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

31-01-2022 03:08PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118559703#Comment_118559703

Ah, okay - I don't read it that way at all. I read 'patterns of attraction' meaning that nothing (or any pattern) outside of non same sex would be considered heterosexual. But, how can you say a single relationship over a long period of time isn't a pattern. That doesn't make any sense. I think your grasping on the plural of pattern and thinking it must require more than one relationship. Would that mean if a person was in a relationship with the same person their entire life that they couldn't consider themselves sexual? I think you're performing olympic level linguistic gymnastics to derive your understanding.

Can you provide substance to your understanding that this definition excludes a single relationship as forming a pattern?

31-01-2022 03:13PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118559790#Comment_118559790

To correct a little "it must require more than one relationship". I would suggest relationships also have nothing to do with it as the citation is "Sexual orientation refers to an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic and/or sexual attractions to men, women or both sexes.".

As such your orientation is not defined by your relationships per se - you could in fact live your entire life and never have a single relationship of any kind - but still have an orientation. Virgins for example have an orientation. Their orientation does not start the first day they have a sexual encounter or enter a relationship.

So I think that answers your "one relationship for their whole life" question?

LLMMLL · 31-01-2022 03:46PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118557967#Comment_118557967

Only if you ignore everything else Tax said about the situation so you don't have to actually engage with his argument.

It's not hard to see why a woman who has a general interest in men and doesn't have a general interest in women could be described as straight.

LLMMLL · 31-01-2022 03:49PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118558889#Comment_118558889

15 years being in a relationship with one individual (as part of some kind of throuple) is a little different to 15 years of relationships or encounters with multiple women.

31-01-2022 04:00PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118560241#Comment_118560241

It's really not. It is a consistent pattern of bisexuality.

The amount of encounters is kind of irrelevant I would have thought? By that rationale, a person who has only had one opposite sex partner for their whole life is somehow less straight than someone who has had multiple same sex and opposite sex partners

31-01-2022 04:18PM

Yes the number of encounters is irrelevant you are correct.

The definitions I cited specifically refer to "Enduring Patterns" of "attraction".

As in the number of people of that gender you are attracted to - not whether you have any kind of encounter or relationship with them.

So one long term relationship would not change anything - or in fact no relationship at all. The question is if the person you are attracted to - is a single solitary exception in all of your "attractions".

31-01-2022 04:23PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118560434#Comment_118560434

Well i disagree with your interpretation of the definition.

I suppose that's all that can be said about that.

LLMMLL · 31-01-2022 04:58PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118560338#Comment_118560338

No because when we talk about being gay or straight we talk about attraction and not relationships.

A consistent pattern of bisexuality would be a consistent interest in both men and women.

If it were about relationships then a permanently single man who is attracted to other men would be not gay.

That's not the case because at no point have who you are in a relationship with been the deciding factor.

Wibbs · 31-01-2022 05:07PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118560191#Comment_118560191

I've 'engaged' with his argument and it still makes little sense. Generalities don't cut it either, or they do if we're talking about bisexuality. Exclusively hetero or homo have a specific interest and that's where it ends. If one is interested in and capable of being sexually and romantically aroused by one gender to the exclusion of the other, you're Straight/Gay. If one is interested in and capable of being sexually and romantically aroused by both genders, whether that be one individual or more, or indeed none, you're Bi. The virgins argument is a non starter too. They could be gay/straight/bi and still a virgin, however who they are specifically and capable of being attracted to is what makes the difference.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118560241#Comment_118560241

Why? There are polygamist arrangements in different cultures where there isn't any same sex romantic/sexual interaction. They're Straight relationships that happen to be polygamist. There are throuples where where one partner is shared between two, but the two same sex partners don't share each other. Hell I knew one setup where two guys were seeing the same woman for years and were aware of each other and seemed to make it work, but weren't romantically/sexually involved with each other.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118560458#Comment_118560458

Pretty much this. And tbh there's only so much as CW put it "performing olympic level linguistic gymnastics to derive your understanding" stuff I can deal with before I sustain injury from excessive face palming at the complete lack of logic involved.

