Married Men - A Gay Lads View - Have you ever had an experience?
Comments
-
You forgot to mention your homosexual qualification 😐
It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.
Terry Pratchet
0 -
Is ad hominem all you have or are you actually able to discuss the topic at hand?
If a question came up in a setting where I was asked my sexuality and I said 'straight' - do you think the person asking the question would infer that I sleep with men from that?
3 -
That is useful at least. I can see at least now the error you are making and the point at which our understanding is diverging and we are talking past each other. This is more progress than we made the last time we had this exact same conversation. I can work with this.
You are making the same error I warned another user about before. Which is taking the definition of a word in a sub category and acting like it entirely supersedes the definition of the parent category rather than augments or refines it. An understandable error. But an error none the less I feel. Rather than childishly shout things like "daft" at each other - which in fairness only one of us has reduced to - we can progress the discussion maturely and reasonably.
Let us take a step back therefore to the definitions I offered before on sexuality and sexual orientation as a whole. One from a well established dictionary and one from Wikipedia. They state as follows (highlighting mine):
1) "Sexual orientation is an enduring pattern of romantic or sexual attraction (or a combination of these) to persons of the opposite sex or gender, the same sex or gender, or to both sexes or more than one gender."
2) "Sexual identity and sexual behavior are closely related to sexual orientation, but they are distinguished, with sexual identity referring to an individual's conception of themselves, behavior referring to actual sexual acts performed by the individual, and orientation referring to "fantasies, attachments and longings." Individuals may or may not express their sexual orientation in their behaviors.".
3) "a person's identity in relation to the gender or genders to which they are typically attracted; sexual orientation."
Now the point of divergence between us here is when you look up a word like "heterosexual" and paste the definition (a definition I wholly and entirely accept, that is not the argument here) you are taking that definition in isolation. I do not. I take it in the context of it being a sub definition within a category. I therefore take it together with the definition of that parent category.
In other words - I understand what sexual orientation is and what the definitions of it are and mean - and I parse the definition of any one sexual orientation in the context of that understanding. You are not doing so. You are taking the definition entirely in isolation.
Now we could argue which of those processes are linguistically correct. Which would be entirely off topic alas. But at least the basis for our relative positions and the divergence between them is clear. I think your approach is wrong. It is entirely coherent in fairness - as I believe mine to be despite your claims to the contrary - but I think it to be wrong.
The definition of heterosexuality you pasted is clear. But the definition of sexual orientation and what qualifies one for allocation to any orientation is also clear. I take them together not in isolation from each other.
I would add a small side note about the definition you posted however which kinda makes my point for me more than you seem to think it makes yours. Included in your definition is the word "people". Plural. You jump from that to my claim about a person in "a long term" relationship.
See the issue? A single relationship with a single person is not "people". The word "people" put its firmly back into the realm of the definitions I have already produced and defended about "typical" and "enduring" behaviors and how single exceptions do not invalidate a sexual orientation. As such I somewhat think you have shot yourself in your own foot with the definition you have provided and actually made my point(s) for me here. Your own definition specifically says what I have been saying all along. Thanks for the assist :)
0 -
Jesus that's an awful lot of words to say absolutely nothing.
9 -
...which tends to be done by people who are unclear in what they think, so they cobble together some sort of pseudo-analysis to justify a bizarre opinion.
There's nothing unclear or controversial about the fact that straight men only prefer women.
Everyone else, whether they play with men once a year or 40 times a year, they're either gay or bi.
Nice and simple.
0 -
Advertisement
-
Though what also "tends to be done by people" is one line dismissals of arguments they are entirely unable to understand and/or rebut :)
So goes both ways really.
2 -
Not really.
I know meaningless waffle when I see it. Deconstructionist babble.
What part of straight men only prefer women don't you understand?
0 -
Same thing. Calling something "waffle" without actually being able to show a single thing wrong with it is just throwing one liner labels as I said :) Making my point for me there.
