Nick Jonas DOES NOT deny hooking up with guys!

[lotophagi]

Apparently Nick Jonas will not confirm or deny hooking up with guys.

So first he comes out in favor of LGBT rights.
Next he plays gay characters in multiple roles.
Then he appears to hangout and dance the night away at gay clubs.
Now he won't deny hooking up with men.

Do you think he will eventually come out as at least bisexual? https://choiceapp.co/lotophagi/post/10481

I created a poll about it, but I would love to see everyone's thoughts here as well.

Article: http://www.queerty.com/nick-jonas-doesnt-deny-hooking-up-with-guys-hope-is-alive-20151110

[dx8090210]

Why is this important

[pornofan]

dx8090210 asks "Why is this important"

1. Did anyone say it was?

2. Have you SEEN Nick Jonas?

3. Yet another example of a highly successful musician/actor who is "straight but not narrow" and not intimidated by a fear that
some people might claim he is gay because they want him, or even because scum claim he is gay as if that is a bad thing to be,
esp. if you are young, beautiful, successful, talented, and popular as the former Disney boy band teen idol who used to flaunt his
"chastity ring" until he saw the light (or stars!) and got over it.

As for not denying it, why should he? If that's one of his chosen frolics, good for him. Just because some people are interested does not mean they have a right to know, any more than we have a right to see every celebrity dick just because we want to oogle them all and maybe get to play up close and personal with what we are looking at. It's not exactly as if lots of uninterested dudes have already seen the sacred wedding tackle already, and it's not as if these idols aren't sleeping with you because they are oh-so-phobic. If they were gayer than an Ungaro spring frock and no more straight than a rainbow, you and I still aren't going to sample those wares.

And if he is NOT gay or bi or heteroflexible or some other category of Not Interested, No Applications Accepted– then why deny it. His friends know better, his enemies will believe and say whatever they want anyway, and if it truly is not a matter of good or bad but of Who Cares! then, responding legitimizes the suggestion and plays into the myth, but as we have learned to say about lots of things, and gay accusations (claims) in particular, it's not as if there is anything wrong about that.

Actually, the more famous people who come out in favor of acceptance for gays and equality for gays and equal rights for gays, the better
off gays are, and the better off everyone else is, too.

Or maybe that is not your idea of important, but perhaps you can imagine that some people might think that continuing to follow the
inclusiveness trend is worth doing to track progress from then till now and from now forward.

Women did not get the right to vote until men supported that right. African-Americans did not get as far as they have in the U.S. (and
I make no claim about HOW far that is) without white (mostly white MEN) supporting an end to slavery and an end to voter suppression (still some way to go there), and an end to housing and hiring and marriage discrimination.

It naturally follows that the more "straight" men and women who support the cause, the better. In fact, it might be holding everyone back if there is no option except to believe that every bigoted hunk is a self-loathing queer and that every accepting and nonjudgmental adult who goes on the record in support of gay rights is, in reality, secretly gay. It's not that no such denial has ever occurred among politicians, performers, cops, firemen, or anyone else, but it might be easier for everyone if our supporters were not all painted with the same lavender brush as if there could be no other motivation for decency and understanding.

Might it also be true that the less stigma there is on doing gay things (same-sex physical intercourse, for example), the less guilt someone might feel about exploring their curiosity? And apart from being curious about how the other side lives and whether they deliver the goods, less pressure might also mean it is easier for men to get laid if a convenient female is not available.

There is a recent book, discussed on these forums, talking about men who have sex with men and who quite distinctly do NOT label themselves as either gay or bi, but definitely straight. Gore Vidal always said he was not a homosexual, but a "homosexualist" a man who sometimes did same-sex things, as if definitions are odious and people do what they do when they do but spend MOST of their time being nonsexual-- unless thoughts are behavior, I guess.

Hence the question some have asked in these forums: I think I might be gay, how do I know? Whether the interlocutor is gay or not is all about labels, self-perception, fear of what others might think, etc. Whatever the decision, that person will do what he does and enjoy it or hate it or feel happy or guilty.

