I've got no cause to "flame" anybody, and I think a perfectly valid question deserves a proper answer. But I have to say that in my view, this question gets cause and effect the wrong way round.Originally Posted by Guynbart
For people like myself at least, it's not that we're covertly attracted to men and crossdress in order to attract men. Not for one moment! While I can't speak for others, in my own mind anyway, the notion of "gay" sex in a male role with another man does nothing for me whatsoever. And by the way, I've never kissed a man in my life! Not unless you count a happily drunken guy I didn't know from Adam who was probably Greek or something, who, one New Year's Eve on a visit to London, kissed me on both cheeks in the middle of a celebrating crowd in Trafalgar Square. That had everything to do with different ethnic customs and nothing to do with sex! I had no objection to it, since it was obviously well meant, but it didn't "turn me on" either!
When it comes to cause and effect, it's not that crossdressing is motivated by a desire to attract men. Rather, crossdressing is motivated by something else entirely--perhaps in part a desire to identify with, or experience being, female (though I have to admit it's complicated). And as a result of that urge--not a "cause" of it--the idea of sex with a man in a female role can become, if not downright attractive, at least less repulsive than it would otherwise be when acting normally in a male role.
To look at it from another viewpoint, that of a hypothetical observer, "gay porn" does absolutely nothing for me. Unlike some people, I don't want to see two guys going at it. In my mind, for sex to be exciting, it has to have a woman in it! To me it's women who are "sexy." Like many others here, I crossdress largely because I want to "be" what I love! To me, "normal" (that's to say, "heterosexual") porn depicting a man and a woman is what's "sexy"--though I'll certainly give a nod to lesbian porn also, since it has women in it. However, this does not exclude the fantasy of myself taking on the female role with another female, and possibly also with a male, partner in those scenarios.
To answer Krisi's comment also, this has nothing to do with being "gay." We need to choose our terminology more carefully. "Gay" sex, if we're talking about males, is about men who are attracted to other men. A better word to choose is "androphilic," when we want to talk about "being sexually attracted to men" irrespective of the sex of the person who's being attracted. (The opposite is "gynephilic," sexually attracted to women.) I'm normally gynephilic, regardless of what role I myself am playing, All I can add is that when I imagine myself in a female role, some aspects of sex with a man can seem attractive to me. Or possibly, to put it another way, sex with a man is not "repulsive" to me as it would seem from the viewpoint of a male role. This is very different from being fully androphilic, let alone "gay." I could never imagine myself "falling in love" with a man, for instance, as I have fallen in love several times with women. I've never kissed a man, let alone had sex with one. There was more than one reason for that, as anyone can imagine, starting from the fact of being happily marrid for so many decades. And I strongly suspect, as some (not all, but some) posters here have discovered for themselves, that the notion of sex with a man would for me be far better left as an intriguing fantasy, instead of acting it out as a disappointing, even revolting, memory of reality.
No, I've never kissed a man. For people like myself, I dare say I never will. And I probably never should! Just let it be--a fascinating idea!
