The oil on my skin allowing him to slide himself up and down my torso. Leaving me yearning for his intimate touch. Back to my stomach… drifting down to the bald pubic area. His hands sliding up my legs occasionally making contact with my balls. His erect cock occasionally touching me briefly as he bent over me. Onto my legs, massaging from ankles to the tops of my thighs. He stood beside the bed with massage oil.īent down and dripped oil on my naked body.ĭripped oil on my chest and belly and started rubbing it in. Saw his erect penis as he straightened up…. Watched his ass as he bent to remove them.
He stood up and beckoned me to do the same. I wanted to feel his strong hands on my body. His hand reached down and cupped my smooth balls. Inviting him to touch me more intimately. Still no words… instead, I moved down on the seat cushion and opened my legs wider. I said nothing, just let him stroke my leg. His hand stroked up and down the length of my thigh. I was sitting in the nude watching a film where two men were taking turns fucking a youth. Looked down to watch him stroking my thigh and rubbing himself through his clothes with his other hand. Up and down, closer to my cock, but not touching. I did as I was told and then sat back on his couch. Kick those clothes off, so you can be more comfortable. “No the girl I’m dating likes it that way.” I stood and he slid them down over my legs, along with my underwear.
He reached over to me and undid my jeans. “You don’t have to do anything for me if you don’t want to.” He reached over and his hand was on my leg, stroking my thigh. “That’s OK, it doesn’t make you gay, it’s just getting off, right?” “I liked cumming and when he came it was exciting.” “….a friend of my brother jerked me off once” “So did you ever do anything with another guy?” He started talking about sex as we watched. More different than I realized when the film turned out to be all-male. The conversation then was bravado and bluster. I was pretty comfortable but I’d only watched a porno with other guys once, at a stag party when there loads of other people there. He was older than me by a few years and I suspected he was at least bi-sexual but he was a nice guy and it was just to watch the game on his big-screen, so no big deal. The difference has implications for understanding both the phenomenology of sexual orientation-what it's like to be straight, gay or lesbian-and the process by which people learn about their orientation, says Bailey.I was in his apartment. "The main message is that there is a very fundamental sex difference between sexual arousal patterns in men and women," says Bailey. Whether the films depicted two males, two females, or a male and a female engaging in sexual activity, the different groups of women in the study responded similarly. They found that women, unlike men, showed the same genital responses to different kinds of erotic stimuli regardless of their sexual orientation, says Bailey. In their study, Chivers and Bailey showed erotic films to heterosexual, bisexual and lesbian women while measuring their genital and subjective arousal. If so, it means there are fundamental sex differences in the relationship between arousal and orientation. Now, however, new evidence has emerged to suggest that "category specificity," as Bailey calls it-the tendency for gay men to become aroused only to same-sex images and heterosexual men to become aroused only to opposite-sex images-is not true of women. The effect is so robust, he notes, that it can be used forensically to detect men's sexual orientation, and it probably plays a significant role in shaping men's self-identification as gay or heterosexual.īut similar research on women has not been conducted until very recently. That research, says Bailey, showed that heterosexual and gay men could be distinguished on the basis of their erectile response to pictures of nude men and women. The purpose of the study, says Bailey, was to explore a basic question about the relationship between sexual arousal and sexual orientation that has its roots in studies conducted in the 1960s. Conservative radio and television shows picked up the story, but because the study was under review, he couldn't explain why it wasn't the boondoggle it had been made out to be. "It always provokes mixed reactions," he says.īut when an article titled "Federally funded study measures porn arousal" appeared in The Washington Times last December and described in unflattering terms a study conducted with his graduate student Meredith Chivers, he was unusually frustrated, he says. Michael Bailey, PhD, says he is used to getting attention, both positive and negative, for his research on sexual orientation.