i don't think Jerry was messing with him. regardless, it's pretty fascinating how everyone is reacting to this.
if there's anything i've learned from forumers here, it's that gender identities definitely are on a continuum, rather than hard and fast static categories. even though a person is straight, they might find that same sex porn/depictions "do it for them".
If it wasn't already so, Jerry has cemented his place as funniest person in the office. Holy shit. Probably the best ep of S3 so far. A++ would watch again.
I signed up for this, too, just because I really wanted to say how amazingly amazing the whole thing was. Of course having lesbian options in ME2 and no gay options at all would be issue, I would be embarrassed if it wasn't a "thing", since I think you should support diversity in every shape and form even if you might choose not to have Shepard woo a male crew member. I for one think the whole romance stuff is quite cringe-worthy anyway just because those scenes are not exactly top-class writing and I am always waiting for that soft porn saxophone music in the background. I can't tell you how pleased I was when the comic addressed the subject, but to be honest I didn't expect anything else from PA, in a manner that is just open and funny and very much THEM, and I respect them tremendously for that.
0
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
Still in the middle of ME3 but, (not particularly spoilery or important, comes up early on and it's just an ancillary character's backstory)
I really like that Cortez is gay, had a developed relationship with his husband, is an important part of the Normandy team, and just hangs out and shoots the shit with James. Glad they put in the effort to make him a real character and not just slap a "gay" label on him.
I've, uh, also watched gay porn and I'm straight. I've only done it a handful of times and it hasn't converted me in any way socially or sexually. I think it's an internet thing, just so easy to dabble when you're bored with the typical.
I find it interesting that Khoo calls Tycho "Jerry", commenting that he may do funny things with his hands. As if he knew the strip is based on a real conversation. It feels like he really knows how do these guys work.
I find it interesting that Khoo calls Tycho "Jerry", commenting that he may do funny things with his hands. As if he knew the strip is based on a real conversation. It feels like he really knows how do these guys work.
Because he does. He works with them daily. He's even in this video.
0
AshokaA Hub subforum that works?Registered Userregular
Khoo knows how we all work.
0
dizavinVancouver, British ColumbiaRegistered Userregular
As did I. And I never get involved with message boards.
In fact, this discussion had me thinking for a little bit about sex in games as well popular culture. And in doing so it kind of occurred to me: that unless a person is straight, a character in a game/tvshow/movie is often *defined* by their sexual orientation, instead of what mannerisms they have as a person. What they're into, what things they enjoy (rimshot!) and what things define them as a person always seem to resolve down to the fact that they like humping the same sex.
Take Doctor Who for example, this is a show that's highly spoken of in the nerdisphere and yet when they introduce a pansexual character (read: bisexual), that character, Captain Jack, despite being as "cutting edge" or "forward thinking" as the great BBC insists it's being by doing so, is simply portrayed as little more than a walking hard-on who's sexuality is the only really defining characteristic, if not the *only* characteristic his writing team has to bring to the table about this guy. This could just be for sensationalistic reasons (and since it's an english show, almost certainly is), but that would only cheapen the whole endeavour if it were to be confirmed as true.
This extends out to mainstream types of media as well. Would "will & grace" be so popular if the one gay character wasn't such a walking stereotype? what if he was just a normal, everyday guy who was into everyday guy stuff, whom simply also liked to bone dudes? would anyone give a crap about that show, then? or would the crowd whom gave a crap be the same crowd? for the same reasons?
I guess this comes down to the fact that I had a roommate who was like that whom I'm fortunate enough to still be friends with. He's as gay as the day is long, but at the same time, he's probably the most "manly" guy I know. He's into martial arts, technology, went to a trade school... shit, he works as a goddamn mechanic for fucks sake. Seeing him in all these macho roles while I was the musician and science nerd that was into girls kind of took my naive understanding of gender, sexuality and their implied roles at the time and spun it on it's head. I had to wrestle my own understanding of what sexuality meant down to the mat after meeting this guy and, after I managed that, discovered that the small scope of "if they're not straight like me, I don't get it or even think about it" was in fact, small. embarrassingly small. Ignorant, I believe the word is. It made me realize that it is in fact possible to understand *why* someone is into something that you fundamentally aren't and be able to understand *what* it is that they like about it, even if you don't like it, yourself.