31-01-2022 05:26PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118559839#Comment_118559839

Where does it say"it must require more than one relationship"?

Re your definition, can you give a reference (apologies again if already given) because I've seen different to the above - I can't find your exact one and it's important for us to both be working off the same one.

I can respond more fully then.

31-01-2022 05:28PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118560458#Comment_118560458

Yes, I think tax may be inferring incorrectly, but before getting into the nitty gritty of words, I want to make sure we're looking at the exact same definition source. Otherwise... 🙄😁

31-01-2022 05:44PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118560634#Comment_118560634

You are suggesting that if I was consistently engaging in sex and in a romantic relationship with one man, that wouldn't be a enduring pattern of homosexuality? Or if I was consistently engaging in sex and in a relationship with a one man and a one woman, that wouldn't be a consistent pattern of bisexuality?

See this is why this is an absolutely ridiculous standpoint.

LLMMLL · 31-01-2022 05:54PM

If you were not sexually attracted to men in general then I would not think of you as bisexual.

Of course I would wonder why you are in a relationship with someone when you are not sexually attracted to their gender in general, and it would place you in the nichest of niche relationship categories.

For example, I've never met a gay man who is exclusively attracted to one man. Or a straight man who is exclusively attracted to one woman. I know a straight guy who is only interested in his girlfriend. He still finds other women attractive though.

LLMMLL · 31-01-2022 06:11PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118560681#Comment_118560681

If one is interested in and capable of being sexually and romantically aroused by one gender to the exclusion of the other, you're Straight/Gay. If one is interested in and capable of being sexually and romantically aroused by both genders, whether that be one individual or more, or indeed none, you're Bi.

It's a bit rich to accuse others of linguistic gymnastics when you keep adding this "capable of" term to the definition to suit your own argument. I have looked at about 4 different definition sources and you are the only one who uses it.

At least in Tax's case his definition matches one source (Wikipedia).

Yours matches ZERO.

Why? There are polygamist arrangements in different cultures where there isn't any same sex romantic/sexual interaction. They're Straight relationships that happen to be polygamist. There are throuples where where one partner is shared between two, but the two same sex partners don't share each other. Hell I knew one setup where two guys were seeing the same woman for years and were aware of each other and seemed to make it work, but weren't romantically/sexually involved with each other.

This has nothing to do with my point. I was not commenting on polygamy. I am commenting that the idea that a long term relationship qualifies as an enduring pattern for Tax's criteria that sexuality is based on enduring patterns and not isolated one off attractions/encounters. The various types of polygamist relationship have no impact on this.

It's pretty obvious that enduring pattern here is basically referring to the fact that people attracted to individuals from a gender are usually attracted to more than one individual from that gender in such a way that suggests that part of their attraction is that person's gender.

Someone in a 15 year relationship with a man who finds no other man sexually attractive and has never found any other man sexually attractive even before they knew this man is not showing that kind of.enduring pattern.

31-01-2022 06:42PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118560931#Comment_118560931

So I can be enjoying a healthy sexual relationship with one guy, getting banged every day, greedily performing oral sex on him at every opportunity and enjoying being held in his arms as I drift to sleep on his chest, all the while, proclaiming I am straight because I find Keira knightly and Emma stone attractive.

Ok. So how many men do I have to find attractive before it would become a little silly to define myself as straight?

One isn't enough, so is two enough?

Liberty_Bear · 31-01-2022 06:58PM

For the sheer intetest I placed an ad on a classified ads site

All the men who responded were married to women

31-01-2022 07:07PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118561261#Comment_118561261

How can you tell? Are they saying this to get attention. Is this the female of SWF.

31-01-2022 07:10PM

WIKI itself can't be a source for obvious reasons, but does it have a reference?

LLMMLL · 31-01-2022 07:15PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118561181#Comment_118561181

I think you've framed the sex in the way that you Understand sex, which sounds very porny.

Someone who greedily sucks c**k is probably into c**k and is probably bi.

I'm talking about a niche situation that i wasn't even sure existed until both Wibbs and Tax both said they knew people in that situation.