Brangelina (Mr. Pitt and Ms. Jolie) long refused to get married until gays had that right. I don't recall anyone claiming the now semi-centenarian (50 years old! How is that even possible? Yeah, yeah, I know-- one day at a time.) for the gays. More like that, please.

Saw a story a week ago where some researchers said that all women are probably at least bisexual. Just as if all men are not at least
bi! Don't have to look at the videos of straight naifs being "tricked" into a gloryhole bj from a man, or some horny cum squirter showing his abilities on cam to an alleged female instigator. They can think whatever they want, but an orgasm doesn't lie.

It says here -- https://forum.gaytorrent.ru/index.php?topic=19883.0 -- that most men looking at porn look at penises. Doesn't everyone have some interest in checking out the competition? Interestingly, women do not seem to have the same fascination with the penis that strait men seem to have for pussy-- looking at it, stroking it, eating it, plunging into it.... I always thought my horndog strait friends should be able to get some male cocksucker to take care of them even without being high on the list of turn-ons. It's not as if men and women fucking each other never think about anyone else while they are doing it.

And yeah, women are not interested in the same things men are. Obviously, most men do not have most of their sexual fantasies about athletic men on the telly or in the changing room, though women might. But what I mean is that....

Well, supposedly someone did a survey of what turns people on, and it was discovered that a man's fantasy was... DOING IT. And women?
Their idea was more like Brad Pitt with his shirt off-- doing their ironing. You might think that looks were only part of what a woman finds appealing/sexy in a man, and that thoughtfulness, caring, tenderness, etc. play a part, too. It's almost as if women who are big on foreplay and cuddling afterwards do not reduce their sexual component to a few cubic inches of flesh.

Now that there is so much hetero-anal porn and so much growing acceptance of back door penetration (heard any reports that women love it a lot, even without a prostate to masturbate from inside?) while I always thought I could not compete with a woman as long as the only passion pit that matters is the one that directly involves reproduction capabilities, now that more and more men are finding they can also really like pounding an ass, esp. with the "doggy style" position being perhaps the most popular among men whose comments have  been solicited....

Anyway. The more self confidence a man feels, the less guilt, the more horny (and, yeah, sometimes the more drunk as well), the more likely he is to take advantage of an opportunity to spread his charms to a new group of admirers.

The guy who said that men look at dicks in porn added that not one man has ever come up to him after a lecture or whenever and admitted that yeah, he likes to look. Yeah, and none of those guys ever masturbate either because they're not kids anymore, blah blah blah.

You know the old joke about the new shipmate in the Navy who asked what people did for sex during long voyages at sea? They showed him a barrel with a hole in it just the right size for someone to offer themselves for oral relief. Don't know what he thought was going on, but the young man thought things were going splendidly for him until the day someone showed up and announced, "It's your turn in the barrel."

That joke laughs at the situation and the dangerous m/m solution, but it not only provides a good metaphor for doing necessary (and perhaps unpleasant) duties, but also suggests that things can work out for the greater good if everyone agrees. Which is presumably why it is said that when a submarine leaves port it might have 100 men sharing close quarters for the duration, but will return with 50 couples.
Another joke about a possible "other side" to manly warriors at sea, and also a story of men adapting to necessity and circumstances and making willing compromises. That is, either they sex together or do without. Or, as we see from video fictions and prose, it's the old "I'll jack (suck) you if you'll do the same to me." After all, we're both men, here, with needs, and we are not going to tell anyone. No one will know. Hell, I'll even go first if you are afraid I'm trying to scam you-- but you better return the favor. And whatever happens, it stays here and we only do this if we swear it won't ruin our friendship. Have another beer."

All these fantasies, jokes working with fears and conscupiscent realities in the nature of the male animal (humanimal!) spread the meme and allow dangerous possibilities to be broached, acknowledged, discussed (scorn can be replaced by laughter), and generally tamed and brought into the realm of possibility once the public Victorian is silenced and we randy guys can have a good snicker together over our sexuality, unabashedly strait and macho as we normal, manly, hetero dudes all are.

