Married Men - A Gay Lads View - Have you ever had an experience?

31-01-2022 9:59am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118557967#Comment_118557967

Yeah... that's the straw that has broken the camels back when it comes to meaningful and honest conversation for me.

I mean... ffs. really? What the hell is the point?

My dog is my cat. Stop trying to pigeonhole it into your neat boxes.

Sleeper12 · 31-01-2022 10:04am

I owned hair salons for a number of years in the 80s & 90s. Had a few gay lads working for me over those years. I was shocked at the amount of married men these guys were seeing. One guy had the bank manager of a large city center bank as a sugar daddy. Couldn't tell you if the married men were gay or bi. All I know is plenty of them frequented the George & were happy to leave with a man on their arm.

31-01-2022 10:18am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118558040#Comment_118558040

Must have been quite stressful for the them, considering it was still illegal in Ireland for most of the period you are talking about. A lot has been said about how important gay rights have been for the LGBTQ+ community, but it has been very important for women that ended up in effectively false relationships. Some men also ending up marrying gay women, just because the woman felt pressured into traditional relationships. Very few people happy in those relationships.

Your post goes back to the OPs original post. You'll see a lot less of this, now that gay men don't risk prison at least. I would say prejudice has gone down significantly also, but wont disappear completely or not for many years. But, already not to the level where a gay man would marry a woman. There may be more pressure form the mammies and daddies in rural Ireland, but that will just mean their sons/daughters will just leave for the 'big smoke'.

Will it end entirely married men having relationships with men. There will still be bi men, so no. Will gay men fulfil fantasies about bagging a hetrosexual man, yes. Thankfully we don't have thought police, not even for delusions.

31-01-2022 10:32am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118558017#Comment_118558017

Nah it was just a pointlessly snide cop out post from someone who could not address my point directly so they just want to imply I am crazy.

Nothing I have said is even remotely comparable to calling a dog a cat. Quite the opposite in fact.

Why? Because I can not find a single dictionary of even remote repute that is offering any definition at all that would render calling a dog a cat coherent.

What I have done however is cite reputable sources that offer definitions that render what I did say perfectly linguistically coherent. If I have interpreted the text of those particular definitions badly/wrong I am still waiting for someone to point out how. Instead however they just cite _other_ definitions entirely (often of their own invention) and say that I am wrong by _those _ definitions. Which I am entirely happy to concede.

So no. Not the same thing at all. Anyone who wants to call dogs cats - men women - white people black - are having a different conversation than any I am having :)

31-01-2022 10:40am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118558190#Comment_118558190

What you've done, is say that two women who are in a sexual and romantic relationship with each other and also a man, consider themselves to be heterosexual...

and you don't find that ridiculous.

Wibbs · 31-01-2022 10:59am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118558252#Comment_118558252

It's part of the identity politics things, or rather the self identity movement. Where the subjective self image and identity is the start point, but you can easily get to the point of inchorence and contradiction like in that example. If you have two men in an exclusive sexual and romantic relationship with each other for a decade and claim to be heterosexual. Does not compute. If you add a woman into that mix as a third, does this make them heterosexual by that addition? Does not compute either. Would it make them homosexual if the woman left? No doubt there is an ex thruple out there who might claim this, but again does not compute. However bisexual does compute and fits and is coherent to the reality. If on the one hand we accept that sexuality is on a spectrum, then bisexuality makes up a large percentage of that spectrum, pretty much by definition as only the 'extremes' are exclusively hetero and homosexual in this model of sexuality. That covers those who willingly and happily have had one or two same/opposite sex encounters as well as those who are 50/50 right down the middle.

31-01-2022 11:57am

Nothing I have said on this thread is part of "identity politics" at all though. That is important to note. Literally. Nothing.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118558252#Comment_118558252

No. What I have done is cited definitions of certain words from reputable sources and said that _those definitions_ make it perfectly reasonable for them to call themselves heterosexual.

And if you read the definitions - which I have cited many times on the thread now - you will find that this is entirely true.

Now if you have problems with those definitions (rather than my interpretation of them) - that's not my issue. But for some reason people seem not to be able to tell the difference between what I am saying - and what the dictionary I cited is saying. They keep accusing me of the latter.

Wibbs · 31-01-2022 12:44pm

By the self same wikipedia definitions of 'enduring patterns' you refer to and your relationship which you've also referred to, I would have thought fifteen years is a pretty 'enduring pattern' of same and opposite sex sexual and romantic behaviour. IE bisexuality. Now people can define themselves however they like, and fair enough, but it is self identifcation and has only a passing acquaintance with coherence outside of that.

