There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Married Men - A Gay Lads View - Have you ever had an experience?
Comments
-
Tax the issue is that you’re viewing these concepts entirely from the perspective of the individual, as opposed to the way they are commonly understood - not by definitions found in dictionaries.
Understanding of any concept relies on reason, not definition. Consensus is far more helpful in understanding than individuals interpretations, ie - if someone claims that they are straight, while their behaviour suggests otherwise, they’re lying to themselves, and they’re trying to convince the person they’re making the claim to, knowingly attempting to undermine their understanding of these concepts.
That’s why it’s insidious. I don’t see any of these mens wives that the OP refers to as agreeing with their husbands claims that they are straight. That’s projecting on my part of course, but it’s not an unreasonable assumption in the context of wider Western society, which is putting concepts like sexual orientation in their proper context.
0 -
But we do have examples of gay men in longterm sexual relationships with women?
0 -
Ok guys.
Very long windy arguments.
@Tax.. Define bisexual. On that single point hinges all argument.
I understand your arguments and accept them to be true *as far as dictionary definitions go, however in the real world Wibbs is correct because whomever wrote and edited those dictionary definitions seems to have cared only about mathematical logic and not at all about the reality of sex and human relationships (which in fairness to them they probably hadn't a lot of experience of)
You seem to care more about linguistical gymnastics combined with this mathematical logic and the dictionary definitions of dead people, than actual real world experience, which is at odds with your self professed broad experience.
I've been here about as long as yourself and have great respect for you as a genuine honest poster, but sometimes we all have to admit that we took the wrong side and rather than doubling down, - accept that we are human and fallible.
“The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command”
5 -
Contrary to what you write - I frequently acknowledge and refer to how the words are "commonly understood". Taken great pains to say again - and again and again - that I am perfectly cognizant of how the terms are "commonly understood". And that this is perfectly fine!
All I have said is when you look - and for some reason it has wound many people up - the terms are defined in a slightly broader way than "commonly understood".
I found this interesting - and surprising - and yes even amusing.
Under those definitions - it is linguistically valid to define someone (or oneself) - based on enduring and typical patterns - rather than single isolated exceptions.
Which means that 99.9% of the time the words still remain as people "commonly understand". But allow for slightly more than that too. Such as people who have isolated and entirely atypical exceptions in their life or - which I find more interesting - people who's sexual orientation changes later in their life.
Exactly! Which is why some of the definitions and wiki articles explicitly acknowledge the difference between "sexual orientation" and "sexual behavior". Because the two can at times not be the same.
Your example is a very good one of where that is the case.
The definitions are clear therefore - that such a gay person can absolutely be and identify as gay. The fact they are in a heterosexual relationship does not in and of itself mean they are heterosexual or even bisexual.
Put another way - your sexual orientation is seemingly defined by who your attractions and desires are orientated towards - not who you actually have sex with.
I am not going to define Bisexual. My definitions are my own - irrelevant and boring. Until I read the dictionaries I had - like many people - not really thought about it that deeply in fact! My definitions would have been pretty much close to Wibbs, Dunne and others here.
I am just telling people on this thread what the dictionaries and articles I found define these things as - and discussing how interesting and thought provoking those definitions are given how subtly different they are to how many people might have thought.
To answer your question explicitly therefore:
The text I have cited refer to typical and enduring behaviors. So my understanding of their understanding of bisexuality would be that it would be typical or common or enduring over a time period that this person be attracted to both men and women.
To say the exact same thing but in reverse - the text seems to be saying that a bisexual is not someone who is typically only attracted to one gender but somewhere sometime found a single exception in the other gender and fell for them. But has never been attracted to a single other person of that gender before this time - during this time - or since this time.
It seems most people - on the thread at least - would want to call that person a bisexual. Which is fine. No one here - certainly not me - is telling them otherwise I think.
What I am telling them is that if that person identifies as heterosexual then it is linguistically valid for them to do so given the definitions in play. And I very much do know two people very well in fact who fit this example exactly.
Sorry I only realized you were replying to me just now.
But yes - if you look into the literature on sexual abuse of children - and the literature on treating and rehabilitating perpetrators of such abuse - it is very much acknowledged there that much sexual abuse of children is perpetrated by people who are not actually pedophiles. They detail other motivations and causal factors which can lead a person to sexually abuse a child despite not being a pedophile.
Which is important to treat and rehabilitate such a person. If we make wrong assumptions about what is actually wrong with a person - then rehabilitation of that person is likely to fail. To use an analogy to disease - many diseases can present with exactly the same symptoms. If you treat the symptom and not the disease (like giving an antibiotic to a person who actually has a virus) you will likely fail. You must find out what the disease/problem actually is and treat that.
So yes sexual attraction and behavior are quite distinct things. In the context of this thread this is interesting I think. In the context of something like sexual abuse however - it goes form being interesting to being of monumental and critical importance. Thankfully the literature does not conflate behavior and orientation in the same way the average joe like yourself or myself might.
0 -
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,174 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 59102
Very long windy arguments.