Again though - the issue is not "understanding". I perfectly understand your definition and your meaning. I just also perfectly understand the dictionary definitions of the same words and their meanings too.
I do not have to pretend you are failing to understand stuff in order to point out where the divergence occurs. It would be nice to have the same level of respect returned in kind. But you can't have everything I guess.
2 -
I've read your post; an arduous read with slabs of impenetrable text (which is typically how a philosophy student tends to write their first essays).
How does anything you've written disagree with the following statement: straight men are only interested in women?
1 -
More empty throwaway dismissal in your first paragraph so I will skip to the second.
I do not disagree with the statement. I am perfectly happy I understand your statement and what you mean by it. And I can infer from it - without having to ask - what personal definitions you appear to be working off.
The only disagreement I have is with the people who think that this statement is reflective of the _actual dictionary definitions and meanings_ of those words. Or that people who are using the actual definitions - and so would not make the same statement as you - are just "daft" or are trying to be "right on" with some modernist woke mentality.
The simple fact is that the linguistics of the actual words is clear. Single or isolated exceptions to a persons sexuality does not - by the actual definition of the words themselves - invalidate that identification. A heterosexual person who has a single homosexual long term relationship is still validly and coherently heterosexual and does not need to be defined as gay or bi.
You might want to call them homosexual or bisexual. Which is perfectly fine once we are cognizant of the fact that in doing so you are using the words differently to how sexual orientation as a whole defines them.
All of this TL;DR is simply saying one thing. Language is descriptive not prescriptive. Is is labile and fluid and beautiful and powerful. And the moment we try to control that beast by making the "lines in the sand" too explicit or defined - we loose control of it like trying to grip a wet bar of soap too hard.
0 -
Advertisement
-
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,075 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 59004
Calling something "waffle" without actually being able to show a single thing wrong with it is just throwing one liner labels as I said :) Making my point for me there.
Exhibit A.
A heterosexual person who has a single homosexual long term relationship is still validly and coherently heterosexual and does not need to be defined as gay or bi.
You're equally happy to define them as heterosexual and against anything approaching common sense, never mind direct observation. No amount of esoteric sounding waffle, and yes it is waffle(labile and fluid is repeating yourself), will change that, no matter how internally logical you think it sounds in your own head.
OK then, answer me this: Is this hypothetical person still 'validly and coherently heterosexual' while in that homosexual long term relationship? Yes or no.
If yes then sexual orientation definitions have little or no validity as definitions and we may as well throw them out, it's all 'fluid' depending on the observer. Schrodinger's orientation.
If no and they are homosexual in that context - well being in a long term homosexual relationship that would quite naturally follow - then how can they then claim to be heterosexual at the same time? Schrodinger's orientation.
Quite the simplest and actually descriptive label would be while they have a strong tendency towards heterosexual romantic relationships, they are Bisexual. They are clearly or have been clearly sexually and romantically attracted to both sexes.
The orientation itself doesn't matter. If you had said a woman chosing to be in a long term romantic and sexual relationship with a man described herself, or you described her as "validly and coherently Lesbian" I'd still call invalid and incoherent.
TBH throughout this thread I've been surprised at the resistance and on both sides with it to the Bisexual label.
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 -
See typing something like "Exhibit A" and "against common sense" "waffle" is once again not saying anything. It's just throwing dismissive one liners in without actually making any argument at all. I will try to respond once again only to any actual substance - where you actually reply to anything I have actually said - I find in your post outside this need to be petty you have had since post 1. But simply calling your position "common sense" without defending it or rebutting mine does not magically make it common sense.
To answer your question first therefore - yes the definitions of the words (which I have provided multiple times) place no relevance anywhere I have seen on the time of the single relationship. So before - during - or after the relationship the words as they are defined still apply. In fact once again if you read point 2 in my post to you (the second of my posts to you which you have skipped over and not replied to now) it clearly makes a distinction between sexual orientation and behavior right there.
