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

If you read his post he has said he always had these feelings?

Apologies in the delay replying here. I thought this thread was locked. Maybe I mis-saw.

I think we are talking past each other. Perhaps my fault. But once again it is not about "relationships". Let alone one or more than one. The definitions I printed are about attractions. They differentiate between orientation (attractions) and behaviors (relationships/interactions).

So it does not have to be "more than one relationship". There does not have to be any relationship at all in fact. The definitions can apply equally to - say - virgins.

Perhaps if you stopped giving yourself head trauma you could start involving some logic of your own then? :) There is no logic problem on my side as I am merely discussing what the definitions actually say. If you think the people who formed those definitions have a logic issue by all means take it up with them. But no one has shown yet that I have misinterpreted the definitions I cited.

The definitions make it clear - to use your words - that there is a slight grey area between being "aroused by one gender to the exclusion of the other". In that single exceptions do not appear to invalidate the pattern. That is what the wording says.

Exactly. Because Again the definitions are not about sex acts. But about attractions. Your engaging - or refusing to engage - in an ongoing relationship with one single man would be one single attraction to one single person. Regardless of whether you sexually interacted with that man zero times, one time, or a million times. If your attractions excluded the entire male gender with the sole exception of this one man you found attraction for then the wording of the definition(s) I provided allow for that. It is a single exception to a pattern and the definitions I cited are based on patterns.

That analogy certainly does not hold to anything I have been saying. A closer analogy - but still not very good and not really comparable to what I have been saying very well - would be someone calling themselves a vegetarian this week - for some reason eating a chicken next week - but then never eating one again. Again because "vegetarian" describes their over arching pattern of choices and behaviors rather than being defined (or negated) by single isolated exceptions.

But the analogy does not hold for a second reason. I can not find a single definition to cite that is defined in the same way the ones I have cited are defined. I hasten to point out again that I am not arguing anything on this thread - the definitions did that. All I have been doing is discussing what those definitions actually say.

Rather than respond to me about my interpretation of those definitions - the near totality of responses on this thread have been attacking those definitions as if someone how I came up with them and I was wrong to do so. I didn't write them. I just cited them. If you think the definitions bad then it is not me anyone should be taking that up with :)

Except that appears not to be true in the definitions. Sexual acts and sexual attractions are specifically and explicitly differentiated between. The obvious example I gave before a few times is that of men who sell sex to other men for money. They themselves might be entirely heterosexual - but they are still capable of providing sexual services to men.

A further example of why what you say can not be true - is that virgins can have a sexual orientation too. They do not magically acquire a sexuality on the day they first have sex with someone. Their sexual orientation can be in place long before they ever have any actual sex.

So tying sexuality to sex acts for multiple reasons seems to just be an error.

No I don't think someone in that scenario should be allowed attend primary school.

I think for alot of people sexual orientation is fluid but i also think that for alot of people they will not change drastically whether they self identify as heterosexual, bisexual,gay etc. They are happy and content.

If someone says at a certain point in life they are what they are then it's not anyone's place to question it. People know who they are better than anyone else and often it is complex and difficult to identify using definitions set in stone.

What I am saying is that I think for many people sexuality is fluid, a growth of discovery throughout life however saying that to an individual can be seen as offensive in itself depending on the circumstances.

This is probably more an issue for someone coming out as gay or bisexual where someone suggesting 'you might change your mind' can be seen and intended as hopeful or dismissive on the other person's part that the person will change rather than being supportive of who they are at that moment in time and perhaps for the rest of their life.

Revealing your sexual orientation or coming out as it's called is a difficult decision for a lot of people. Straight people don't really tend to come out. It's the default assumption that most people are straight. This might have an impact on some people who could be bisexual but decided not to pursue it because of society's assumptions or they met someone and like with the op are exploring that later in life but not necessarily regretful of their previous life choices. I'm not dealing with the morality of infidelity but just what could be the reasoning behind it. Of course there are also some people who felt so judged by society that they could not be who they wanted to be and lived an unhappy life or maybe still had a happy life but made many sacrifices and are trying to explore that now too.

Perhaps as we move to a more open and understanding society we will see no default assumption but that takes a long time to evolve through society.

Or saying that someone who identifies as a vegetarian, but who eats chicken only once, may actually be a closet omnivore.

No, they just tried chicken once - and probably regretted it.

They're still vegetarian.

They're not on a spectrum. They're not fluid. They were even drunk when they tried the chicken after pressure from an omnivore friend.

I agree with if someone defines themselves as straight from a self preservation (mentally/physically), that's fine and understandable. But, that's not likely to be the case with someone in a long term same sex relationship, or having an infrequent same sex relationship and considering themselves straight. There's a key difference there.

I assume you are talking to me? Your choosing not to quote me or @ me or address me makes it somewhat vague?

Yes it is not a "straight attraction" sure. But the definitions I was citing are defining "sexual orientation" and it does so based on "enduring patterns" of "attraction". Not single isolated one off cases of attraction.

So if over the course of your life you are consistently and generally attracted to the opposite gender and never to members of your own gender - then suddenly out of nowhere this one single person of your own gender comes along to whom you find yourself physically/romantically attracted - then this single exception is not going to invalidate the "enduring pattern". In other words the definitions behind sexual orientation are defined in a way that is slightly broader than people might expect. Not hugely. Slightly.

If however from that point on you suddenly start finding other members of your own gender attractive then certainly a new pattern may be established here.

Where that "line in the sand" actually is I do not know. The definitions are not clear on this. 5? 10? 50? 100? I simply do not know. But over the course of a life time a single exception does not really scream the word "pattern" at me. YMMV.

A single exception to a data set does not invalidate the pattern of that data set. When you look at an entire data set for patterns you do so with the "noise" of exceptions. Your own definition you pasted there is a good one. "Lasting over a period of time". Exactly. The overall pattern can endure despite exceptions. You are almost getting it now!

Actually you introduced a definition for "enduring" above and I think actually the locus of understanding would be better served by investigating the meaning of "pattern". Because if you think one exception invalidates a pattern then it is the word "pattern" not the word "enduring" I think your misunderstanding is localised on.

Pattern - "a reliable sample of traits, acts, tendencies, or other observable characteristics of a person, group, or institution" - "frequent or widespread incidence". For example if you have a "pattern of violence" then that is not invalidated by periods of calm or peace.

You also only cited one of the three things I have been citing. So let me now re-include one of the ones you excluded here (Bolding mine):

3) "a person's identity in relation to the gender or genders to which they are typically attracted; sexual orientation."

So to answer your "Where do you get the idea" question - that is exactly where. It is written there in the bold. The pattern endures despite a single exception blip in the middle of the pattern and the "typical" continues. If you have one single solitary exception to your pattern or romantic and physical attrations then that single exception is anything but "typical". It would be entirely A-typical in fact.

So one solitary single one off exception to your typical and enduring pattern of behavior does not at all seem to invalidate the definitions in play.