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

[Deleted User]

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118457519#Comment_118457519

No, he has lots of propositions from gay/bi men.

Do people not no the Englesh good?

Liberty_Bear

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118458724#Comment_118458724

As the study above pointed out, no one is really straight are they!

[Deleted User]

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118458742#Comment_118458742

I've not read it. Don't know the context, might get a chance to read it.

But, can't speak for anyone else I have zero attraction to males. Put that into % terms if you like. I doubt I'm in the minority.

And before the least intelligent among us say, he doth protest too much... this is an anonymous forum, so what would be the point??

[Deleted User]

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118458742#Comment_118458742

No such thing as gays. It's all in their head. A phase.

That kind of thought is rightfully laughed at.

Liberty_Bear

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118458792#Comment_118458792

If its pointing out that no one is straight then the opposite must ring true...so you could be right !

kowloon

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118458660#Comment_118458660

This guy did his studies in the 40s or 50s. If I remember correctly he said sexuality was a spectrum rather than a two-state thing. Pissed off a lot of people at the time.

Annasopra

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118458792#Comment_118458792

You havent told us yet when you chose to be straight

Liberty_Bear

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118458816#Comment_118458816

He did as it did not fit into the conventional thinking of the time. The problem with Kinsey was however he used a lot of his students as his subjects and had an inherent bias in his study. The book he wrote was ground breaking in that it broke the mould on the subject of human sexuality. What he theorised that there was a sliding scale that none of us are truly hetro or homo but somewhere in between.

[Deleted User]

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118458829#Comment_118458829

You do keep asking that. Seems odd.

Dynomutt

It’s all a bit of a storm in a teacup. Straight people who dabble with same-sex activity on the rare occasion are known as being “heteroflexible”.

Annasopra

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118458866#Comment_118458866

I only asked twice.

[Deleted User]

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118458887#Comment_118458887

Is that the same as fluid? Regardless, not straight. Ridiculous to think otherwise.

LLMMLL

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118457555#Comment_118457555

Lol no idea what you're on about.

By your definition a man who has.zero sexual attraction to another man can be bisexual.

Clown world is right.

LLMMLL

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118458536#Comment_118458536

Well according to the dunnes definition he is bisexual. Doesn't matter if he was attractEd to his wife. The moment he had sex with her he transformed into a bi man.

Wibbs

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118458777#Comment_118458777

I had a look at the study. Out of the gate being 'published in a peer reviewed journal' doesn't mean it was actually peer reviewed and peer review has come under increasing fire for issues within in it. There are concerns over more scrutinised and important stuff like medical research and this goes double for the softer sciences like sociology and the like. I'd also have prefered a clear abstract as I have found when studies on pretty narrow subjects are this long something is vague in the results or methodology.

For a start it's a tiny sample size and a narrow one. An example of internal contradiction is this: Participants ranged in age from 18 to 53 and Between-subjects analyses of variance (ANOVAs) revealed no significant differences in age, gender, political orientation, or sexual orientation at pre-test across conditions. Yet in the first study group the mean age was 19 year old first year students and politically over 60% considered themselves progressive or extremely progressive, 27% were moderate, with only 12% conservative. They already stated that: Research has demonstrated that political conservatives tend to perceive social categories in a more discrete manner than progressives, including sexual orientation so the dice is already loaded for their study. The authors themselves noted: political orientation significantly moderated the effect of the exposure to the continuous condition on sexual orientation self-ratings. Their self reporting of their heterosexuality was also on a sliding scale going in. And those in study 1 had a different split in political leanings compared to those in study 2. Those in study 2 had an average age of 45, those in study 1 19.

In short there could well be a point to make, but IMHO that study is all over the place.

The political leaning is an interesting one. Is it a chicken or egg thing? Are those who are more likely to be heterosexual on the Kinsey scale more likely to be conservatives, or are conservatives more likely to report being strongly heterosexual? Culture can clearly have an effect. The worn out "blame the Greeks" stuff an example. Pederasty was seen at various times as A-OK, but it's not quite that simple. Adult homosexuality was generally frowned upon, beyond heroic fantasy stories and especially frowned upon the passive role that made a man a 'woman', pederasty seems to have been a practice of the elite and depending on sources not nearly a given or seen as a positive even there and it was expected the participents would 'grow out of it'. Plato went from being tacitly OK with homosexuality, to denouncing it as a perversion.

My own personal opinion would be that exclusively heterosexuals would make up around thirty odd percent of a population, exclusively homosexual about ten odd percent, with the rest fifty to sixty percent being somewhere in between bisexuals. Depending on culture that rest could conform to whatever the culture, subculture or indeed circumstance demanded.

cannonballTaffyOjones

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118458653#Comment_118458653

WHAT ???

Utter nonsense, what are you talking about ?

Look not every bloke is gay or has any gay tendencies ... if you do fair enough, knock yourself out ...

AckwelFoley

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118459352#Comment_118459352

He never said that..Unless of course you took that from what was clear sarcasm

Sleepy

I suspect most of those who consider themselves straight but who have engaged in sexual activity with other men do it out of a mix of convenience and desperation for human touch (i.e. stuck in a sexless relationship or the type who couldn't get laid in a brothel).