31-01-2022 1:58pm

That is at least (at last? :) ) A response that takes the actual citations into account and questions the interpretation of them.

However I am not convinced that is the way to read what they wrote. I think they are referring to an enduring pattern of attractions to multiple people - as in results within a set. Not an enduring pattern with a single long term person. They are talking about a pattern of attractions over time in the set of attractions - not a pattern within a single relationship.

It could be linguistically argued either way as to what they meant in what they wrote - but I am struggling to read it like you are.

31-01-2022 2:03pm

I've not kept up to speed with the (lengthy) back and forth - but do the two ladies engage in sexual acts together when the male isn't present. And, if the case, would it by any definition be considered what they are engaging in be anything other that homosexual?

31-01-2022 2:15pm

Well the definitions I cited differentiate between attractions and behavior for example. Quite explicitly. So I think that would actually be entirely irrelevant.

While a lot of the people here - some of them quite specifically - conflate the two and so would likely be more in line with thinking like your question.

But yes I guess thats what the entire thread was originally about. Heterosexual married men engaging in homosexual acts.

31-01-2022 2:18pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118559380#Comment_118559380

Yes, it would. If they got busy on their own, it's almost certainly out of attraction rather than doing it 'by the numbers' if just learned behaviour with no attraction aka joy.

31-01-2022 2:21pm

^^^ if you are saying that the ladies engage in sexual activity without attraction and only when you are with them, then I would 100% say these ladies could be considered heterosexual.

31-01-2022 2:26pm

The point is the definitions in question speak about enduring patterns of attraction. Which I read to mean that you need some kind of minimum (whatever it is) level of attractions to a number of the same gender. Not just one single one. And as such one single exception - even over a long period of time - would not trigger that definition.

Which in a nutshell is all my massively long posts on interpreting that definition in a few sentences :)

Perhaps they are just so wonderfully fabulous they cross normal orientation boundaries hehehe :)

Wibbs · 31-01-2022 2:30pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118559301#Comment_118559301

If I as a man have been in a romantic and sexual long term relationship and ended up getting married to another man for twenty years, it would be more than confused at best, a nonsense at worst to declare myself heterosexual, even if he were the only man that I'd had such an arrangement with and previously it was all women. If we added a woman to that mix, nothing would change that. I would be bisexual. Not Straight because I'm capable of being sexually attracted to men, not Gay because I'm capable of being sexually attracted to women, but Bi because I'm capable of being sexually attracted to both. I might want to think I'm one thing or the other, but this is basic logic here.

31-01-2022 2:33pm

If you say so. But once again (and again and again?) it is not a nonsense in light of the definitions I cited which seem to allow/account for that. One single exception of your own gender is not a "pattern" of any sort. It is an exception.

It might be "nonense" in light of some other definition or your own. Which is fine. But it is perfectly coherent if you go off the definitions I cited.

Which means once again - your issue is with that definition not my interpretation of it/them. A definition no one is asking you to actually use :) But I am not seeing that my interpretation of that definition is not valid.

31-01-2022 2:48pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118559439#Comment_118559439

'Heterosexuality involves enduring patterns of attraction to a sex/gender different from one's own.' Is that the definition? How can this be interpreted to back up someone having a long term sexual relationship with the same sex being anything other than not heterosexual? Apologies if this has been discussed before, but if it could be kept to one or two hundred words response. Thanks 😊

Wibbs · 31-01-2022 2:51pm

You're in love with your definitions because they give you an out to explain the obvious and inherent incoherence in your argument. My argument is simple and descreptive and observable. To take my previous example and indeed your own life it's a singularly large exception that endures over many years. If I had gone out with a few women then fell head over heels with a man at 25 and stayed with him for the rest of our lives, that would be just one exception, but it would be incoherent and illogical to claim I was a heterosexual man throughout. If he claimed the same we would both be passport holders in la la land. Indeed at this point I'm starting to think it's a wind up at play. 😁

I used the word 'capable' before because I have noted in convos with Bi folks(and those who talk about sexuality being on a spectrum) over the years that they don't bring the physiological capability into it. It would be down to overall attraction regardless of gender. That they could imagine being sexual with someone on the basis of that. To exlusively Gay and Straight men and women on the other hand it's more black and white. To an exclusively Gay woman a naked man in her bed is not going to get her revved up at all. No matter how much she likes him as a person that switch won't, can't get thrown. It's in the 'ugh' sphere.