True words them. On the subjective level call yourself what you like, but it's making things far more complex than they actually are. Or need to be. If by choice and desire you've only had same sex experiences and have zero interest in opposite sex experiences you're Gay*. If by choice and desire you've only had opposite sex experiences and have zero interest in same sex experiences you're Straight. If by choice and desire you've had both same and opposite sex experiences you're Bi. Covers all bases without going down ever deeper rabbit holes and is actually descriptive.
My biggest takeaway from this thread has been resistance to the Bi label. I suppose I would have some 'bias' here from experience with an ex, who before, during and after our decidely hetero relationship without a flicker of awareness of the cognitive dissonance involved claimed she was Lesbian. Any suggestion that she was Bi was met with strong resistance so I left that hot potato alone after the first time it came up.
*
We do, but that's more to do with societal, familial and cultural expectations than sexuality in many cases. Gay men and women trying to 'pass' as Straight in a heterosexual society. This was far more common in the past when things were way worse for those who weren't Straight. Again by choice and desire in a 'perfect world' how many of those Gay men and women would be in such relationships? If they would be, then they're Bi.
Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
3 -
But I mean it messes up you trying to say that this could not be:
"So in essence, what I identify as is correct, even if I'm in a long term sexual relationship with a woman I can quite comfortably self describe myself as Gay"
We agree that someone could be a gay man in a longterm sexual relationship with a woman.
0 -
I have seen - but experience myself no - resistance to the bi label too.
A lot of the time it is because of negative - or fear of negative - reactions to it. Even on this thread bi sexuals note the judgements and comments and even out right hatred they get for being bi.
Which is very very sad to hear.
But I think people also want words that describe themselves as accurately as possible to those in the world around them. They want to use a label that describes themselves as accurately as possible to the people they talk to. A label that will give the other person the most accurate possible picture of past and future behaviors and patterns. So that other person leaves the conversation with the best possible picture of their future actions and feelings and character.
So if someone is in a relationship with someone of the same sex - has never been interested in that sex before during or since - simply this one individual exception - I can absolutely understand their identifying and wanting to be identifies as heterosexual. And the dictionary allows for that. And it is not because they are resisting the bisexual label. It is simply because they know that someone who has that label for them in their head - has a less than accurate representation of them in their head.
But for those people who are bisexual but resist the label or are scared of the label of have suffered because of that label - that is an entirely different set of human experiences and motivations and I genuinely feel for them.
1 -
My definitions are my own - irrelevant and boring.
That’s exactly where I’m coming from, and it’s not that your definitions are your own and linguistically valid and all the rest of it, but that sexual orientation as a concept, must exist independently of individual linguistically valid self-definitions, in order to be of any utility for the purposes for which it is intended - not as any sort of a gotcha or attempt to undermine peoples perceptions, but simply as an observation and categorisation of phenomena.
Individuals referring to themselves as straight, while engaging in what would commonly be associated with or considered homosexual activity or relationships, are outliers, extreme outliers at that in the context of sexual orientation and sex and sexuality and relationships, in Western society.
So far outlier, that while they make for a legitimate study group for people who study human behaviour, psychology, sexuality and all that stuff, they’re not particularly interesting or worthy of note in and of themselves, if that makes sense?
Not gonna lie, it’s a difficult one to articulate 😂
0 -
My biggest takeaway from this thread…
My own biggest takeaway from this thread has been the accuracy of this metaphor -
Bushes bigger than the hurdles at Cheltenham…
Nailed it. So to speak 😁
0 -
Advertisement
-
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,174 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 59102
So if someone is in a relationship with someone of the same sex - has never been interested in that sex before during or since - simply this one individual exception - I can absolutely understand their identifying and wanting to be identifies as heterosexual. And the dictionary allows for that. And it is not because they are resisting the bisexual label. It is simply because they know that someone who has that label for them in their head - has a less than accurate representation of them in their head.
While they may prefer to identify as heterosexual it's still perfectly accurate to describe them as bisexual. The former is a personal subjective preference, the latter an impersonal subjective reality: they are capable of and choose to have both same and opposite sex relationships. Whether that be one or more than one. A Straight or Gay person couldn't/wouldn't.
Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
3 -
Have you tried counselling?...Ayahuasca?...
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.” — Voltaire
0 -
Certainly agree that sexuality as a concept and the words we happen to use to describe it should be treated individually and independently. I would say the same about most things. The words we use as humans can be beautiful and moving. But they too are clunky and imperfect. Our attempts to fit the full wealth of human experience into a few 100 words is always going to be far from perfect.
And yes the people we are using as examples here are indeed "outliers". Which is why the definitions as people "commonly understand" them are absolutely fine. 99% of the time they are going to work as people understand them. All I have done on this thread is point out that it is interesting to find out the dictionary and documents define those terms in a slightly more broad way than "commonly understood". And this fact is as interesting as it is surprising - and it makes one think about those outliers and exceptions more deeply.