So by all means call them "bisexual" using your own definition of that word. There is nothing wrong with that and I have no issue with it. But there is nothing "daft" or "waffle" about noticing how the actual words are defined and noticing that defining such a person as heterosexual can be entirely coherent, valid and correct. Why is that acceptance and understanding only going in one direction here I wonder?
What would I call them? Well if they assure me they are heterosexual and this homosexual relationship they are in is an exception to that - then I have literally no motivation on any level from emotional to linguistic - to define them otherwise. Why would I? I am happy to see them identified as a heterosexual person in a homosexual relationship. And since I have studied closely the meanings and history of those words - I see no conflict or issue or incoherence with any of that.
As for the resistance you perceive to the word bisexual. I can not really speak to that. I certainly have no such resistance to it myself. Neither when it is used accurately or inaccurately. No problem with it at all. I certainly feel for the issues bisexuals suffer from - and at least one bisexual person on this thread has described some of them. And in my own relationship as you likely know by now - we have been subject to at least a portion of that kind of thing in the past (though modern Ireland is much different than 15 years ago in our day to day experience).
The only issue I have is that when someone - by the very definition of the words themselves - validly and coherently calls themself "heterosexual not bisexual" and is told they are "daft" or trying to be "right on" or are just speaking "waffle" or they have some other dark motivation or agenda or other issue. They don't. They are just using the words as defined. You might not want to use the word that way. And that is fine and no one seems to want to force you to or call you names or question your agendas for doing so. But again - why is that only going one direction I wonder?
So when you say "I'd still call invalid and incoherent." I have to say I have no doubt you would! But you have not provided any actual argument - let alone backed up with citations to actual meanings, definitions and etymology - to back up that position. In fact the only modification therefore I would make to your position of "I'd still call invalid and incoherent." is to change it to "I'd still call invalid and incoherent to me personally."
0 -
Some Gay men fantasise about riding a straight man?
Not one I've heard before.
0 -
"A heterosexual person who has a single homosexual long term relationship is still validly and coherently heterosexual and does not need to be defined as gay or bi"
Bizzare how anyone could come to that logic and then be offended when they're called out on it.
If you're having a long term sexual relationship with a man, I've news for you. You're Gay
0 -
Who is "offended" exactly? I am the only one in the conversation not throwing out dismissive insults and one liners and am staying calm and simply enjoying the conversation. I am quite interested in sexuality. I am quite interested in language. I can deeply enjoy a conversation that incorporates both without getting the least bit emotionally triggered by it. Do not mistake my enjoyment of robustly engaging with a conversation as being in any way emotionally perturbed or put out by the conversation :) For that to happen I would - at the minimum - have to actually care what the people here think. Which I don't :)
The issue for me is not with being "called out" for my logic. Rather merely having it derided by one liners without an actual rebuttal showing where my logic has failed or is being misapplied. Because that just kills conversation and ruins the fun of even having one.
If you wish to take a shot at that by all means have at it. You will find me impossible to offend or upset!
As for your last sentence - even if you wholly disagree with me and wholly agree with Wibbs and Dunne - your sentence is still problematic. Such a person could be gay for sure. They could also be bisexual for all you know. And - as I keep pointing out - based on nothing but pointing out how the words themselves are actually defined he could indeed be heterosexual.
But on the face of it your sentence is problematic without even agreeing with my take on the words. As there are bisexuals in homosexual relationships. There are bisexuals in heterosexual relationships. So automatically decreeing "Relationship with another man = gay" is simply not a statement on strong ground that I can see.
0 -
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,075 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 59004
What would I call them? Well if they assure me they are heterosexual and this homosexual relationship they are in is an exception to that - then I have literally no motivation on any level from emotional to linguistic - to define them otherwise. Why would I? I am happy to see them identified as a heterosexual person in a homosexual relationship.
A heterosexual person happily in a homosexual relationship. I've read some cognitively dissonant bollocks in my time, but that takes the rich tea biscuit. If someone wants to call themselves heterosexual while being in a long term happy same sex romantic relationship, or homosexual while being in an opposite sex realtionship, good luck to them but it's an entirely subjective position.
