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

Some people need simple definitions to make sense of complex things. It makes them feel more in control.

But definitions are only useful if they group individuals in a meaningful way. In a way that is informative, or has legal or social consequences.

I can imagine a situation where a man who is attracted to women and fantasises about women exclusively meets one individual male who's personality attracts them and a sexual attraction for that individual male grows out of this but is still not attracted to or fantasises about any other male. Now I've never encountered this happening and don't know if it ever has. But I think this is a kind of situation Tax is referring to.

So by wibbs simple approach this person is bisexual. But is this informative at all?

If you told me they were bisexual before I knew the details of their situation I would assume they are like every other bi person i met. Pretty consistently interested in both men and women. I definitely would not be thinking they were totally interested in women apart from one individual man.

And if I was running a scientific experiment to gauge how often bi men fantasised about men and I decided the whole experimental group was this kind of man (which should cause no issues if these men are bisexual by definition) then I'd get some pretty funky results.

So I would say it's simplistic to dismiss the "persistent" aspect of Tax's definition.

But if this kind of "straight except for 1 same-sex person" sexuality even exists it seems to be vanishingly rare (I've certainly never encountered it) and the simplistic defintion applies in the vast majority of cases.

I don't think a debate about whether simple definitions of sexualities apply to extreme niche cases has any impact whatsoever on heterosexual monogamous relationships.

This has nothing to do with my posts. Are you trying to get a dig in at another poster or something?

It has everything to do with your earlier post?

Some people need simple definitions to make sense of complex things. It makes them feel more in control. 

But definitions are only useful if they group individuals in a meaningful way. In a way that is informative, or has legal or social consequences.

I can imagine a situation where a man who is attracted to women and fantasises about women exclusively meets one individual male who's personality attracts them and a sexual attraction for that individual male grows out of this but is still not attracted to or fantasises about any other male.

That last part in particular, is the wishful thinking I was referring to - what you can imagine, some individuals do take that and try to make it reality, by imbuing commonly understood definitions with their own individual interpretation.

As I said - for their own ends.

There’s really nothing complex about simple concepts. I could just as easily make the point that some people need to complicate simple concepts because it makes them feel more in control.

Firstly it's not wishful thinking. I don't wish for it. I said these people may or may not exist adnd I have never met one. Wibbs has said he has met one so I think that takes care of that.

How would an individual try and make it a reality? Can you give an example where someone has attempted to make this a reality.

You might be confused that people who are debating about definitions are trying to make something a reality. Definitions describe reality they do not create it.

Ah we all know this thread was meant to be w**k fodder for those with a "straight man" fetish. Sorry to disappoint.

Sexuality isn't complex and you can use 'boxes'.

Personalities are complex but we're not talking about personalities and neither are we talking about ones subjective option of themselves and even if we were you could still put those subjective personalities of oneself into boxes, as there is always going to be someone somewhere almost exactly like you, so you'd just need a lot more boxes, if you want to be more specific.

So you can have a number of big boxes, and inside those boxes you can have it filled with smaller boxes.

If you don't believe this then what one is saying is that you can't ever describe a person in general terms, ie. in the biggest outer box they are in, but only in terms of the smaller box inside the bigger box, that aren't so easy to label.

Like some other contentions issue I see this attitude all the time of making thinks more complicated than they really are. OEJ suggests this could be to give people control but more control of what? To control an agenda I would suggest.

When it comes to homosexuality, which is really what we're talking about here, there are people who have been attempting to change societies view of sexuality, that is is not one set in stone, and it's...yes you guessed it...fluid. I could only think why one would want to do that and that is to change societies idea of homosexuality, that it isn't some 'other' thing, some 'minority' thing at all, but that homosexuals are no more an other than anyone else is. So it's the ultimate in liberation, that heterosexuals would never again think of homosexuals as an other at all, cuz everyone is playing the same game whatever place on a sexuality spectrum you are 'currently' on. And I think that is total bullsh*t.

I must admit, I've found some of the preceding points made here hard to follow which is why I've responded with this. Either I've nailed it or I'm talking as much rubbish as some others.

I will make one other point about bisexuality especially male bisexuality, and that is I think a lot of bisexual males don't want to be associated with LGBT society.. That they would rather be thought of more of as being part of straight society than gay society. I'm purely taking about image here, because the whole LGBT world has a very cartoonist look to it at the minute. It's all very focused around 'youth', spotty teenagers, angst teenagers, garish cartoon-ish fashion, loud colours, nose piercings, weird hairstyles, if you see what I mean. Well you only need to look at RTE's Pride Promos to see what I mean. So point being, I can see why a bisexual person might not wish to outwardly identify as bisexual at all, even thought they damn well are.

