Sometime ago during a Truth or Dare night with some friends I got dared to do a girl-girl kiss. We did it. But in talking, NONE of the guys said they would have done a guy-guy kiss ever.
Do you think girl-girl and guy-guy kissing equates to the same thing? Or not, and if so, why not?
Tracey Troll-Bane
Favorite Answer
I see no difference, and I don't think women are any more prone to be bisexual than men. Currently mores are just more willing to accept it. Man and man experimentation happens just as often...except it happens behind closed doors, not on the dance floor of a nightclub.
Anonymous
I say it's better. The girls I've kissed, were way better than the guys. They know exactly what turns a girl on. Like, the last girl I kissed was about the cutest kisser ever. She would play with my hair, kiss my nose, bite my lip, cute things like that. We were in the movies, laughing and kissing at the same time. Just don't be awkward, or afraid to do anything. It makes it more fun. For me, it's just more awkward with a guy. It's like, girls and girls connect better than girls and guys. That's why I think girl/girl kissing is better.
Hoo Ha!
Umm rastagrappler, you are straight so you will obvious find women sexier. Just being friends doesn't mean you aren't homophobic, that could just mean you are politically correct or trying to be. But anywhoo, prettiness does not make having sex any easier. You are confusing attractive to sexually attractive, good looking and good looking in the sexual way. They are two different things.
You might be surprised with how beautiful gay men find women. Hell some gay men say other women are sexy or hot, yet they are just as repelled with having sex with a woman as a straight man is towards another man. Certainly gay men should naturally be attracted and it should be normal too right? Think of it this way. You have a cousin or family member (woman) that is very pretty, beautiful. You are probably think, well duh, that;s family. But while that is obvious, the reason I point this out is showing the difference between attractive and sexually attractive. You see by the family example, you can find one pretty, yet repulsive with the thought in the sexual attractive sense?
The reason is because for other examples, you can find a person very beautifulm but be just as repulsed by the thought of sex with someone regardless, thereforem attractive in one sense, yet not attracitve in the other sense. It doesn't matter how pretty one is, you have to be born or have some sexual attraction. Beatufy doesn;'t make it easier to do something sexual. Because no matter how pretty, if not sexually attracted, a person will be repelled or not interested in sex with that person or sex. Whereas anotehr person might not be anything special, but the though of having sex not being repelled or there being interested, because of naturally have a sexual attraction to a person or sex.
You have to be sexually attracted first, then the beauty difference is what can make the difference in provoking one's sexual interest to one person compared to another. Withouth out the born, or latent sexual attraction, it wouldn;t matter how beatiful a person is or wouldn;t make it any easier. Beauty only makes a difference with it being easier to have sex with the same sex if there is sexual attraction there to begin with.
Anonymous
There's no difference, just guys get made fun of more, and harsher about a guy-guy kiss
Anonymous
Are you being serious or is this a trolling question. It's definitely not the same - society sees girl-girl kissing as much more acceptable and advertising and the media seem to encourage it. It's hip and fashionable. If a guy kissed another guy on tv, they'd pretty much be finished.
Alex