I would be the last person in the world to go around shouting "You are all wrong - you got the words wrong - change your ways" or tell anyone that they are using the words wrong or their usage is "daft" or "waffle" or "ballsology" or like a "drunk". It takes a special kinda person to do that. All I have done or want to do is point out "Yeah it's great you use the words that way - but isn't interesting that the people using it in this way are also correct too - who knew? And you know what? That's ok too!". But I have found it interesting (and yes, despite it seemingly bothering you a bit, amusing) that that respect and acknowledgement is not returned in kind. One side essentially saying "Your usage is perfectly fine - but actually surprisingly so is this one" and the other side responding "No this usage is the only one that is right and everything you're saying is just daft drunken waffle".
And as I keep saying - if you want to call them bisexual that is fine with me. I have not said otherwise or faulted you for doing so.
All I keep saying is that if you read the definitions I cited - it is linguistically valid and coherent for that person (and as you know yourself I have two of those exact people as an example) to identify as heterosexual. You can call them both bisexual if you like - they would quitely inform you they identify as heterosexual and why - and then not care a single jot if you accept that and change politely - or continue on using your label regardless.
But I can imagine some people would care and for good reason. Because if you go around thinking of them as bisexual when they aren't or - maybe worse - going around telling others they are bisexual when they aren't - then people are going to get inaccurate pictures of their reality their motivations their internal incentives and their personal identity of self. And who wants that?
As I started this thread quoting a phrase I could repeat now. "Language should be descriptive not prescriptive". When we label ourselves to others we do so to give them the most accurate (but likely never perfect) overall picture of what makes us us - what are motivations are likely to be - what are future actions and choices are likely to be. And if we label someone as bisexual who actually isn't - but we feel some single exception demands they be - then we do the opposite of that. Many people want to be treated and responded to in line with who they believe themselves to be - and labels can play a big part of that.
As you point out that can be taken too far when nut jobs start self identifying as all kinds of things without care at all for what the dictionary definitions of the words actually are. They make up their own meanings for words on a whim. I do not think our world needs that and you will never find me defending it! But when the dictionary definitions that already exist actually allow them to identify in a way that we might not expect but is linguistically coherent valid all the same - then that is certainly not the same thing as those nut jobs.
Further to all of that however so we think that sexual orientation is fixed for every person for their entire life? Or do we think it is possible to be one orientation early in life and change later in life for example? Again the definitions I cited allow for that. Are there are some who have definitions that do not allow for that? Would we really want to be saying "You feel heterosexual now but 20 years ago you were in a long term series of short and long term homosexual relationships? Well sorry person you are bisexual whether you like it or not. I do not care that you have not felt attraction to the same gender for 20 years now - and you identify as heterosexual now - you're still bisexual given your history". Is that what some want to say? Are definitions that allow for change over time superior to those that are rigid and fixed in stone?
There are all the kind of questions that finding and being surprised by these definitions put into my head. Amazing how realizing a couple of small words are defined slightly more broadly than I thought they were - can lead to a cascade of thinking on various questions and issues. Language is above anything else a beautiful and powerful thing.
0 -
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,174 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 59102
"Language should be descriptive not prescriptive" Indeed and claiming to be Straight while choosing and enjoying a same sex relationship, or claiming to be Gay while choosing and enjoing an opposite sex relationship is the very opposite of descriptive, to the point of contradiction. Like those men of the thread subject who claim they're Straight yet seek out Gay encounters, even relationships on the side. They're operating under a strong self delusion for whatever reasons best known to themselves.
Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
1 -
Some people need simple definitions to make sense of complex things. It makes them feel more in control.
But definitions are only useful if they group individuals in a meaningful way. In a way that is informative, or has legal or social consequences.
I can imagine a situation where a man who is attracted to women and fantasises about women exclusively meets one individual male who's personality attracts them and a sexual attraction for that individual male grows out of this but is still not attracted to or fantasises about any other male. Now I've never encountered this happening and don't know if it ever has. But I think this is a kind of situation Tax is referring to.
So by wibbs simple approach this person is bisexual. But is this informative at all?
If you told me they were bisexual before I knew the details of their situation I would assume they are like every other bi person i met. Pretty consistently interested in both men and women. I definitely would not be thinking they were totally interested in women apart from one individual man.
And if I was running a scientific experiment to gauge how often bi men fantasised about men and I decided the whole experimental group was this kind of man (which should cause no issues if these men are bisexual by definition) then I'd get some pretty funky results.
So I would say it's simplistic to dismiss the "persistent" aspect of Tax's definition.
But if this kind of "straight except for 1 same-sex person" sexuality even exists it seems to be vanishingly rare (I've certainly never encountered it) and the simplistic defintion applies in the vast majority of cases.
1 -
There’s a hell of a lot of wishful thinking behind some people’s ideas L. In a society in which heterosexual monogamous couple relationships are the norm, it’s neither unreasonable nor unusual that some walnuts will try their darnest to undermine that reality for their own ends.
0 -
Advertisement
-
I don't think a debate about whether simple definitions of sexualities apply to extreme niche cases has any impact whatsoever on heterosexual monogamous relationships.
1 -
Not for the want of trying at least!
0 -
This has nothing to do with my posts. Are you trying to get a dig in at another poster or something?
1 -
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,174 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 59102
Some people need simple definitions to make sense of complex things. It makes them feel more in control.
i have no idea where you imagine control comes into it.
So by wibbs simple approach this person is bisexual. But is this informative at all?