And with keeping that kind of personal experience in mind, I have to ask myself: "why is it that alternative sexualities in media are always either treated as either laughable stereotypes whom can only ever bring gay jokes to the table, avoided all together, or essentially made freakshow exhibits where the fact they hump people you wouldn't expect them to is some kind of *thing* to be put on display?" or "why does it almost always work when you want to generate some buzz?" even in the case of Mass Effect where they didn't actually deliver on the content, but the very notion of an implied idea made it such a big deal?
I mean, I guess it's better than not even having these elements of our society be represented in our culture, but it's not "better" as I would expect it, personally.
Well, Will & Grace wouldn't have been much of a comedy if the characters were bland and everyday folk.
Will & Grace isn't much of a comedy as it is.
But the more concerning thing is that somewhere along the way, a huge chunk of society decided that stories about everyday people with topics that impact their real lives in real ways that occur in real life and cause us to think about real topics in the here & now, somehow aren't worth telling and we'd be better off filtering our tales to involve what might as well be cartoon characters and their adventures through subject matter that either nobody ever experiences or is so mundane that nobody really cares. Or at least won't get offended by.
It wasn't much of a comedy yet you acknowledge how popular it was? Sounds like a successful comedy. I get that you didn't care for it, but it was clearly successful.
0
dizavinVancouver, British ColumbiaRegistered Userregular
It wasn't much of a comedy yet you acknowledge how popular it was? Sounds like a successful comedy. I get that you didn't care for it, but it was clearly successful.
and I refer you to the last point of my first post:
And with keeping that kind of personal experience in mind, I have to ask myself: "why is it that alternative sexualities in media are always either treated as either laughable stereotypes whom can only ever bring gay jokes to the table, avoided all together, or essentially made freakshow exhibits where the fact they hump people you wouldn't expect them to is some kind of *thing* to be put on display?" or "why does it almost always work when you want to generate some buzz?" even in the case of Mass Effect where they didn't actually deliver on the content, but the very notion of an implied idea made it such a big deal?
now, part of the reason I don't really partake in forums is what's starting to happen here: semantics about something off-topic. I'm done talking about 'is will and grace good'. that's the last you'll hear about it from me. I don't care for it, myself and it doesn't matter that I don't. It also doesn't matter if you do, or if for whatever reason you think I should adopt your opinion. There's nothing that I could say to you that would change your mind, and there's nothing you could say to me to do the same. from here on out, that particular topic is an exercise in futility.
I've ventured off on this tangent as far as I'm willing to go. If you want to continue to speculate about how successful some lame NBC sticom was in it's heyday, feel free, but you'll be doing it by yourself.
Back to talking about the PATV video, if you please.
dizavin on
0
Dark Raven XLaugh hard, run fast,be kindRegistered Userregular
In defence of Cap'n Jack, he's omnisexual, not gay. He'll fuck anything. And he's much less of a walking hard on in the spin off Torchwood. Unfortunately, the rest of that show is balls, so I can't recommend it. But it does at least redeem his character a little; making him a guy who sometimes sleeps with guys rather than LOOK AT THE GAY MAN BEING GAY, and he became a whole hell of a lot more bearable for it.
The weird forced gay characters have disappeared since the new head writer took over. The new thing is introducing a character, showing them to be well rounded, then slipping in a lil' "also they're gay" somewhere.
I'm simply pointing out that it's absurd to look for "normal" portrayals of people in entertainment because normal people are boring.
0
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
edited March 2012
It's one of the things I've always loved about Mass Effect... that by the nature of character creation, you are NEVER defined by your gender, race, or sexual preferences. It is a little sad that they didn't open up gay sex for ME1 (and the lines for it were even recorded, so I have no idea why they didn't just go for it).
But as for the sex scenes being non-explicit, they've been that way since about ME2. I guess they were afraid of controversy? Anyway, Jerry and Mike can at least rest at ease that all of my Garrus sex scenes were just as distant and unrevealing as the gay sex was.
Cambiata on
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
0
dizavinVancouver, British ColumbiaRegistered Userregular
In defence of Cap'n Jack, he's omnisexual, not gay. He'll fuck anything. And he's much less of a walking hard on in the spin off Torchwood. Unfortunately, the rest of that show is balls, so I can't recommend it. But it does at least redeem his character a little; making him a guy who sometimes sleeps with guys rather than LOOK AT THE GAY MAN BEING GAY, and he became a whole hell of a lot more bearable for it.
The weird forced gay characters have disappeared since the new head writer took over. The new thing is introducing a character, showing them to be well rounded, then slipping in a lil' "also they're gay" somewhere.