31-01-2022 2:59pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118559623#Comment_118559623

I think at this stage it's three heterosexual blokes discussing this 😂 - I think the Gay Lads have tired of this long ago. But, there would be some hypocrisy involved here. If sexuality was on a spectrum and that spectrum meant we were all some part Gay (and presumably paedophile, into bestiality, necrophilia and any other possible sexual orientation) then it gives some credence to conversion therapy - just tap into the heterosexual part of your sexuality or 'yes, Mary, you say you're gay, but it's a spectrum, you can marry John and be wonderfully happy.'

31-01-2022 3:00pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118559576#Comment_118559576

I think I can do it in under 25 :)

Because a single relationship - even long term - is not a "pattern of attraction" within a given gender. It being a single exception to that person's enduring patterns and norms.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118559623#Comment_118559623

Not in love with any definition in particular no. And I am not making any particular argument. As I said - I do not care much how people use these words. My entire position is just saying "Oh look - when you actually read the definitions here they seem to be defined a little more broadly than people seem to think".

Your "argument" is to simply restate your own definitions over and over. So if anyone is in love with one - it's you not me :) I am not overly attracted to any one definition over another. All I have been saying is if you take the definitions I cited and run with them - then certain people can be identified as heterosexual that some might not have expected.

If you do not use the definitions I found - but another one - then perhaps this is not the case. But it absolutely is with the definitions I found and cited.

31-01-2022 3:08pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118559703#Comment_118559703

Ah, okay - I don't read it that way at all. I read 'patterns of attraction' meaning that nothing (or any pattern) outside of non same sex would be considered heterosexual. But, how can you say a single relationship over a long period of time isn't a pattern. That doesn't make any sense. I think your grasping on the plural of pattern and thinking it must require more than one relationship. Would that mean if a person was in a relationship with the same person their entire life that they couldn't consider themselves sexual? I think you're performing olympic level linguistic gymnastics to derive your understanding.

Can you provide substance to your understanding that this definition excludes a single relationship as forming a pattern?

31-01-2022 3:13pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118559790#Comment_118559790

To correct a little "it must require more than one relationship". I would suggest relationships also have nothing to do with it as the citation is "Sexual orientation refers to an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic and/or sexual attractions to men, women or both sexes.".

As such your orientation is not defined by your relationships per se - you could in fact live your entire life and never have a single relationship of any kind - but still have an orientation. Virgins for example have an orientation. Their orientation does not start the first day they have a sexual encounter or enter a relationship.

So I think that answers your "one relationship for their whole life" question?

LLMMLL · 31-01-2022 3:46pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118557967#Comment_118557967

Only if you ignore everything else Tax said about the situation so you don't have to actually engage with his argument.

It's not hard to see why a woman who has a general interest in men and doesn't have a general interest in women could be described as straight.

LLMMLL · 31-01-2022 3:49pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118558889#Comment_118558889

15 years being in a relationship with one individual (as part of some kind of throuple) is a little different to 15 years of relationships or encounters with multiple women.

31-01-2022 4:00pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118560241#Comment_118560241

It's really not. It is a consistent pattern of bisexuality.

The amount of encounters is kind of irrelevant I would have thought? By that rationale, a person who has only had one opposite sex partner for their whole life is somehow less straight than someone who has had multiple same sex and opposite sex partners

31-01-2022 4:18pm

Yes the number of encounters is irrelevant you are correct.

The definitions I cited specifically refer to "Enduring Patterns" of "attraction".

As in the number of people of that gender you are attracted to - not whether you have any kind of encounter or relationship with them.

So one long term relationship would not change anything - or in fact no relationship at all. The question is if the person you are attracted to - is a single solitary exception in all of your "attractions".

31-01-2022 4:23pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118560434#Comment_118560434

Well i disagree with your interpretation of the definition.

I suppose that's all that can be said about that.

LLMMLL · 31-01-2022 4:58pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118560338#Comment_118560338

No because when we talk about being gay or straight we talk about attraction and not relationships.

A consistent pattern of bisexuality would be a consistent interest in both men and women.

If it were about relationships then a permanently single man who is attracted to other men would be not gay.

That's not the case because at no point have who you are in a relationship with been the deciding factor.

