of will and mental power to NOT engage in further sexual intimacy.

Here is my MAJOR point that I want everyone to consider.

Sexual arousal among gay men is much more of a "social" issue and a "male-bonding" issue. Arousal and sexual intimacy means something different for gay males than it does for heterosexual males. Since the issue of "marriage and procreation" is not a possibility for homosexual males, sex takes on a whole new meaning, its a different conotation. It's slightly less of a "amore' " meaning. It's more of a social meaning.

Consider the following:

I used to be soooo upset when friends, strangers or potential dates and romantic interests would ask me "are you a top or a bottom?" Because I looked at that statement as being purely a personal and intimate question. However, only last year I finally realized that being a "top" or a "bottom" simply denotes one's social status within the gay community. Tops don't date other tops because they know when the magic moment finally happens, there will not be a conflict. You see, heterosexuals do not have this problem. A man must never ask his female partner, "when having sex, do you prefer to penetrate or be penetrated?" You see how rediculous that sounds? But among "all male" populations, it becomes important. Its a social status-thing. . NOT a personal, intimate thing. I learned to NOT be so offended when I am asked about my sexual prefernce, because it is actually important to know, where my dating-life is concerned.

All my str8 readers are cringing now. . ha ha. Love ya Elizabeth. You so didn't ever want to wrap your brain around this.

So. . .next. . . is sex any less important to gay men than to heterosexual men? That is a very interesting question. . . one that I will leave open-ended for another post.

Please feel free to comment.

Jeromy



Consider that.