Well that's the thing, right? why does it matter?
In everyday life, most people don't really think twice about this kinda thing. IE: you hire a new guy at work. he happens to be gay and the break room is met with a resounding "meh". It's not a big deal for most people in the real world, but once you introduce the idea into the culture of creative work, suddenly it becomes this huge hurdle where every last inch has to be examined with an electron microscope and the fretting stress of "what are people going to think about this?!" affects creators and publishers to their very core. When in reality everyone of those people involved in making this movie/game/show, from the writers to the actors to the girl who gets the coffee and the guy who answers the phone in the lobby to, eventually you and me whom buy the content, all already are pretty well versed in coping with this subject matter in our everyday lives. (or at least, you should be if you consider yourself a capable adult) This shouldn't be anything new to any of us and we all already know the mannerisms and interactions that would make sexuality a meaningful plot device because we experience it all the time.
"what's the hold-up?" I guess is my whole point, really.
dizavin on
0
dizavinVancouver, British ColumbiaRegistered Userregular
I'm simply pointing out that it's absurd to look for "normal" portrayals of people in entertainment because normal people are boring.
well if you have the ability to reduce your point down to a single, poignant sentence why didn't you do that two posts ago? If were you, that's what I would have led with and then elaborated if I had to. I mean, forgiving the fact that your point there is hopelessly wrong, but that's neither here nor there.
again, another reason to why I don't normally spend time on forums.
I have no intention of attacking you personally, but you seem determined to make this hostile and I don't really get why. I don't disagree with most of what you said, I was simply offering a different perspective on that one point.
I mean why does he keep using the word "gay" to describe Jerry, despite knowing that he's also attracted to women?
Because Jerry isn't attracted to men. That's the whole thing. (He's just attracted to videos of men having sex.)
I think you may have misunderstood what Jerry was talking about. He said that he is sexually aroused by videos of men having sex, as well as videos of women having sex. So clearly he is bisexual.
But why is everyone making such a big deal about this? In many cultures (ancient Greece for example) bisexuality is/was much more common.
And, in our closest cousin species (chimps and bonobos), bisexuality is actually the norm for both the sexes.
I'm fairly certain that the (current) western cultures are repressing this part of men's natural psychology. I bet that at least 20% of men are bisexual in their genetic makeup, but they just repress those thoughts and feelings REALLY HARD (forgive the pun).
And with keeping that kind of personal experience in mind, I have to ask myself: "why is it that alternative sexualities in media are always either treated as either laughable stereotypes whom can only ever bring gay jokes to the table, avoided all together, or essentially made freakshow exhibits where the fact they hump people you wouldn't expect them to is some kind of *thing* to be put on display?" or "why does it almost always work when you want to generate some buzz?" even in the case of Mass Effect where they didn't actually deliver on the content, but the very notion of an implied idea made it such a big deal?
I think you're overgeneralizing.. There is a penchant for over-flamboy-ifying gay characters in sitcoms, but the trend exists across all spectrums of diversity. Would Big Bang Theory be as popular as it was if they were socially adequate well adjusted people that just happen to be rocket scientists? Probably not. That's where the theater aspect of it all comes in. Since the dawn of theater they've blown up individual characteristics of someone and made that their role in the play.
Comics have done a pretty decent job of it for instance. If I remember right Colossus from Ultimate X-Men was pretty well done.
Dumbledore was another one where Rowlins just said "Oh, by the way, he's gay" and most normal well adjusted people just said "Yeah, that makes sense" and moved on. It was only ever important to his character development as far as his back story goes, so it was a non-issue.
I've never seen Brokeback Mountain, but from what I hear they are both relatively well adjusted...
I'm not going to claim to be an expert psychologist but I think what sexuality Jerry thinks he is is about a million times more important than what sexuality we think he is.
0
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
I don't think I'd agree that what porn you're aroused by defines your sexuality. I'm a girl who's aroused by male-on-male porn, I don't think that somehow makes me a gay man.
And as has been stated, it's up to Jerry to decide where his proclivities lie, not anyone else.
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
I'm a girl who's aroused by male-on-male porn, I don't think that somehow makes me a gay man.
Mike is aroused by girl-on-girl porn, and that doesn't make him a lesbian. These analogies don't really work because the standard definition of homosexuality is whether or not you are attracted to people of your own gender. If someone wants to believe that sexuality is a continuum and a man thinking "these guys having sex are hot" can still be straight most of the time that's fine (by which I mean it makes logical sense to me, I'm not trying to be the arbiter of sexual behavior) but those thoughts themselves are inherently not heterosexual.