Wibbs · 31-01-2022 5:07pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118560191#Comment_118560191

I've 'engaged' with his argument and it still makes little sense. Generalities don't cut it either, or they do if we're talking about bisexuality. Exclusively hetero or homo have a specific interest and that's where it ends. If one is interested in and capable of being sexually and romantically aroused by one gender to the exclusion of the other, you're Straight/Gay. If one is interested in and capable of being sexually and romantically aroused by both genders, whether that be one individual or more, or indeed none, you're Bi. The virgins argument is a non starter too. They could be gay/straight/bi and still a virgin, however who they are specifically and capable of being attracted to is what makes the difference.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118560241#Comment_118560241

Why? There are polygamist arrangements in different cultures where there isn't any same sex romantic/sexual interaction. They're Straight relationships that happen to be polygamist. There are throuples where where one partner is shared between two, but the two same sex partners don't share each other. Hell I knew one setup where two guys were seeing the same woman for years and were aware of each other and seemed to make it work, but weren't romantically/sexually involved with each other.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118560458#Comment_118560458

Pretty much this. And tbh there's only so much as CW put it "performing olympic level linguistic gymnastics to derive your understanding" stuff I can deal with before I sustain injury from excessive face palming at the complete lack of logic involved.

31-01-2022 5:26pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118559839#Comment_118559839

Where does it say"it must require more than one relationship"?

Re your definition, can you give a reference (apologies again if already given) because I've seen different to the above - I can't find your exact one and it's important for us to both be working off the same one.

I can respond more fully then.

31-01-2022 5:28pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118560458#Comment_118560458

Yes, I think tax may be inferring incorrectly, but before getting into the nitty gritty of words, I want to make sure we're looking at the exact same definition source. Otherwise... 🙄😁

31-01-2022 5:44pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118560634#Comment_118560634

You are suggesting that if I was consistently engaging in sex and in a romantic relationship with one man, that wouldn't be a enduring pattern of homosexuality? Or if I was consistently engaging in sex and in a relationship with a one man and a one woman, that wouldn't be a consistent pattern of bisexuality?

See this is why this is an absolutely ridiculous standpoint.

LLMMLL · 31-01-2022 5:54pm

If you were not sexually attracted to men in general then I would not think of you as bisexual.

Of course I would wonder why you are in a relationship with someone when you are not sexually attracted to their gender in general, and it would place you in the nichest of niche relationship categories.

For example, I've never met a gay man who is exclusively attracted to one man. Or a straight man who is exclusively attracted to one woman. I know a straight guy who is only interested in his girlfriend. He still finds other women attractive though.

LLMMLL · 31-01-2022 6:11pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118560681#Comment_118560681

If one is interested in and capable of being sexually and romantically aroused by one gender to the exclusion of the other, you're Straight/Gay. If one is interested in and capable of being sexually and romantically aroused by both genders, whether that be one individual or more, or indeed none, you're Bi.

It's a bit rich to accuse others of linguistic gymnastics when you keep adding this "capable of" term to the definition to suit your own argument. I have looked at about 4 different definition sources and you are the only one who uses it.

At least in Tax's case his definition matches one source (Wikipedia).

Yours matches ZERO.

Why? There are polygamist arrangements in different cultures where there isn't any same sex romantic/sexual interaction. They're Straight relationships that happen to be polygamist. There are throuples where where one partner is shared between two, but the two same sex partners don't share each other. Hell I knew one setup where two guys were seeing the same woman for years and were aware of each other and seemed to make it work, but weren't romantically/sexually involved with each other.

This has nothing to do with my point. I was not commenting on polygamy. I am commenting that the idea that a long term relationship qualifies as an enduring pattern for Tax's criteria that sexuality is based on enduring patterns and not isolated one off attractions/encounters. The various types of polygamist relationship have no impact on this.

It's pretty obvious that enduring pattern here is basically referring to the fact that people attracted to individuals from a gender are usually attracted to more than one individual from that gender in such a way that suggests that part of their attraction is that person's gender.

Someone in a 15 year relationship with a man who finds no other man sexually attractive and has never found any other man sexually attractive even before they knew this man is not showing that kind of.enduring pattern.

31-01-2022 6:42pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118560931#Comment_118560931

So I can be enjoying a healthy sexual relationship with one guy, getting banged every day, greedily performing oral sex on him at every opportunity and enjoying being held in his arms as I drift to sleep on his chest, all the while, proclaiming I am straight because I find Keira knightly and Emma stone attractive.

Ok. So how many men do I have to find attractive before it would become a little silly to define myself as straight?

One isn't enough, so is two enough?

Liberty_Bear · 31-01-2022 6:58pm

For the sheer intetest I placed an ad on a classified ads site

All the men who responded were married to women

31-01-2022 7:07pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118561261#Comment_118561261

How can you tell? Are they saying this to get attention. Is this the female of SWF.