It's like the mainstreaming of gay characters on television, where more and more lesbians and gay men turn up on crime dramas and comedies (and everywhere else) where they may be trying to adopt a child, but that isn't the fulcrum of the story. Or the dude finally gets up the nerve to ask a hot new coworker on a date and it turns out they are not oriented that way. Etc. The more normal it looks, the more normal it becomes in an endless (one hopes) feedback loop of increasing tolerance. Look at all the married het couples on the television machine these days, even in adverts, or maybe just courting or dating-- where the pair are not the same race. Not an issue. Not the subject of the script. Not an "After School Special" to educate kids. Not "a very special episode" involving Important Moral Issues.

No, they just have lots of bi-racial couples, or same-race couples with kids of a different race. It's just accepted, like having African-American middle-class suburbanites barbecuing and washing their car in the driveway next to their equally bland and middle-class white neighbors. We're hardly post-racial, but it's no longer as bravely groundbreaking as, say, "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner?" No, now we have The Simpsons where (wasn't it Harvey Fierstein?) it's the gay man on the hunting trip who shows up Homer's bigotry and narrow-minded assumptions that Bart is "turning gay."

"Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn" was a shocker when Clark Gable (reportedly a sometime "escort" in his early days) said it on screen in 1939, but who would notice the transgression today? Things do evolve, is my point, and the more whites support blacks, the more men support women (and issues like "equal pay for equal work"), and the more unterrified hetero men and women support the rest of us without doing so because they want to gain sexual favors (or cash rewards, for that matter), the better off everyone will be.

Look, there are real enemies out there, but if we all stick together without becoming them, we can get through this. The reason to oppose torture as an American value is not, as one prominent candidate claims, because it is (ooh, ick) "politically correct." Yes, it is correct, but it is also humane, decent, and one of the ways we can tell Us from Them. Or at least, one of the ways we used to tell the two apart. Now that we are being urged to have the government shut down houses of worship, round up those who are ethnically or theologically NOT politically correct, making everyone register their religion in a database and carry identity cards, there might need to remember, as Nietzsche said, that when staring into the abyss, remember it is also staring into you.

The sooner we can all bond and drop the vicious trivial, the sooner we can start living the kind of life we want, collectively. And the sooner we can live in the kind of countries we want-- countries, for example, where men can marry each other and women can marry each other, and no one then blames the next tornado on  The Wrath of God, who was not offended by the Nazis, the killing fields of Cambodia, or the Roman Empire, but can't stop destroying self-righteous and self-proclaimed "Christian" Kansas, or keeping the moral exemplars of Alabama and Mississippi utterly impoverished by most measures of well-being, and then only doing That well because the sinful Democrats who run the more successful and prosperous states are subsidizing their hatred and ideological blindness by taxes for the poor.

And why those subsidies? Because if their end of the boat is sinking, we're going to get wet too. And either we'll all get there together -- black and white, young and old, gay and strait, religious and atheist and indifferent-- or we won't get there at all. Which is waaay too much soapbox oratory and "cosmic wisdom" (bull shit), but I'm kinda overwhelmed and appalled by recent news both foreign and domestic. Also, somewhere in all these stray memories, semi-thoughts, and partly baked ideas (PBIs), there is at least enough data for a narrative, enough tesserae for a beautiful mosaic of patterns that make sense and reveal meaning. I'm just afraid the pieces are somewhat poorly and randomly assembled, though I do believe somewhere in here is a common thread suitable to this topic, the above-named performer, and this forum. However....

Hmm. Seem to have wandered off again. Question was about the possible importance (or unimportance) of studly ladies man Nick being perfectly at ease showing off and hanging with gays, including close gay friends. Doesn't mean he wants to sleep with them any more than you hanging with your women friends mean they are in danger of surrendering to your insatiable desires to penetrate cunt.

In a moment, I'll post the latest news about Mr. Jonas that I have seen, with a couple of new pictures.

[deflorare]

Okay, we get it. You wish he were gay. Well, unfortunately he didn't say he was. He said his security wasn't relevant to the context of that particular interview. So, for now, you'll have to go back to fantasising about your married neighbour or your gym buddy.