Stroll into one of Dublin's porn cinemas, drive out to one of the dogging/cruising spots or visit the sauna in Temple Bar and unless you hit every branch when you fell out of the ugly tree or haven't showered in a week the odds on getting a blowjob are going to be pretty good. Download Grindr and you probably don't even need to leave the house (assuming you're single and have your own place). A friend of mine was a frequent visitor to some of these spots when he first came out and these "cum and run" types were a real bug bear of his: guys that may not have considered themselves to be bi, wouldn't kiss another man or "return the favour" but who were happy to use gay/bi guys for their own sexual satisfaction before running home to the wife and kids.

Were there similar environments where there were a load of women who were as interested in casual hook ups, you can bet these guys wouldn't be engaging in same sex activities. There isn't though. For whatever reason you might ascribe it to (evolutionary psychology, biology, social environment) women as a demographic are far less interested in such casual sexual encounters than men and there are obviously more than a few "straight" men who are happy to "take advantage" of the higher proclivity for such encounters that exists among gay/bi men.

[Deleted User]

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118456242#Comment_118456242

"the gender you're not into"

No, we are interested only in the two biological sexes here - not gender, or 100+ genders.

Sexuality - as the word suggests - is based on biological sex attraction.

AckwelFoley

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118459710#Comment_118459710

He's clearly being sarcastic.

LLMMLL

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118460158#Comment_118460158

I took it from his definitions which are clear. If you are a man and are attracted to OR have sex with both men and women then you are bisexual.

since Phillip Schofield has had sex with both men and women he is bi. Regardless of whether he was attracted to the women he slept with.

This is all according to the dunne’s definition so yes he did say that.

[Deleted User]

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118459710#Comment_118459710

WHAT??? yourself.

Looks like the original post has been deleted, so not sure if I was addressing you or not. But, I was proposing an equally daft opinion to the person I was responding to.

As for the rest of your post - thanks for your permission. 🙄

cannonballTaffyOjones

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118461258#Comment_118461258

The post was :

"Shur, aren't the gays only doing it for the notice. Bit of conversion therapy will sort them out.

With your mindset if you were straight you'd likely have the above opinion."

I really object to the accusation that I would agree with conversion therapy...

AckwelFoley

.

[Deleted User]

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118461377#Comment_118461377

You made a comment along the lines that I had to be some part gay. Now can you realise how stupid it is to make that assumption about someone you know nothing about.

cannonballTaffyOjones

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118461518#Comment_118461518

OK I think we may have misunderstood one another.

Liberty_Bear

As an addenum to this conversation, I decided to re register with a site called Fab Guys. Absolutely hilarious some of the conversations,it has a lot of 'straight' guys whom are married but never would think of themselves as gay. Today I had a chat with a lad who asked me if I was interested in meeting for a casual encounter but it would have to be Friday morning as the missus works part time. The site has hundreds of these lads on it. Goes without saying that this is more common than we may think!

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118450498#Comment_118450498

I am the only one in the conversation not throwing out dismissive insults and one liners

Now tax, that’s clearly not true, as many times throughout your posts in the thread you referred to “older sexually conservative males”… I’m paraphrasing, but see the example below, it’s a caricature you employ that I can’t imagine I would ascribe to Wibbs from my perspective* as an actual sexually conservative middle to late aged straight man. I have no issue with the description whatsoever to describe myself, it’s entirely accurate (though many people mistake my indifference to their truth claims as acceptance, fact is I genuinely don’t care enough to point out the glaring flaws in their claims, I see it in most circumstances as unnecessary and often it is simply for the sake of humiliation of the individual or group) but that’s certainly not the intent with which you were using the term as nothing more than a dismissive one-liner -

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118450498#Comment_118450498

You’re also familiar enough with linguistics and statistics to understand what is meant by the term ‘outlier’, and this is not a commentary on your own relationship, but rather your perspective - throuples are outliers in terms of what normally constitutes an intimate relationship in the context of Western society.

It’s wholly unreasonable for you on the basis of your relationship to be trying to suggest that commonly understood concepts as to how relationships and sexuality are defined is nothing more than anyones individual perspective. There is a general consensus and understanding which I have no doubt you’re aware of. I know linguistics is fun for you, but I also know the amusement you derive from being a pain in the proverbial through the obfuscation of language.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118538450#Comment_118538450

Goes without saying that this is more common than we may think!

That really depends on the individual LB. It’s really not any more common than I assumed it is already; that is to say it’s incredibly rare in the context of any given society. Considering the context of your example above, the elements of selection and confirmation bias should be screaming at you, and the likely reason you haven’t engaged your critical faculties to question the testimony is because your mind has already previously been prepared to accept the information.

That’s not a criticism of you personally at all btw, it’s an observation of the phenomenon. It’s that same bias that undergirds much of Kinsey’s research into sex and sexuality - Kinsey was a sexual oddball, there’s no two ways about it. His research wasn’t just controversial because of it’s implications or it’s methodology, it was controversial because it was so fundamentally flawed in many, many ways, more holes than the best little whorehouse in Texas… good film that actually now I think of it!

