In ancient Rome it was the mark of a real man to have sex with anyone in his household he cared to. Male or female. As dominus the only thing that would have been remarked upon would have been if he allowed himself to be the passive partner.
When people talked about Julius Caesar and the rumours he played the passive part in some homosexual trysts the excuse made for him was that he so overflowing in the manly virtues, being such an adept warrior, that he could indulge without endangering his status as a man.
It was the perceived loss of control that made one effeminate. Linguistically passion was related to passive. A man whose emotions led him, be those emotions lustful or otherwise, was considered to have been bested. If a man were a glutton or indulged himself in other sensual pursuits he similarly was seen to be more effeminate.
The idea of romantic love is quite a late development. In previous centuries when a man sang the praises of a woman he concentrated more on her physical attributes.
There has been a considerable social evolution of the expression of sexual desire over the millienia.
The social construction of male sexuality in ancient Rome was such that it encouraged the development of a personality who saw himself as a dominator, one who took what was in his power to take. So it is overly simplistic to talk of male sexuality as if it exists outside of a social context and it is actually anachronistic to talk of romantic love before a few centuries ago. Male sexuality =/= romantic love historically.

"How women couldn't "like sex" as much as men, else there would be heterosexual cruising areas on Hampstead Heath."
Obviously you are neglecting the whole subject of dogging.
On the subject of public toilets I think the entrance of a woman into male toilets, or vice versa, would be remarked upon. Not easy to have surrepticious sex there.
As someone whose comments are mostly quite thoughtful I am surprised that you put forward peoples impressions about gay sexuality as if it were some datum.
Would this be like the common impression people had for decades and many still cling to that gay men are a greater danger to young boys?

How is being gay either a sect, an ethnicity or a religious slant?
Silly me. There I go looking for a rational argument again.

I too have been tormented and victimised by strong thoughts of supernatural beings.

In my case it's Hugh Jackman, playing Wolverine in X-Men, stripped to the waist, muscles glistening with oil.