And yep I read your post on behavoir and orientation. Something about rent boys, incels and virgins and more extended waffle that avoids making a point or stand beyond definitions are fluid, sorry labile and self identification is paramount.
So by all means call them "bisexual" using your own definition of that word. There is nothing wrong with that and I have no issue with it. But there is nothing "daft" or "waffle" about noticing how the actual words are defined and noticing that defining such a person as heterosexual can be entirely coherent, valid and correct. Why is that acceptance and understanding only going in one direction here I wonder?
Because I can't accept obvious bullshíte too readily no matter how it's dressed up. I label them Bisexual because - and brace yourself - they have demonstrated that they are sexually and romantically attracted to both men and women. Y'know Bisexual.
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.
7 -
We can put "cognitively dissonant bollocks" and "bullsh1te" on the long list of throw away pissiness like "extended waffle" you are using in lieu of an actual argument. What you are not doing - once again - is pointing at the actual definitions of the words (which I have provided, you have not) and shown how what I said is not congruent with those actual definitions.
Is out of hand dismissal with crass language all you have to offer? If so we are going to keep going around in circle here as you are talking at me and past me - not with me. You really seem to think that writing words like "waffle" actually constitutes a response or rebuttal or some sort rather than just highlighting you have no actual responses to offer.
For the full bingo card - you have not yet fallen back on one of your old favorites of calling people you disagree with a "neck beard" :) At least you replied to my post this time unlike the last two. This is progress of a sort.
But it is not a "subjective position" as you claim. It is a position that is 100% entirely congruent with the definitions of the words I have posted. And you have failed to show otherwise. You want to keep asserting otherwise for sure. But assertion is not an argument. Never has been. Read the definitions of the words I offered and explained and show me please how anything I have said does not map correctly onto those definitions? If I am so wrong then why is such a simple thing so hard to do?
Your very own definition shot you in the foot. It clearly said "people". If you as a heterosexual person find a single solitary exception to the rule - a man you are attracted to despite never being attracted to one before during or since - then your own definition which you yourself pasted does not support your position here.
0 -
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,075 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 59004
For the full bingo card - you have not yet fallen back on one of your old favorites of calling people you disagree with a "neck beard"
Now your delusion is complete. Neckbeard is a term I've almost never used with anybody and certainly not in the context you've imagined. Search away sunshine.
What you are not doing - once again - is pointing at the actual definitions of the words (which I have provided, you have not) and shown how what I said is not congruent with those actual definitions.
I label them Bisexual because - and brace yourself - they have demonstrated that they are sexually and romantically attracted to both men and women. Y'know Bisexual. I don't how more clear I can make this, unless I resort to breaking out the crayons. My label of Bisexual for someone who has demonstrated that they can be attracted to both men and women is a lot more "congruent" with reality than describing the same person who has demonstrated attraction to both men and women as heterosexual, or homosexual for that matter. Your position is a convulted suburban pseud nonsense to anyone but yourself and those who want to buy into new age fluidity stuff.
Your very own definition shot you in the foot. It clearly said "people". If you as a heterosexual person find a single solitary exception to the rule - a man you are attracted to despite never being attracted to one before during or since - then your own definition which you yourself pasted does not support your position here.
If tomorrow I got the horn and heart for a man I would be a Bisexual. A shocked one, but a Bisexual nonetheless and fair enough. I could not claim with a straight face that I am heterosexual. Or indeed homosexual. The previous opposite sex interactions and attractions would make a mockery of the latter, the current same sex interaction and attraction a mockery of the former. I would be Bisexual. Job done. No confusion. No need for any confusion, in myself or others.
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 -
My my it was a tongue in cheek comment designed to lighten the mood "sunshine" as I feel the tone of some of your responses needs lightening. You are clutching at straws now if you want to make out that this is somehow relevant to my discussion on this thread or my supposed "delusions". But actually yes - since I am actually someone to back down on something when I have been corrected on it - I do think I mixed you up in my head with someone else who jumps to calling everyone a "neck beard" when they express positions they disagree with. I will check who I thought I was thinking of later.