I think an important distinction to make here is between what we like to do, and what we like to watch; as well as the implicit sentiment of Jerry's statement that would probably read something like, "It's all alright. It's just people being people."
Thelonious Mock on
0
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
I'm a girl who's aroused by male-on-male porn, I don't think that somehow makes me a gay man.
Mike is aroused by girl-on-girl porn, and that doesn't make him a lesbian. These analogies don't really work because the standard definition of homosexuality is whether or not you are attracted to people of your own gender. If someone wants to believe that sexuality is a continuum and a man thinking "these guys having sex are hot" can still be straight most of the time that's fine (by which I mean it makes logical sense to me, I'm not trying to be the arbiter of sexual behavior) but those thoughts themselves are inherently not heterosexual.
Well. Here's the thing.
The first dude I ever had sex with was super interested in what kind of porn I masturbated to, and I told him. And from that he always assumed that if I masturbated to something, then that means I wanted to have it happen to me. I never understood this attitude, and I never will. The fact is when he tried to introduce some of that stuff into our bed , most of the time I didn't like it. I don't know how much specifics it would be OK to get into here, so I won't.
When I watch porn, most of the time it's as a voyeur. I like to watch it, not because I want that done to me, but because of the idea (real or not) that the person in the video is enjoying it. Seeing or hearing someone get off is erotic, by itself, whoever they are.
Cambiata on
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
I'm a girl who's aroused by male-on-male porn, I don't think that somehow makes me a gay man.
Mike is aroused by girl-on-girl porn, and that doesn't make him a lesbian. These analogies don't really work because the standard definition of homosexuality is whether or not you are attracted to people of your own gender. If someone wants to believe that sexuality is a continuum and a man thinking "these guys having sex are hot" can still be straight most of the time that's fine (by which I mean it makes logical sense to me, I'm not trying to be the arbiter of sexual behavior) but those thoughts themselves are inherently not heterosexual.
Well. Here's the thing.
The first dude I ever had sex with was super interested in what kind of porn I masturbated to, and I told him. And from that he always assumed that if I masturbated to something, then that means I wanted to have it happen to me. I never understood this attitude, and I never will. The fact is when he tried to introduce some of that stuff into our bed , most of the time I didn't like it. I don't know how much specifics it would be OK to get into here, so I won't.
When I watch porn, most of the time it's as a voueur. I like to watch it, not because I want that done to me, but because of the idea (real or not) that the person in the video is enjoying it. Seeing or hearing someone get off is erotic, by itself, whoever they are.
I hadn't initially thought of it that way, but I totally see that point of view.
For me, porn tends to be something that sparks my imagination, so I will think 'hey I'd like to try that!'--the whole P.O.V. genre in particular is about imagining yourself in an ideal situation, whatever that situation may be. That's my shit right there :P. But, at risk of opening another can of worms, I have dated girls who get off on the idea of a forced sexual encounter but I know for a fact would never want the actual thing to happen.
I'd only thought of that fantasy/reality disconnect in relation to activities, rather than participants. But I can see how someone with a different mindset could feel that disconnect for the latter.
I think what Jerry was saying is that even though he isn't bisexual, two men having sex is still the act of sex, which is inherently arousing. I would bet money that just looking at an attractive dude does nothing for him. It's the sex, not the men. Understand I'm not saying this because I can't believe my hero is bi; I just don't think he identifies himself that way.
0
J4RMZRecovering MisanthropeSan DiegoRegistered Usernew member
"And so shines a good deed in a weary world." Thought I noticed a couple tissue boxes by the desk.
0
Akahane OhThe Frigid NorthlandsRegistered Usernew member
edited March 2012
I saw a video of slugs having sex once and thought that was pretty hot. I don't put slugs in my vagina though.
Mike's lost-little-boy face came out a few times in this episode. I thought it was adorable and feel kinda bad for laughing.
Posts
I really don't think so, that was some of the realest shit I've seen on camera.
Also its funny how they seem to need to go the the mutual ground of thinking fucking Garrus is gross.
If the president had any real power, he'd be able to live wherever the fuck he wanted.
if there's anything i've learned from forumers here, it's that gender identities definitely are on a continuum, rather than hard and fast static categories. even though a person is straight, they might find that same sex porn/depictions "do it for them".
this was a really awesome 4th panel
steam | Dokkan: 868846562
I mean why does he keep using the word "gay" to describe Jerry, despite knowing that he's also attracted to women?