31-01-2022 7:10pm

WIKI itself can't be a source for obvious reasons, but does it have a reference?

LLMMLL · 31-01-2022 7:15pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118561181#Comment_118561181

I think you've framed the sex in the way that you Understand sex, which sounds very porny.

Someone who greedily sucks c**k is probably into c**k and is probably bi.

I'm talking about a niche situation that i wasn't even sure existed until both Wibbs and Tax both said they knew people in that situation.

Rather than impose a "cockgobbling sl*TS" view of sex on them I'd like to hear what they think and feel.when they have sex. Could be that they're not into c**k/vadge but get a thrill from giving their partner pleasure.

And before you say that's unrealistic I've heard countless straight women describe oral sex with men in this way.

31-01-2022 7:41pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118561355#Comment_118561355

Ok. I'll reframe it.

I could happily give a man oral sex and/or receive oral sex from a man while engaging in sexual intercourse with a man on a regular basis, as part of a loving intimate relationship and still consider myself straight?

Because that's right up there in the "**** hell, what has the world come to?" stakes.

LLMMLL · 31-01-2022 8:03pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118561492#Comment_118561492

Yes if you're attracted to women in part because of their gender but attracted to this man in spite of his gender.

Because that's right up there in the "**** hell, what has the world come to?" stakes.

Well keep shaking your fist at the sky. Might have an effect some day.

31-01-2022 8:34pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118561608#Comment_118561608

Gender? I assume you mean sex?

Strange how you conflate the two. Are they not separate?

So to recap:

biological men can have sex with, and be in a romantic relationship with, another biological man and still be heterosexual? and sex and gender mean the same thing but there are only two sexes and an infinite amount of genders?

Anyone who thinks otherwise is an old man shaking his fist at the sky?

LLMMLL · 31-01-2022 8:57pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118561742#Comment_118561742

Nice try but I've always said in the trans thread that I use gender and sex in the same way.

31-01-2022 9:09pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118561871#Comment_118561871

In much the same way you seem to use hetero and bi the same way.

So you just don't believe that there are an infinite amount of genders?

GreeBo · 31-01-2022 9:34pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118561871#Comment_118561871

So you can change your sex just by changing your gender?

What does it mean to be attracted to a woman because of her gender and attracted to a man in spite of it?

I understand every word in that sentence yet the sentence itself is meaningless to me. Based on the rest of your logic it implies that my attraction to someone would change because they have changed their gender.

Do can you not understand how meaningless all self declaring "i'm a male unicorn today" nonsense makes everything? Its literally impossible to have any meaningful conversation as there is no common logical framework in which to operate.

Galwayguy35 · 31-01-2022 9:38pm

Any fella that shags another man is not straight so the article is misleading.

Yeah they are married to a woman but they are either bisexual or secretly gay.

LLMMLL · 31-01-2022 9:51pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118561940#Comment_118561940

No idea. Don't have any belief about that.

And if you read my posts you would know.i don't view hetero and bi as interchangeable.

31-01-2022 9:52pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118562101#Comment_118562101

You'd have thought so. Apparently your line of thinking is because you are old, out of touch and shaking your fist at the sky.

You can be in a loving sexual relationship with ONE man as long as you don't fancy any other men and also like women and correctly declare yourself as straight.

It hasn't been confirmed for me, but I think fancying any more than one man means you are either gay or bi.

Of course this all depends on what gender they are because that is the same as sex. So of they are gender fluid, you might be gay or straight depending on how they identify.

It's all very simple. Because definitions don't mean anything unless it's how you define your gender (of which there are an infinite amount of)(which is also your sex) because failure to acknowledge and wholly accept a person by their self definition is hate speech. That's when definition of words definitely matters.

Simple.

31-01-2022 9:55pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118562164#Comment_118562164

But you think a girl can be in a romantic relationship with another girl and still be straight?

And as for your belief on gender, ironically it's a binary answer.

You either believe there are an infinite amount, or you don't.

LLMMLL · 31-01-2022 10:07pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118562084#Comment_118562084

As I said in my previous posts which I'm assuming you dont bother to read, being attracted to a gender usually means that you are attracted to multiple people of that gender in a way that suggests their gender is part of the attraction.

If you are a man and have never been attracted to a man, never fantasized about a man but for some rare and unusual reason are attracted to one male individual because of their personality or something then it's a stretch to say you are attracted to men and are therefore bi.

This is why Wibbs has to edit the definitions.of sexualities to add in being "capable" of being attracted.

Married Men - A Gay Lads View - Have you ever had an experience?

Comments