Back to the topic: You are merely reasserting your own position here in this post though. You call them bisexual because "Y'know brace yourself" they fit _your personal_ definition of bisexual. And I have said multiple times already I have no issue with that whatsoever. So what's the problem there? Why do you want to make it "more clear" when I not only understand it, but have said I accept it and have no issue with it multiple times??? Are you even trying to make sense at this point?
No. What I asked was if you could show how anything _ I _ have said is not congruant with the _ actual _ definitions of the words I cited. And the clear answer so far is no. You can not. And there is nothing "new age" about anything I have said. Just another one of your cop out dismissals alas. What is "new age" about finding, reading, and understanding the actual dictionary definition of a word exactly????
So if tomorrow you "get the horn and heart" for a man and wish to identify as bisexual that is fine! No on said otherwise. But the fact is that by the actual definition of the words - which I have been providing - it is perfectly cogent and coherent and linguistically correct to call yourself heterosexual too if you so wished. And you are failing quite consistently to show how that statement is false in light of the actual wording of the actual definitions. Rather you simply ignore the actual definitions and call my position "waffle" or "incoherent" by the lights of your own personal ones.
0 -
It's absolutely not correct to call yourself heterosexual if you engage or have desires for sexual relations with someone of the same sex.
To say otherwise makes a mockery of the definitions of gay, bisexual and straight and makes your sexuality a choice.
4 -
Advertisement
-
Right so when you said this:
Being straight/gay isn't just 'being attracted to' someone, it's whether or not you CAN engage with a gender on that level. There are plenty of Gay people for whom the very thought of a heterosexual encounter engenders visceral feelings of disgust, just like Straight people would find the thoughts of a homosexual encounter.
you didn't mean that men who aren't viscerally disgusted by the thought of sex with other men are not straight.
Then what do you mean by "CAN engage with a gender on that level"?
Surely a man who CAN have sex with another man (but isn't into it) CAN engage with the male gender.
So why isn't it about attraction?
0 -
By what definition are you presuming to make that assertion? I have provided the definitions I am using and cited the original sources. And by those definitions it is absolutely correct to do so.
Like Wibbs you keep appealing to "the definitions" without actually offering one. Like in the post where he shouted "by definition" but did not provide one.
And like Wibbs and at least one other user I discussed this with - when looking at definitions of sub categories of words it pays to also parse them in relation to the definitions of the parent category. So if looking at the definition of "homosexuality" or "bisexuality" - it works to parse those in terms of the definition of the parent category "sexuality". And I suspect that's exactly the move a few people here are not making.
As for sexuality being a choice - that is a bit of leap to make. Sexuality and the words we use to describe sexuality are two very massively distinct things. They are in no way similar. We can have a fun (for me at least, as I enjoy it, YMMV) discussion about what words we use, why we use them and so on. But words do not dictate our sexuality. If you find yourself attracted to someone tomorrow - regardless of their race or gender or anything else - that biological/phychological reality has nothing to do with what words you then use to describe it.
I share much of your dismay about people being able to "identify as anything" which you expressed in a few posts. I am actually entirely on the same page with you on much of that. But I suspect we differ in what we believe the causes and solutions are there. I do not think rigid black and white fixed narrow definitions of words is the solution. Rather I think that is what causes people to reject those words - invent new ones - or start identifying themselves in weird ways. The more narrowly you define a word - the more people will feel they do not identify with it.
But the solution is not to go too far in the other direction and simply let any word mean anything either.
But there is a continuum between those two points and when you read the definitions (which as I keep saying I am the only one to have actually bothered providing them) of sexuality and sexual orientation they are quite clear and meaningful - but just not concrete rigid. Sexuality is defined not by isolated attracted or behaviors - but enduring patterns of typical behaviors over time. And that is perfectly serviceable and meaningful and is nowhere near the despair of diluting words too much or people just cherry picking any definition that they want which I would happily share with you.
