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

Except it isn't - by the light of the definitions I cited. As I keep saying we should distinguish between whether you disagree with those definitions - or whether my interpretation of those definitions is wrong. So far you've done a lot of the former. I have not yet seen you argue I have misinterpreted the text.

So if the former I guess you can A) Simply ignore them and not use them or B) Take it up with the source (Dictionaries, Wikipedia) were you to (unlikely) care to do so.

Unless you are interested in the latter then this fun and otherwise stimulating conversation we have been having is likely over :( Thanks for your time all the same :)

Yes it likely is vanishingly rare. Hard to say without having studies on it or knowing the minds of the masses. Neither of which we do :( So the fact is that the definitions people _thought_ these words had is valid 99.9% of the time. Which is why people get rather surprised to hear the definitions might be ever so slightly more broad than they had assumed.

To be honest I know of only two examples which fit the exception. The first being people I met while campaigning on the marriage referendum. The second being my own relationship. My girlfriends are romantically and sexually involved with each other as well as me - have never before in life - and never since - met or seen a single other female that resulted in any sexual or romantic desire. So except for the single aberration of their long term relationship (15ish years now) with each other - they are in every other way heterosexual.

Would they care at all if someone called them "bisexual" even after being politely corrected on it? Not a bit. But calling them bisexual would not - as you say - be at all informative. And my goal with language is to be informative not pedantically "correct". But that is not a goal everyone shares. Nor should they have to!

Must have been quite stressful for the them, considering it was still illegal in Ireland for most of the period you are talking about. A lot has been said about how important gay rights have been for the LGBTQ+ community, but it has been very important for women that ended up in effectively false relationships. Some men also ending up marrying gay women, just because the woman felt pressured into traditional relationships. Very few people happy in those relationships.

Your post goes back to the OPs original post. You'll see a lot less of this, now that gay men don't risk prison at least. I would say prejudice has gone down significantly also, but wont disappear completely or not for many years. But, already not to the level where a gay man would marry a woman. There may be more pressure form the mammies and daddies in rural Ireland, but that will just mean their sons/daughters will just leave for the 'big smoke'.

Will it end entirely married men having relationships with men. There will still be bi men, so no. Will gay men fulfil fantasies about bagging a hetrosexual man, yes. Thankfully we don't have thought police, not even for delusions.

Nothing I have said on this thread is part of "identity politics" at all though. That is important to note. Literally. Nothing.

No. What I have done is cited definitions of certain words from reputable sources and said that _those definitions_ make it perfectly reasonable for them to call themselves heterosexual.

And if you read the definitions - which I have cited many times on the thread now - you will find that this is entirely true.

Now if you have problems with those definitions (rather than my interpretation of them) - that's not my issue. But for some reason people seem not to be able to tell the difference between what I am saying - and what the dictionary I cited is saying. They keep accusing me of the latter.

That is at least (at last? :) ) A response that takes the actual citations into account and questions the interpretation of them.

However I am not convinced that is the way to read what they wrote. I think they are referring to an enduring pattern of attractions to multiple people - as in results within a set. Not an enduring pattern with a single long term person. They are talking about a pattern of attractions over time in the set of attractions - not a pattern within a single relationship.

It could be linguistically argued either way as to what they meant in what they wrote - but I am struggling to read it like you are.

Well the definitions I cited differentiate between attractions and behavior for example. Quite explicitly. So I think that would actually be entirely irrelevant.

While a lot of the people here - some of them quite specifically - conflate the two and so would likely be more in line with thinking like your question.

But yes I guess thats what the entire thread was originally about. Heterosexual married men engaging in homosexual acts.

^^^ if you are saying that the ladies engage in sexual activity without attraction and only when you are with them, then I would 100% say these ladies could be considered heterosexual.

'Heterosexuality involves enduring patterns of attraction to a sex/gender different from one's own.' Is that the definition? How can this be interpreted to back up someone having a long term sexual relationship with the same sex being anything other than not heterosexual? Apologies if this has been discussed before, but if it could be kept to one or two hundred words response. Thanks 😊

I think at this stage it's three heterosexual blokes discussing this 😂 - I think the Gay Lads have tired of this long ago. But, there would be some hypocrisy involved here. If sexuality was on a spectrum and that spectrum meant we were all some part Gay (and presumably paedophile, into bestiality, necrophilia and any other possible sexual orientation) then it gives some credence to conversion therapy - just tap into the heterosexual part of your sexuality or 'yes, Mary, you say you're gay, but it's a spectrum, you can marry John and be wonderfully happy.'