Men's sexual attraction to men (with a bit about homophobia)

I've just read the following post, about gay-identified men who put up ads seeking out sex with straight-identified men. Nothing surprising there, in light of what's known about internalised homophobia and gay men's frequent preference for "straight-acting" men. What did catch my eye was some comments by the men who responded to these ads:

As one respondent said, “A man having sex with a woman is more emotionally based. There is more conversation and romance. You at least try to pick up on her and flirt and romance. It is more of a relationship when it comes to sex.” A man having sex with man, however, is purely for sexual gratification, he explained. “Everything happens so fast. There is not much talking. Most of the time you don’t even know their name. There are no feelings involved. They only give you the gratification that a woman can’t.”

Another respondent echoed that sentiment: “I also feel that a man can sexually gratify me in a way a woman never can. If a woman could — I wouldn’t have sex with a man. So having sex with a man is strictly for pleasure.”

However, that pleasure is often restricted to the role of sexual aggressor. Studies have found that among non-gay identified men who have sex with men, it is more common to receive oral sex and perform anal sex. As this latest study put it, “This preference for insertive behaviors may not only contribute to the perception that these men are more masculine and dominant but may also serve to preserve their own self-image as masculine and heterosexual.” 

Maybe I'm failing to imaginatively project beyond my own sexuality, but how pleasurable is sex, really, with someone to who you aren't physically attracted? Are these men just closing their eyes and imagining the body of the person they're with is other than as it is? What really struck me was the phrase "strictly for pleasure", which put me in mind of this post (especially relevant part emphasised):

Chris Hallquist commented:

"I remember hearing once on Dan Savage’s podcast that he gets letters from gay men who grew up in very conservative parts of the country, who didn’t know that being straight was a thing. They assumed all men were attracted to men, but just hid it."

Martin responded:

"Dr. Paul Cameron, founder of the anti-gay Family Research Institute, is quoted as saying: “If all you want is the most satisfying orgasm you can get – and that is what homosexuality seems to be – then homosexuality seems too powerful to resist… It’s pure sexuality. It’s almost like pure heroin. It’s such a rush...."

So imagine that you’re one of those people Dan Savage was talking about – a closeted gay guy who doesn’t realize he’s a closeted gay guy. He just thinks – reasonably, given his own experience! -that the natural state of the human male is to be attracted to other men, but that men grudgingly have sex with and marry women anyway because society tells them they have to.

In that case, exactly the anti-gay position conservatives push makes perfect sense for exactly reasons they say it makes sense.

Allowing gay marriage would destroy straight marriage? Yes! If everyone’s secretly gay, then as soon as gay marriage is allowed, they will breath a sigh of relief and stop marrying opposite-sex partners whom they were never very attracted to anyway.

Gay people are depraved and licentious? Yes! Everyone else is virtuously resisting all of these unbearable homosexual impulses, and gay people are the ones who give in, who can’t resist grabbing the marshmallow as soon as it is presented to them.

Teaching children about homosexuality will turn them gay? Yes! The only thing preventing them all from being gay already is the social stigma against it. Teaching them in school that homosexuality is okay and shouldn’t be stigmatized cuts the last thin thread connecting them to straightness.

While I like the basic idea in the quote above, as a bit of political theorising, it  possibly oversimplifies things. Specifically, it fails to distinguish between sexual and romantic orientation. These are, I gather, usually aligned - e.g. someone who is primarily sexually attracted to men will also be primarily interested in forming romantic relationships with men. But they can also diverge. Paul Cameron, who makes the quote about heroin above, sounds like he's homosexual, but that is not to say he's homoromantic. The same perhaps goes for the respondents to the ads quoted above. If a man prefers sex with another man to, say, staying at home and masturbating, the fact that he experiences no romantic attachment to men shouldn't preclude his being characterised as homo- or bisexual. Or is there more to this?