Yes, because they're capable of being sexually attracted to people of both genders, whether that be one or more. A heterosexual or homosexual individual wouldn't be. Bi is on a spectrum, Hetero and Homo aren't. I know one Bi person who would be 'classically' Bisexual in that they seem to be overall attracted to either sex, another who says they're Bi, but have many more Gay than Straight relationships and encounters. Again where does that definition stop? If someone has one out of four Straight encounters can they claim to be Gay, not Bi? Bi fits reality. Now how someone subjectively defines themselves is of no issue or concern for me and good luck to them, but it's an objective nonsense for someone to say claim to be heterosexual while being in a homosexual relationship or vice versa.
But if this kind of "straight except for 1 same-sex person" sexuality even exists it seems to be vanishingly rare (I've certainly never encountered it) and the simplistic defintion applies in the vast majority of cases.
Well I knew one, though going the other way. Though I don't want to get into specifics as I agree vanishingly rare in my experience too alright.
Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
0 -
It has everything to do with your earlier post?
Some people need simple definitions to make sense of complex things. It makes them feel more in control.
But definitions are only useful if they group individuals in a meaningful way. In a way that is informative, or has legal or social consequences.
I can imagine a situation where a man who is attracted to women and fantasises about women exclusively meets one individual male who's personality attracts them and a sexual attraction for that individual male grows out of this but is still not attracted to or fantasises about any other male.
That last part in particular, is the wishful thinking I was referring to - what you can imagine, some individuals do take that and try to make it reality, by imbuing commonly understood definitions with their own individual interpretation.
As I said - for their own ends.
There’s really nothing complex about simple concepts. I could just as easily make the point that some people need to complicate simple concepts because it makes them feel more in control.
0 -
Advertisement
-
i have no idea where you imagine control comes into it.
Maybe control is not the best word. Some people are uncomfortable when things do not fall neatly into boxes. So they decide on a box that person fits into to make themselves feel better.
Yes, because they're capable of being sexually attracted to people of both genders, whether that be one or more.
It's interesting that you so often have to bend the definition yourself to make your point. You had to indtroduce the concept of being "capable" of being attracted to both genders. I've never seen a definition that includes that. The definitions say it's people who ARE attracted to both genders.
In practice someone who is attracted to a gender will be attracted to multiple people of that gender presumably because members of that gender have something in common which appeals to them.
Whereas someone who is only interested in one individual of a certain gender would be hard to categorise as being attracted to that gender.
0 -
Firstly it's not wishful thinking. I don't wish for it. I said these people may or may not exist adnd I have never met one. Wibbs has said he has met one so I think that takes care of that.
How would an individual try and make it a reality? Can you give an example where someone has attempted to make this a reality.
You might be confused that people who are debating about definitions are trying to make something a reality. Definitions describe reality they do not create it.
1 -
I didn’t suggest it was wishful thinking on YOUR part? It’s why when you referred to “some people”, I also referred to “some people”. I’m now thinking you read far too much into what I said, in that you asked was what I said a dig at anyone else, and the answer is no - it wasn’t that either. It was an observation in the same vein as your own.
An individual would try and make it a reality if they were known to be gay and decided to convince people that being gay to them actually meant being straight. If that’s not the very definition of trying to complicate simple definitions, I don’t know what is.
I don’t need to complicate anything by pointing out that what is being described, is not reality. It’s fantasy, and the reason anyone does it is because they’re lying to themselves. I said already that such ideas are just ‘whatever’, when confined within the boundaries of their own headspace, but when they try to convince anyone else that being gay means being straight, well, I’m sure you can understand the difficulty with that sort of behaviour.
0 -
The basis of the whole thread was to ask if 'straight' men had an experience with another man that might be construed as being same sex tendency in nature.
Unfortuantely alas it has become a debate on the nature of labels...
3 -
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,174 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 59102
Maybe control is not the best word. Some people are uncomfortable when things do not fall neatly into boxes. So they decide on a box that person fits into to make themselves feel better.
I prefer definitions that make logical sense. Someone saying they're Gay while being happy out in a Straight sexual relationship does not make logical sense. Defining them as Bi quite simply does and has nada to do with making anyone feel better, myself included.
It's interesting that you so often have to bend the definition yourself to make your point. You had to indtroduce the concept of being "capable" of being attracted to both genders. I've never seen a definition that includes that. The definitions say it's people who ARE attracted to both genders.
Semantics. When studies have been done into arousal and bits and bobs were wired up to the machine that goes ping, guys who identified as Straight when showed erotic imagery the same machine went ping when they were looking at heteroerotic imagery. They got a rush of blood to the head as it were. They didn't react physiologically when looking at homoerotic imagery. The same responses only reflecting their orientation were seen in men who identified as Gay. Both were physiologically 'incapable' of being attracted to what wasn't their stated preferences. Women were more interesting in that they responded physiologically to erotic imagery in general, but again responded moreso to their stated preferences, though Gay women were more like men in that it was a stronger response. Sadly none of the research I've bumped into down the years had Bi people in the mix, but I'd be willing to bet their responses would be more towards both sexes.
Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
0 -
Are some of ye here paid by the word? 😆
This can be summed up with... 'some gay men shocked that men engaging in same sex activities not straight shocker!'
😆
3 -
A lot of the straight married lads (in the looser sense of the term) are not that hard to find. I log on and find them in minutes and used to make quite the habit of it. I got bitten years ago when an ex cheated on me and I learned what it was like to be in the wives shoes. Lets be frank here a lot of the straight lads or those whom proclaim to be dyed in the wool straight appear to be curious after a few drinks. Maybe the human sexuality itself is just an illusion and cultural constraints prevent us from having these wondeful dalliances that we denied ourselves so much over the years . Im reminded of the post above where the guy recalled the encounter.
He wrote
I’ve not sought a relationship with anyone but meself in the past year. As mentioned before here on Broadsheet, you can’t swing a cat on the gay scene for fear of hitting a married ‘straight’ man seeking a hook-up. Totality of all these experiences has lead me to form an opinion that most men, call it biological programming, are bi curious at minimum; insatiably lustful at max.
Three weeks ago, I trotted over to Alnwick, a small market town North of Newcastle in England. Linear streets floating with paved cobbled streets. A sight seeing weekend. Quietly, I sought out a little pub to have a couple of pints and read. The pub had a lovely barwoman from the Isle of Skye. In our conversation, she recommended this pub up a side street, a local’s local. Intrigue took me to it. A million and one conversations with the locals followed. Come closing time, I made two new friends, A and B. A is friendly and we chat, but what came to pass with B brought home the matter with which I raise.
Myself and my new compatriots hit the local club, imbibed on any number of Jager bombs. 4am creeps upon us. A announces his departure. Chubby and stocky B is left with me. Those of you in the real world who know me, I’ve a penchant for all men chubby and stocky. B invites me back to his house for a beer to which I duly oblige.
Spotify playlists blaring. His wife storms down the stairs, arguments ensuing raised voices. Off to bed in a strop, she storms off. I offer to head home but B asks me to stay. We sit on the sofa and B asks me if I’m ‘openly gay’. He then leans in and kisses me, a warm tongue…you know the rest. 6am, I wake up and I’m asleep on his lap, his arm around me stroking my beard, knowing full well between us our deed done unbeknownst to anyone but us.
Hungover I go to leave, B asks me to hang around and meet the family. Awkwardly making my excuses, I go back to sleep off the night’s enjoyment . B says his wife doesn’t ‘know’ and he has never done anything ‘gay’ before.
These experiences are all too common. All self-described straight men. Excuses proffered varying from no love life at home to a wanton need to experiment. For many, here and abroad, life is passing them ‘bi’.
Now how far has society come that we must see the shame in being a society where we need to put people into boxes. It doesnt really wash well with most of us. Kinsey did have the right idea when he said that sex was a sliding scale. Im not here to emasculate straight men but the straight men I have met in a [purely platonic sense, a lot have had same sex experiences. One can be curious and still be straight (curious is not a statement of their orientation)
Reading the above passage I am minded to ask why we place people into boxes
0 -
And the award for most deluded goes to...
*drum role *
'Maybe the human sexuality itself is just an illusion and cultural constraints prevent us from having these wondeful dalliances that we denied ourselves so much over the years'
0 -
Of course it semantics. We are discussing who labels apply to. Every single one of both of our posts have been about semantics. Not sure why you think that it's a valid criticism of my posts.
I'm not super convinced by those kinds.of studies but let's take them at face value for the moment. They didn't even slightly contradict anything I've said.
I am in complete agreement that the vast vast majority of gay and straight people are only attracted to same gender and opposite gender respectively.
What I am saying is that the label bisexual would be too simplistic to apply to someone if that person was in a same sex relationship but was not attracted to any other same sex person but was consistently attracted to opposite sex people.
The only way your studies would be relevant to my argument would be if they (as you pointed out) included bi people, but in addition, included someone in a same sex relationship who claimed to be not interested in anyone else of the same sex, and showed they had similar physical repsonses as other bi people who were interested in both genders.
Since your studies do neither they are wholly irrelevant.
0 -
Ah we all know this thread was meant to be w**k fodder for those with a "straight man" fetish. Sorry to disappoint.
3 -
Advertisement
-
Nobody has said that being gay means being straight.
What some people have said is that a small number of people in niche relationships, who you and Wibbs would consider to be bisexual, they consider to be straight.
That's it.
0 -
Sexuality isn't complex and you can use 'boxes'.
Personalities are complex but we're not talking about personalities and neither are we talking about ones subjective option of themselves and even if we were you could still put those subjective personalities of oneself into boxes, as there is always going to be someone somewhere almost exactly like you, so you'd just need a lot more boxes, if you want to be more specific.
So you can have a number of big boxes, and inside those boxes you can have it filled with smaller boxes.
If you don't believe this then what one is saying is that you can't ever describe a person in general terms, ie. in the biggest outer box they are in, but only in terms of the smaller box inside the bigger box, that aren't so easy to label.
Like some other contentions issue I see this attitude all the time of making thinks more complicated than they really are. OEJ suggests this could be to give people control but more control of what? To control an agenda I would suggest.
