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

Except it absolutely is by the definitions I cited. And I have not simply declared that to be true. I offered and cited things, offered arguments and reasoning, and a conclusion.

Rather than just declaring by fiat it is not true - why not actually construct an argument to that effect? I can cite the definitions again for you if you want and you can show me where my interpretation of the cited text is wrong?

Or is "You are just wrong!" an argument these days? :) On Twitter maybe.

The issue is I do not think you have rebutted my position at all. You have rebutted the position of the dictionary. You have taken issue with what the dictionary says - not with what I have said. I have yet to see a single rebuttal of my position from you. Everything is just re-stating what you think the words mean without a single reference to my arguments or the definitions I cited.

And I "avoided" nothing. You have. Whole posts at times in fact! My reply very much does address your question on how I define these words. So nothing was avoided. Here is my position again. If you want to rebut my position not the dictionaries - by all means do so for once! I will split them under two headings so it is absolutely explicitly clear which is which.

• The citations my position is based on first (This is the dictionary not me):

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."

• My position therefore is (This is me):

The definitions themselves (not me) specifically refer to "enduring patterns of attraction" and defines sexual orientation based on the "Genders to which they are typically attracted". They also explicitly differentiate between sexual behavior and orientation.

Given that definition and nothing else - if a persons enduring and typical behavior is heterosexual but consists of a single (event, or relationship) atypical exception then the text of the definition very much does allow their still being defined as heterosexual.

EXACTLY (not vague "thats waffle" or "no this is what I think the words mean") what is wrong with my interpretation of the text here? Do you find the locus of your reaction against this to be more focused on the bits under "This is the dictionary not me" "This is me" or some proportion of both?

But since you want me to explicity answer your question directly therefore - so you can not pretend that my answer does not already address your question implicitly - how would I define bisexuality? I would define it using the citations above. Specifically citation 1.

No problem - actually I just did in the post to wibbs above. In the post I was as clear as I can what things are coming from me personally and what things I am citing from other sources. As I think a few users are genuinely confusing which is which when they reply to me.

I hope it helps! I genuinely think a lot of the things people are taking issue with me - are not actually coming from me but the dictionary. I am merely saying what I think the dictionary says. In taking exception to much of this with me - they are actually taking issue with the dictionary.

Whatever else - to be fair to me - I think it would be kind if we stop and take a moment to be absolutely sure which is which. We might discuss whether the dictionary definition is a nonsense or bad definition or not. That's fine. But me pointing out what the dictionary says is different.

Again "Don't blame the messanger when you could go back and tell the message sender their message sucks". :) Are we arguing the definition is a bad one - or that my interpretation of the definition is somewhere inaccurate or unclear?

Ah lads, are ye still debating how many gender fluid angels can fit on the head of a pin. 😅

"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?"

If you say so? But that is not what I am saying. Nothing in that sentence above comes even remotely close to matching anything I have said :/

I genuinely do not know how many different ways I can describe my _actual position_ on this matter before you reply to it and not something markedly different. :/ I really do not think you a stupid person. Far from it. So at this stage I can only begin to suspect you are willfully pretending to misunderstand what I am saying.

What I am saying is that the definitions I have found suggest you can reasonably describe yourself as Gay if your Sexual Orientation shows a "typical" and "enduring" pattern of being sexually attracted to men and not to women.

If however you are consistently, typically, and normally attracted to women and not men the definition I cited would suggest you be labelled "heterosexual".

If you partook in a couple of entirely atypical homosexual experiences - or even a single solitary but relatively long term homosexual relationship - the definition I cited would seemingly (look at the wording yourself) also suggest you be labelled "heterosexual". For not 1 but 2 reasons.

If you at that point wished to identify yourself as bisexual - I am not sure who would take issue with it. I certainly would not. But the definitions I cited merely show that it is entirely valid and coherent for you to choose not to do so.

So if you are in a long term relationship with a woman and simply decide to call yourself gay? Have at it if you like. But the definitions I cited certainly would not suggest you do so - or offer a basis for doing so.

Really I have said no more than that. To point out what those particular cited definitions say/mean. So can we maybe stop pretending otherwise???

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.