Because he does. He works with them daily. He's even in this video.
As did I. And I never get involved with message boards.
In fact, this discussion had me thinking for a little bit about sex in games as well popular culture. And in doing so it kind of occurred to me: that unless a person is straight, a character in a game/tvshow/movie is often *defined* by their sexual orientation, instead of what mannerisms they have as a person. What they're into, what things they enjoy (rimshot!) and what things define them as a person always seem to resolve down to the fact that they like humping the same sex.
Take Doctor Who for example, this is a show that's highly spoken of in the nerdisphere and yet when they introduce a pansexual character (read: bisexual), that character, Captain Jack, despite being as "cutting edge" or "forward thinking" as the great BBC insists it's being by doing so, is simply portrayed as little more than a walking hard-on who's sexuality is the only really defining characteristic, if not the *only* characteristic his writing team has to bring to the table about this guy. This could just be for sensationalistic reasons (and since it's an english show, almost certainly is), but that would only cheapen the whole endeavour if it were to be confirmed as true.
This extends out to mainstream types of media as well. Would "will & grace" be so popular if the one gay character wasn't such a walking stereotype? what if he was just a normal, everyday guy who was into everyday guy stuff, whom simply also liked to bone dudes? would anyone give a crap about that show, then? or would the crowd whom gave a crap be the same crowd? for the same reasons?
I guess this comes down to the fact that I had a roommate who was like that whom I'm fortunate enough to still be friends with. He's as gay as the day is long, but at the same time, he's probably the most "manly" guy I know. He's into martial arts, technology, went to a trade school... shit, he works as a goddamn mechanic for fucks sake. Seeing him in all these macho roles while I was the musician and science nerd that was into girls kind of took my naive understanding of gender, sexuality and their implied roles at the time and spun it on it's head. I had to wrestle my own understanding of what sexuality meant down to the mat after meeting this guy and, after I managed that, discovered that the small scope of "if they're not straight like me, I don't get it or even think about it" was in fact, small. embarrassingly small. Ignorant, I believe the word is. It made me realize that it is in fact possible to understand *why* someone is into something that you fundamentally aren't and be able to understand *what* it is that they like about it, even if you don't like it, yourself.
And with keeping that kind of personal experience in mind, I have to ask myself: "why is it that alternative sexualities in media are always either treated as either laughable stereotypes whom can only ever bring gay jokes to the table, avoided all together, or essentially made freakshow exhibits where the fact they hump people you wouldn't expect them to is some kind of *thing* to be put on display?" or "why does it almost always work when you want to generate some buzz?" even in the case of Mass Effect where they didn't actually deliver on the content, but the very notion of an implied idea made it such a big deal?
I mean, I guess it's better than not even having these elements of our society be represented in our culture, but it's not "better" as I would expect it, personally.
Will & Grace isn't much of a comedy as it is.
But the more concerning thing is that somewhere along the way, a huge chunk of society decided that stories about everyday people with topics that impact their real lives in real ways that occur in real life and cause us to think about real topics in the here & now, somehow aren't worth telling and we'd be better off filtering our tales to involve what might as well be cartoon characters and their adventures through subject matter that either nobody ever experiences or is so mundane that nobody really cares. Or at least won't get offended by.
Is that really better? I'd argue no.
and I refer you to the last point of my first post:
now, part of the reason I don't really partake in forums is what's starting to happen here: semantics about something off-topic. I'm done talking about 'is will and grace good'. that's the last you'll hear about it from me. I don't care for it, myself and it doesn't matter that I don't. It also doesn't matter if you do, or if for whatever reason you think I should adopt your opinion. There's nothing that I could say to you that would change your mind, and there's nothing you could say to me to do the same. from here on out, that particular topic is an exercise in futility.
I've ventured off on this tangent as far as I'm willing to go. If you want to continue to speculate about how successful some lame NBC sticom was in it's heyday, feel free, but you'll be doing it by yourself.
Back to talking about the PATV video, if you please.
The weird forced gay characters have disappeared since the new head writer took over. The new thing is introducing a character, showing them to be well rounded, then slipping in a lil' "also they're gay" somewhere.
But as for the sex scenes being non-explicit, they've been that way since about ME2. I guess they were afraid of controversy? Anyway, Jerry and Mike can at least rest at ease that all of my Garrus sex scenes were just as distant and unrevealing as the gay sex was.