0 -
Gay - attracted to and/or perform sexual acts solely with the same sex
Bi - attracted to and/or perform sexual acts with either sex
Straight- attracted to and/or perform sexual acts solely with the opposite sex
It's not rocket science.
And biological reality has nothing to do with the words I use to define it? That's nonsense.
0 -
The above has nothing to do with the point you made in your original post which is the point I was replying to. Not the completely separate point you are now making.
Yes if you say you're straight people will infer that you are interested in women and not interested in men.
But that's a separate point to the one you made in your post which I will quote below:
I take it from your posts you are not straight? If so, then you have no idea of the aversion I speak of and only someone who is actually straight knows what I mean. I don't mean that in a 'YOU WOULDN'T UNDERSTAND!!!' way, just that there's definitely a physiological reaction that a straight person gets which, if you're not straight, you physically cannot relate to their experience.
You are assuming that part of being a straight man is having a physiological aversion to the thought of sex with another man.
That's a completely different claim to the pretty obvious fact that if you said you were straight people would infer you're into women.
It's also plainly false. Not all straight men have a physiological aversion to the thought of sex with another man. Some just plain wouldn't be into it.
1 -
So they are your definitions personally? Not from any dictionary or external source?
Nothing wrong with that of course! As I keep pointing out.
I just like to be clear that you are using definitions of your own here - not one you have lifted from any official source of any kind?
So just to test if I understand you - in case I do not - by your personal makeyup definitions for example - a heterosexual male in need of money who decided to make money by servicing gay/bi men as a sex worker becomes himself bisexual the moment he services his first customer? He may have no attraction whatsoever to men but because he "performs sexual acts" with a male customer base he is therefore bisexual?
0 -
Well his definitions obviously don't make sense as it makes gay-for-pay porn actors bisexual.
Which is a little silly if they would only have sex with men for money and are exclusively attracted to women.
1 -
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,075 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 59004
In plain terms I'm not going to be able to get it up for a man. I can get it up. I can't get it up for a man. I am not sexually attracted nor aroused by men and that's on an reptile brain level and yes it would border on repellent as an idea to me, though more along the lines of ewwww, hard(or not) nope. I have no idea why this is so confusing for some, or why this is somehow an issue to say? I have zero problem with what adults of any persuasion find sexually attractive or sexually nope, even repellent to them. That would also include some hetero stuff I'd be not on board with personally. I'd have zero issue if a Lesbian told me that the very thought of man pole was a gross out notion for them, or a Gay lad thinking the same of ladygardens. I completely understand where they're coming from. If people are happy out in consensual sex of whatever kind or orientation, then good luck and long happy lives to them.
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.
2 -
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,075 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 59004
This is a variation on the sex worker/rent boy theme. I'd have far fewer problems with describing and believing porn actors if they said they were Straight. I'd imagine pretty much all women porn actors have to be 'gay for pay' regardless of their personal orientation, because 'lesbian sex' sells. So does the deviant 'incest' stuff and I seriously doubt that would be their preference in Real Life. They're being 'gay for pay', a choice that they wouldn't make if it wasn't to pay the bills, in the case of the sex worker the choice is often even less in play.
That's just a tiny bit different to someone who claims to be Straight yet chooses with no compunction, economically or socially to be in a romantic and/or sexual same sex relationship and that choice is no struggle, indeed it's an entirely positive choice for them.
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 -
But that's basing all straight experience (and gay really) on your own. YOU can't get it up for the gender you're not into. That's fine. Nobody is saying you can or should.
But many men can be aroused by physical stimuli regardless of the source. And many men don't have an "ew" reaction to the idea of sex with a man but simply would not be interested.
Your experience is not everybody's and all straight men don't think exactly like you do
1 -
Advertisement
-
Exactly. So the definitions given by the dunne are pretty much useless
0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