Well I can confirm that, as I'm gay myself. Maybe after revealing that you might look at my last contribution differently.

I don't think sexuality is fluid, and of course I'm glad western society looks at sexuality differently, but not as differently as some are proposing, no more than some are proposing that gender is inherently fluid either for the exact same reason as I proposed in relation to homosexuality, which is some wish to go wild with this 'complex' idea about it, 'that we can never really understand', for whatever agenda they hold to suggest such ideas.

Because they are against the 'idea'. Because it's just some stupid progressive leftist idea like all stupid leftist ideas are.

Progressive leftists try to change our perception of reality, as a fix. If you would only look at it this way, then everything works.

But it's just not real. And you can never change anyone's opinion by saying well 'look at it this way'.

As if society is just something like The Matrix. Where you just plug things in and out, make some changes, and oh it's perfect now. All you have to do is make everyone think the same way and everything is sorted.

And this is exactly what Canada is doing. It's exactly what Hate Speech laws are doing. Those are the methods that are used to make everyone think the same way. But it's all just a system of control.

If this carry's on then noone can can ever have an opinion about anything. Not a genuinely held one anyway.

And so, I think the idea of sexual desire fluidity is total nonsense.

Some people just can't bear facts. But the fact is many people especially related to sexuality are 'fantasists'. And I think that is why this thread exists in the first place. Hope some of you are 'getting off' on it, not to be too insulting but you can see why I say that.

Ehh, that’s exactly what the thread is about? Gay men claiming to be straight, when they’re engaging in behaviour which would normally be associated with homosexuality, such as being sexually attracted to other men, or having sex with other men.

I’m not sure why you associated me with Wibbs with regard to our perception of bisexuality, because I know i didn’t say anything about bisexual. Like I said earlier in the thread, I keep it simple -

It couldn’t be any simpler, and yes, I’m all too aware there are some people who need to complicate definitions which are simple, because the definitions which exist as far as they’re concerned, don’t accurately describe their sexual identity, orientation or concept of sex and sexuality.

@AllForIt asked the question - control of what? The answer isn’t an agenda at all, it’s self-determination, which I’m completely supportive of. Freedom of expression includes freedom of self-expression. It doesn’t preclude me from having the freedom of thought to know that someone who is gay, claiming to be straight, is an absolute walnut.

Not in the literal sense that they are an actual walnut, it’s how I define anyone who engages in that sort of mental fcukery of trying to undermine other peoples mental frame of reference. Word association, it’s kind of a big deal when it comes to language, to any form of communication of ideas. Associating behaviour with words which doesn’t describe the behaviour is an attempt to undermine other people’s frame of reference. It’s harmless when they keep it to themselves, but it can be harmful when they try to influence other people. If they do it persistently, it amounts to nothing more than gaslighting (an attempt to, anyway!).

@Ave Sodalis the reason the whole idea of a scale of sexual orientation is… whatever you’re having yourself, is because what you’re suggesting is exactly what it’s intended to do - suggest that on an individual level - everyone’s a little bit gay, the only question is which way the scale leans more towards - either more towards gay (with fingers crossed that anyone is buying it), or not entirely straight (and again fingers crossed…). That’s the way the scale of sexual orientation originally conceived by Kinsey, and it hasn’t been modified all that much in the time since it was first conceived.

It’s an attempt to undermine anyones perception of themselves as either straight or gay, by suggesting that individuals are both at the same time, and lean more towards one than the other. It was Kinsey’s own way of permitting his own transgressions of social norms at the time - he and his wife agreed they would have sex with other people. You don’t need to be a genius to figure out who’s idea that was, and he encouraged his research assistants and students to do the same, all in the name of science, of course.

Undoubtedly, his contributions to the fields of sexology and psychology cannot be completely disregarded, but his methods were questionable and his experiments often unethical, and would be regarded as irresponsible in modern science. Back then though in a time when sexual liberation was the goal of academic exploration, that kind of fcukology was all the rage.

Not what I asked you and not actually what the thread is about. The thread is about men who claim to be straight having sex with other man. It seems to be an extra interpretation you have added yourself that we are discussing gay men claiming to be straight.

Even if you don't agree that a straight man could choose to have sex with another man without being attracted to men it should be pretty uncontroversial that a bi man can choose to have sex with another man.

Bi men are not gay men.

So it's a little ridiculous to claim that this thread is about gay men who claim to be straight when bi men have been discussed extensively.

Can you say which poster has claimed that gay men can be straight?