Well that's the thing, right? why does it matter?
In everyday life, most people don't really think twice about this kinda thing. IE: you hire a new guy at work. he happens to be gay and the break room is met with a resounding "meh". It's not a big deal for most people in the real world, but once you introduce the idea into the culture of creative work, suddenly it becomes this huge hurdle where every last inch has to be examined with an electron microscope and the fretting stress of "what are people going to think about this?!" affects creators and publishers to their very core. When in reality everyone of those people involved in making this movie/game/show, from the writers to the actors to the girl who gets the coffee and the guy who answers the phone in the lobby to, eventually you and me whom buy the content, all already are pretty well versed in coping with this subject matter in our everyday lives. (or at least, you should be if you consider yourself a capable adult) This shouldn't be anything new to any of us and we all already know the mannerisms and interactions that would make sexuality a meaningful plot device because we experience it all the time.
"what's the hold-up?" I guess is my whole point, really.
well if you have the ability to reduce your point down to a single, poignant sentence why didn't you do that two posts ago? If were you, that's what I would have led with and then elaborated if I had to. I mean, forgiving the fact that your point there is hopelessly wrong, but that's neither here nor there.
again, another reason to why I don't normally spend time on forums.
I think you may have misunderstood what Jerry was talking about. He said that he is sexually aroused by videos of men having sex, as well as videos of women having sex. So clearly he is bisexual.
But why is everyone making such a big deal about this? In many cultures (ancient Greece for example) bisexuality is/was much more common.
And, in our closest cousin species (chimps and bonobos), bisexuality is actually the norm for both the sexes.
I'm fairly certain that the (current) western cultures are repressing this part of men's natural psychology. I bet that at least 20% of men are bisexual in their genetic makeup, but they just repress those thoughts and feelings REALLY HARD (forgive the pun).
I think you're overgeneralizing.. There is a penchant for over-flamboy-ifying gay characters in sitcoms, but the trend exists across all spectrums of diversity. Would Big Bang Theory be as popular as it was if they were socially adequate well adjusted people that just happen to be rocket scientists? Probably not. That's where the theater aspect of it all comes in. Since the dawn of theater they've blown up individual characteristics of someone and made that their role in the play.
Comics have done a pretty decent job of it for instance. If I remember right Colossus from Ultimate X-Men was pretty well done.
Dumbledore was another one where Rowlins just said "Oh, by the way, he's gay" and most normal well adjusted people just said "Yeah, that makes sense" and moved on. It was only ever important to his character development as far as his back story goes, so it was a non-issue.
I've never seen Brokeback Mountain, but from what I hear they are both relatively well adjusted...
And as has been stated, it's up to Jerry to decide where his proclivities lie, not anyone else.
Mike is aroused by girl-on-girl porn, and that doesn't make him a lesbian. These analogies don't really work because the standard definition of homosexuality is whether or not you are attracted to people of your own gender. If someone wants to believe that sexuality is a continuum and a man thinking "these guys having sex are hot" can still be straight most of the time that's fine (by which I mean it makes logical sense to me, I'm not trying to be the arbiter of sexual behavior) but those thoughts themselves are inherently not heterosexual.
Well. Here's the thing.
The first dude I ever had sex with was super interested in what kind of porn I masturbated to, and I told him. And from that he always assumed that if I masturbated to something, then that means I wanted to have it happen to me. I never understood this attitude, and I never will. The fact is when he tried to introduce some of that stuff into our bed , most of the time I didn't like it. I don't know how much specifics it would be OK to get into here, so I won't.
When I watch porn, most of the time it's as a voyeur. I like to watch it, not because I want that done to me, but because of the idea (real or not) that the person in the video is enjoying it. Seeing or hearing someone get off is erotic, by itself, whoever they are.
I hadn't initially thought of it that way, but I totally see that point of view.
For me, porn tends to be something that sparks my imagination, so I will think 'hey I'd like to try that!'--the whole P.O.V. genre in particular is about imagining yourself in an ideal situation, whatever that situation may be. That's my shit right there :P. But, at risk of opening another can of worms, I have dated girls who get off on the idea of a forced sexual encounter but I know for a fact would never want the actual thing to happen.
I'd only thought of that fantasy/reality disconnect in relation to activities, rather than participants. But I can see how someone with a different mindset could feel that disconnect for the latter.
Mike's lost-little-boy face came out a few times in this episode. I thought it was adorable and feel kinda bad for laughing.