When it comes to homosexuality, which is really what we're talking about here, there are people who have been attempting to change societies view of sexuality, that is is not one set in stone, and it's...yes you guessed it...fluid. I could only think why one would want to do that and that is to change societies idea of homosexuality, that it isn't some 'other' thing, some 'minority' thing at all, but that homosexuals are no more an other than anyone else is. So it's the ultimate in liberation, that heterosexuals would never again think of homosexuals as an other at all, cuz everyone is playing the same game whatever place on a sexuality spectrum you are 'currently' on. And I think that is total bullsh*t.
I must admit, I've found some of the preceding points made here hard to follow which is why I've responded with this. Either I've nailed it or I'm talking as much rubbish as some others.
I will make one other point about bisexuality especially male bisexuality, and that is I think a lot of bisexual males don't want to be associated with LGBT society.. That they would rather be thought of more of as being part of straight society than gay society. I'm purely taking about image here, because the whole LGBT world has a very cartoonist look to it at the minute. It's all very focused around 'youth', spotty teenagers, angst teenagers, garish cartoon-ish fashion, loud colours, nose piercings, weird hairstyles, if you see what I mean. Well you only need to look at RTE's Pride Promos to see what I mean. So point being, I can see why a bisexual person might not wish to outwardly identify as bisexual at all, even thought they damn well are.
1 -
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,174 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 59102
A lot of Gay guys and gals also don't want to be lumped in with the "LGBT world" as you describe it, that cartoonish end of things picked up by the media all too readily as representative. One could argue that it's about as representative as dogging and swinging is to Straight people.
And to some degree I would believe that sexuality is 'fluid'. That a percentage of men and women are exclusively Straight by 'nature', a percentage of men and women are Gay by 'nature' and the rest are Bi by 'nature' to some degree or others. I'd reckon the Bi part is larger than either the Straight or Gay ends of things, though the exclusively Straight would be a larger percentage than the exclusively Gay. For pretty basic evolutionary reasons. The Mark 1 Human Willy getting together with the Mark 1 Human Hoohaa is the only game in town to reproduce ourselves.
And I for one am glad societies view of sexuality changed. It wasn't before time and a lot of men and women lived miserable lives and some even lost their lives over who they were attracted to. Something they had no control over. Some are still living with that today in the 21st century in a few places around the world. Imagine as a thought experiment if you will: In the morning you wake up in another dimension, identical save for the fact that being Gay is the norm and being Straight is abnormal, even proscribed. All you see around you is Gay, in life, in love, in media and all that. Could you as a presumably Straight guy navigate that world? Could you hook up with a man to see if you were 'normal'? Could you be able to face your friends and family and tell them you're Straight? Could you go through the whole marraige and kids thing with a man to fit in? I sure as hell couldn't. That's a small insight into how Gay people had/have to live.
Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
4 -
A lot of Gay guys and gals also don't want to be lumped in with the "LGBT world" as you describe it, that cartoonish end of things picked up by the media all too readily as representative. One could argue that it's about as representative as dogging and swinging is to Straight people.
Well I can confirm that, as I'm gay myself. Maybe after revealing that you might look at my last contribution differently.
I don't think sexuality is fluid, and of course I'm glad western society looks at sexuality differently, but not as differently as some are proposing, no more than some are proposing that gender is inherently fluid either for the exact same reason as I proposed in relation to homosexuality, which is some wish to go wild with this 'complex' idea about it, 'that we can never really understand', for whatever agenda they hold to suggest such ideas.
1 -
Whilst I don't agree there can't be 100% straight or gay people, I'm baffled why some posters are so entirely against the idea of sexuality being a scale. Even a scale as ends and if people couldn't be fully straight or gay, then it wouldn't exist on the scale. Yet it does.
However, the definitions of gay, straight and bi have been a little too black and white, and don't account for the nuances in life. Take, as brought up here already, the ability to know if someone is good looking or not. Where does that cross a line? If someone cannot tell if a member of the unpreferred sex is attractive, another can somewhat tell if a member of the unpreferred sex is attractive, and another can definitely tell if a member of the unpreferred sex is attractive... but all fit into the aforementioned definition of straight/gay, are they not already on a scale? Or as also previously mentioned, someone who feel physically sick at the idea of being with the unpreferred sex, vs someone who feels uncomfortable at the idea, vs someone who feels nothing at the idea. If someone is willing to partake in a threesome but not interact with the same gender, does that make them straight or bi? Even if they aren't sexually attracted to the other person and are doing it for the sake of the opposite gender partner? Compared to a person who would not partake in a threesome with a member of the same gender, how are they not on a scale? In fact, if we start going more into the kink side of things then those lines get even more blurry.
Sexuality being on a scale doesn't remove the notion of gay/bi/straight. There are differences within being straight, there are differences within being bi, and there are differences within being gay, and those differences can be lined up and gradually blended into each other with 100% straight on one end, 100% gay on the other, and interested in men and women exactly 50/50 in the middle.
0 -
Whilst I don't agree there can't be 100% straight or gay people, I'm baffled why some posters are so entirely against the idea of sexuality being a scale.