Rather than impose a "cockgobbling sl*TS" view of sex on them I'd like to hear what they think and feel.when they have sex. Could be that they're not into c**k/vadge but get a thrill from giving their partner pleasure.

And before you say that's unrealistic I've heard countless straight women describe oral sex with men in this way.

31-01-2022 07:41PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118561355#Comment_118561355

Ok. I'll reframe it.

I could happily give a man oral sex and/or receive oral sex from a man while engaging in sexual intercourse with a man on a regular basis, as part of a loving intimate relationship and still consider myself straight?

Because that's right up there in the "**** hell, what has the world come to?" stakes.

LLMMLL · 31-01-2022 08:03PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118561492#Comment_118561492

Yes if you're attracted to women in part because of their gender but attracted to this man in spite of his gender.

Because that's right up there in the "**** hell, what has the world come to?" stakes.

Well keep shaking your fist at the sky. Might have an effect some day.

31-01-2022 08:34PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118561608#Comment_118561608

Gender? I assume you mean sex?

Strange how you conflate the two. Are they not separate?

So to recap:

biological men can have sex with, and be in a romantic relationship with, another biological man and still be heterosexual? and sex and gender mean the same thing but there are only two sexes and an infinite amount of genders?

Anyone who thinks otherwise is an old man shaking his fist at the sky?

LLMMLL · 31-01-2022 08:57PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118561742#Comment_118561742

Nice try but I've always said in the trans thread that I use gender and sex in the same way.

31-01-2022 09:09PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118561871#Comment_118561871

In much the same way you seem to use hetero and bi the same way.

So you just don't believe that there are an infinite amount of genders?

GreeBo · 31-01-2022 09:34PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118561871#Comment_118561871

So you can change your sex just by changing your gender?

What does it mean to be attracted to a woman because of her gender and attracted to a man in spite of it?

I understand every word in that sentence yet the sentence itself is meaningless to me. Based on the rest of your logic it implies that my attraction to someone would change because they have changed their gender.

Do can you not understand how meaningless all self declaring "i'm a male unicorn today" nonsense makes everything? Its literally impossible to have any meaningful conversation as there is no common logical framework in which to operate.

Galwayguy35 · 31-01-2022 09:38PM

Any fella that shags another man is not straight so the article is misleading.

Yeah they are married to a woman but they are either bisexual or secretly gay.

LLMMLL · 31-01-2022 09:51PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118561940#Comment_118561940

No idea. Don't have any belief about that.

And if you read my posts you would know.i don't view hetero and bi as interchangeable.

31-01-2022 09:52PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118562101#Comment_118562101

You'd have thought so. Apparently your line of thinking is because you are old, out of touch and shaking your fist at the sky.

You can be in a loving sexual relationship with ONE man as long as you don't fancy any other men and also like women and correctly declare yourself as straight.

It hasn't been confirmed for me, but I think fancying any more than one man means you are either gay or bi.

Of course this all depends on what gender they are because that is the same as sex. So of they are gender fluid, you might be gay or straight depending on how they identify.

It's all very simple. Because definitions don't mean anything unless it's how you define your gender (of which there are an infinite amount of)(which is also your sex) because failure to acknowledge and wholly accept a person by their self definition is hate speech. That's when definition of words definitely matters.

Simple.

31-01-2022 09:55PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118562164#Comment_118562164

But you think a girl can be in a romantic relationship with another girl and still be straight?

And as for your belief on gender, ironically it's a binary answer.

You either believe there are an infinite amount, or you don't.

LLMMLL · 31-01-2022 10:07PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118562084#Comment_118562084

As I said in my previous posts which I'm assuming you dont bother to read, being attracted to a gender usually means that you are attracted to multiple people of that gender in a way that suggests their gender is part of the attraction.

If you are a man and have never been attracted to a man, never fantasized about a man but for some rare and unusual reason are attracted to one male individual because of their personality or something then it's a stretch to say you are attracted to men and are therefore bi.

This is why Wibbs has to edit the definitions.of sexualities to add in being "capable" of being attracted.

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

Comments