Anyways, Kinsey’s influence on modern approaches to sex and sexuality is obvious, what with the whole ‘sexual orientation on a spectrum’ stuff, and the way he chose to characterise sex and sexuality in humans. His two most influential works bear the titles -

‘Sexual behaviour in the Human Male’

’Sexual behaviour in the Human Female’

They’re not the kind of reading I’d recommend at bedtime tbh, unless you want to fall asleep literally from sheer boredom, but if you’re into having your already held biases confirmed, I’d suggest they’re recommended reading, and then you can declare with a high degree of confidence (a truth claim, if you will), that the phenomenon you refer to, is just as common as you thought previously.

*From my perspective, the idea of filling anyone else’s meatloaf maker with my fleshy thermometer fills me with disgust and revulsion. I dread the idea to the point where the thought manifests as physical illness, though I appear to have mastered controlling the impulsive gag reflex by mere repetition and conditioning. The same revulsion and dread also makes itself known in circumstances where I have been invited by no more than a handful of women to participate in the activity, and then there is the even more rare phenomenon of women who for God only knows what reason want to insert objects in my own meatloaf maker, whether it’s fingers and thumbs or similarly shaped objects, and an immediate “NO!”, never fails to kill the mood.

It’s not that the idea is something I simply have no interest in, I actively abhor the prospect, complete instant shut-down and turn off, no thank you, not for me. I’ve never inquired as to the curiosity or interest or reasoning behind why the idea floats anyones boat, I understand well the socially and culturally taboo nature of the activity is what influences it’s erotic appeal.

[Deleted User]

Except it is true. There is a massive difference between throwing out insults and one liners - and actually backing up your position with citations, references, arguments and explaining your reasoning. If you want to nit pick one one tiny aspect of the latter and try to call it a dismissive one liner in order to look like I am doing the same thing they are - you will fail. There is a world of difference between being simply dismissive - and constructing an argument our of which someone could be removed and construed as dismissive.

I replied at length (with replies that were simply ignored as it happens) which is the opposite of dismissive. And the reaction I got was not coherent rebuttal but post that can be boiled down to simply "Nu-Uh here is my position again and it is right because it just is and everything else is daft".

What has _ not _ happned was a counter citation and argument or - even better - someone who pointed out a disparity between the definitions I provided and the interpretation of those definitions I offered to show how my interpretation of the actual definition was flawed. Either of these approaches would be a rebuttal. Neither of these approaches happened.

All I did was show some definitions from dictionaries and wikipedia and explained what those definitions are saying. I did not fault anyone elses use of language - I just made a distinction between their use of language and their own personal definitions - and what the actual definitions say.

When I ask people for the sources of their own definitions all I got in response was dismissive one liners, throw away words like "daft", and restatements of their own positions. As if restating a position you could not back up before - somehow strengthens that position.

Again I have no issue here with other peoples use of language. Especially as their use of language is probably going to work 9999 times out of 10000 for all I know. Most people who identify as "Straight" or "Bi" or "homosexual" likely do fit the definitions they are using.

But for some reason - who knows why - having it pointed out what the definitions of these words and their parent categories _actually sa _ and _actually mean_ really bothers some people. And the funniest part of the whole thing was one user who simply was making up his own definitions of these words - lamenting that if we go around making up our own definitions of words then why bother having words and definitions at all :)

All that said however - if you wish to know the "intent" I have behind using any word or phrase you would do well to ask me rather than send me a post telling me what my intent was. I know my intention and my mind. You do not. So I have no interest in your usual style of "here are your words and this was your intention" kind of reply. Anyone who wants to know my intent in something I said - ask me.

I have no idea what your monologue about "outliers" is meant to mean though as nothing I wrote in any of my arguments and points was based on any outliers at all - nor should it be. So telling me it is unreasonable to be basing things on my own relationship would be interesting - had I actually being doing any such thing. I am not however. I am happy to use my relationship as a working example at times. Nothing wrong with that. But it is not - and has never been - remotely a basis for anything I have ever argued. You are simply making stuff up.

To dumb down my position/points on this thread to a simple list all I have said is simply this:

1) The definitions of sexuality in dictionaries and wikipedia are based on "enduring" and "typical" behaviors. The personal definitions used by some users on this thread (which again - I have no personal issue with) are not.

2) There is also a distinction made between sexual orientation and sexual behavior. Again the definitions used by some users on the thread do not do so - in fact at least one user explicitly defined it as the opposite saying that they are the same thing.

3) Therefore using the actual definitions of the actual words - it is perfectly coherent and valid for someone to identify as heterosexual if they have had a small number of homosexual encounters or even one single long term homosexual relationship.

And to repeat myself once again - if people have their own definitions of these words that invalidates point 3 above that is A-OK with me. But the fact remains the actual definitions say other wise and no amount of shouting words like "daft" or other dismissive one liners is going to make that simple fact disappear.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118539168#Comment_118539168

You call it nit-picking, I call it straight up lying to yourself when you’re still denying that you were doing something you claimed you hadn’t done, when the evidence is right there in black and white.