Because they are against the 'idea'. Because it's just some stupid progressive leftist idea like all stupid leftist ideas are.
Progressive leftists try to change our perception of reality, as a fix. If you would only look at it this way, then everything works.
But it's just not real. And you can never change anyone's opinion by saying well 'look at it this way'.
As if society is just something like The Matrix. Where you just plug things in and out, make some changes, and oh it's perfect now. All you have to do is make everyone think the same way and everything is sorted.
And this is exactly what Canada is doing. It's exactly what Hate Speech laws are doing. Those are the methods that are used to make everyone think the same way. But it's all just a system of control.
If this carry's on then noone can can ever have an opinion about anything. Not a genuinely held one anyway.
And so, I think the idea of sexual desire fluidity is total nonsense.
Some people just can't bear facts. But the fact is many people especially related to sexuality are 'fantasists'. And I think that is why this thread exists in the first place. Hope some of you are 'getting off' on it, not to be too insulting but you can see why I say that.
0 -
Well, it’s great that you’re so clear on how everyone else experiences the world and feel you can confidently stand in judgement of them like that.
The reality would appear to be that there very much is a huge degree of nuance around sexuality.
The main problem I see is people having to whack labels on everything and pigeonholing people because it suits a rather narrow worldview - needing to put people into categories and tribes more than it’s got much to do with anything else.
There are plenty of people out there, as is evidenced by what they say and do, who don’t fall neatly into a single category.
All your so called “leftists” (another handy label) are suggesting is that maybe we might listen to people, rather than telling them what they are experiencing or how they should feel.
1 -
Ehh, that’s exactly what the thread is about? Gay men claiming to be straight, when they’re engaging in behaviour which would normally be associated with homosexuality, such as being sexually attracted to other men, or having sex with other men.
I’m not sure why you associated me with Wibbs with regard to our perception of bisexuality, because I know i didn’t say anything about bisexual. Like I said earlier in the thread, I keep it simple -
It couldn’t be any simpler, and yes, I’m all too aware there are some people who need to complicate definitions which are simple, because the definitions which exist as far as they’re concerned, don’t accurately describe their sexual identity, orientation or concept of sex and sexuality.
@AllForIt asked the question - control of what? The answer isn’t an agenda at all, it’s self-determination, which I’m completely supportive of. Freedom of expression includes freedom of self-expression. It doesn’t preclude me from having the freedom of thought to know that someone who is gay, claiming to be straight, is an absolute walnut.
Not in the literal sense that they are an actual walnut, it’s how I define anyone who engages in that sort of mental fcukery of trying to undermine other peoples mental frame of reference. Word association, it’s kind of a big deal when it comes to language, to any form of communication of ideas. Associating behaviour with words which doesn’t describe the behaviour is an attempt to undermine other people’s frame of reference. It’s harmless when they keep it to themselves, but it can be harmful when they try to influence other people. If they do it persistently, it amounts to nothing more than gaslighting (an attempt to, anyway!).
@Ave Sodalis the reason the whole idea of a scale of sexual orientation is… whatever you’re having yourself, is because what you’re suggesting is exactly what it’s intended to do - suggest that on an individual level - everyone’s a little bit gay, the only question is which way the scale leans more towards - either more towards gay (with fingers crossed that anyone is buying it), or not entirely straight (and again fingers crossed…). That’s the way the scale of sexual orientation originally conceived by Kinsey, and it hasn’t been modified all that much in the time since it was first conceived.
It’s an attempt to undermine anyones perception of themselves as either straight or gay, by suggesting that individuals are both at the same time, and lean more towards one than the other. It was Kinsey’s own way of permitting his own transgressions of social norms at the time - he and his wife agreed they would have sex with other people. You don’t need to be a genius to figure out who’s idea that was, and he encouraged his research assistants and students to do the same, all in the name of science, of course.
Undoubtedly, his contributions to the fields of sexology and psychology cannot be completely disregarded, but his methods were questionable and his experiments often unethical, and would be regarded as irresponsible in modern science. Back then though in a time when sexual liberation was the goal of academic exploration, that kind of fcukology was all the rage.
0 -
You seem bizarrely angry about this. You know the idea that sexuality is more than 3 labels means everyone doesn't have to think the same way? That is quite literally the point.
I'm not actually strictly speaking about that particular scale, and I purposely addressed the idea that someone can't be straight or gay in my post.
1 -
Advertisement
-
Ehh, that’s exactly what the thread is about? Gay men claiming to be straight, when they’re engaging in behaviour which would normally be associated with homosexuality, such as being sexually attracted to other men, or having sex with other men.
Not what I asked you and not actually what the thread is about. The thread is about men who claim to be straight having sex with other man. It seems to be an extra interpretation you have added yourself that we are discussing gay men claiming to be straight.
Even if you don't agree that a straight man could choose to have sex with another man without being attracted to men it should be pretty uncontroversial that a bi man can choose to have sex with another man.
Bi men are not gay men.
So it's a little ridiculous to claim that this thread is about gay men who claim to be straight when bi men have been discussed extensively.
Can you say which poster has claimed that gay men can be straight?
0 -
Ok, you asked me was it a dig at another poster. The answer is still no. Perhaps it’s reasonable from your perspective to be pedantic, it’s not from where I’m sitting.
It appears our perspectives also differ concerning what the thread is about. From mine it is the idea of gay men in relationships with women who call themselves straight. From yours it is the idea of straight men in relationships with women having sex with men. Whatever you want to call that, is entirely your own business. Whatever they want to call it, is not entirely their own business as it invariably involves the woman they are in a relationship with.
Take just one example from the article in the opening post as to how one man explains his behaviour. It gives a very clear indication of his attitude towards other people -
Tom, a 59-year-old from Washington, explained: “I kind of think of it as, I’m married to a nun.” He continued: “For me, being romantic and emotional is more cheating than just having sex.” And Ryan, a 60-year-old from Illinois, felt similarly. He said: “Even when I have an encounter now, I’m not cheating on her. I wouldn’t give up her for that.”
Indeed. His wife is the person who has issues, he sees himself as being married to a nun. Riiiiiight, the person with issues clearly isn’t him then 😒
Anyone may refer to the phenomenon however they wish, you’re of the opinion that definitions describe reality, whereas from my perspective, definitions describe ideas, y’know, like the idea that a man in a relationship with a woman, having sex with men, identifying themselves as straight and describing their wife as a nun - they’re an absolute walnut.
Of course anyone can choose to define their behaviour however they wish, using whatever descriptions they wish, and there are many, many frameworks through which they can squeeze whatever they wish, whether it’s same gender loving, on the down low, men who have sex with men, etc, I’m not too hung up on definitions, it’s how those ideas manifest in the material world is more important, as the material world exists independently of individual perceptions, descriptions and definitions of reality.
A man playing hide the sausage with another man behind his wife’s back? I really don’t care what he chooses to call it or however he chooses to explain or justify his behaviour either to himself or to anyone else. I know exactly what I call it, and they do too, it’s why they aren’t particularly keen on campaigning for their right to have their behaviour recognised and codified in law.
1 -
Is this thread still going?
2 -
Tom, a 59-year-old from Washington, explained: “I kind of think of it as, I’m married to a nun.” He continued: “For me, being romantic and emotional is more cheating than just having sex.” And Ryan, a 60-year-old from Illinois, felt similarly. He said: “Even when I have an encounter now, I’m not cheating on her. I wouldn’t give up her for that.”
Um I don't know what you think this quote shows but it completely supports what I said.
These men give no indication that they are not interested in women. They say they are being denied sex with their wife so are saying they have sexual interest in a woman. Amd since most people who are interested in one member of a gender are generally sexually attracted to that gender then these men are not gay. They are bisexual.
So again this is an example of bisexual men claiming to be straight, not gay men.
Now of course they could be lying and.actually have zero interest in any women and in fact be gay. But I don't think any poster would then agree that they are straight.
If this thread is indeed about gay man climing to be straight, you should be able to quote one poster who has said a gay man can be straight. Actually, more than one. But one would be a start.
But of course this thread is not about that so you will not be able to.
1 -
I don't know what you think this quote shows…
Of course you don’t.
Now of course they could be lying…
Nah, surely not? Ya think so? 😂
0 -
It's grand, I've got Grindr for that...
0 -
Advertisement
-
So what? people like to experiment in life..... 'big wow'
0 -
"I'm not your experiment damn you" says black man to phasty white Irish gays. Big wow.
0 -
What's 'phasty'? mean?
1 -
Except it isn't - by the light of the definitions I cited. As I keep saying we should distinguish between whether you disagree with those definitions - or whether my interpretation of those definitions is wrong. So far you've done a lot of the former. I have not yet seen you argue I have misinterpreted the text.
So if the former I guess you can A) Simply ignore them and not use them or B) Take it up with the source (Dictionaries, Wikipedia) were you to (unlikely) care to do so.
Unless you are interested in the latter then this fun and otherwise stimulating conversation we have been having is likely over :( Thanks for your time all the same :)
Yes it likely is vanishingly rare. Hard to say without having studies on it or knowing the minds of the masses. Neither of which we do :( So the fact is that the definitions people _thought_ these words had is valid 99.9% of the time. Which is why people get rather surprised to hear the definitions might be ever so slightly more broad than they had assumed.
To be honest I know of only two examples which fit the exception. The first being people I met while campaigning on the marriage referendum. The second being my own relationship. My girlfriends are romantically and sexually involved with each other as well as me - have never before in life - and never since - met or seen a single other female that resulted in any sexual or romantic desire. So except for the single aberration of their long term relationship (15ish years now) with each other - they are in every other way heterosexual.
Would they care at all if someone called them "bisexual" even after being politely corrected on it? Not a bit. But calling them bisexual would not - as you say - be at all informative. And my goal with language is to be informative not pedantically "correct". But that is not a goal everyone shares. Nor should they have to!
1 -
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,174 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 59102
Good point. When you have the above post where two women "romantically and sexually involved with each other" and a man for fifteen years are heterosexual... Yeah, it's kinda the point to back away weakly smiling and nodding. 😁
Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
4 -
Advertisement
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
