Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Im saying that: unless you do something that reflects your claims of sexuality (watching straight porn), yes, he is straighter than you. Im well aware that there are men who claim to be gay who go on to have children and a wife. In my eyes, he would actually be bisexual if he has been with men before yet also has sex with women, regardless of what he labels himself.
Let me say this again: I don't have to have sex to realize I am attracted to females. I've known I was attracted to females since I was in 1st grade. I didn't even know what sex was in 1st grade but I knew I was attracted to females. So obviously sex by itself has nothing to do with what gender you're attracted to.
You might think sex is the be all, end all to determine someone's orientation. But I don't agree with your sex-centric way of thinking.
It sounds like you're one of those people that only cares about sex in a relationship. If 2 people are in a relationship but don't have sex, would you say they're asexual just because they don't have sex? It's possible to have a relationship without sex. Maybe it's not possible for you, but it's possible. You can have an orientation without having sex.
When I used to go to church, my priest was extremely anti-gay. Being a priest, he was also a virgin. He never had sex but he was clearly straight.
I can't believe I'm admitting this but yes, I've looked at straight porn. In fact, I get emails sent to me from Playboy on a regular basis.
Let me ask you this: if someone is a virgin, how would you classify them as far as orientation goes?
Let me say this again: I don't have to have sex to realize I am attracted to females. I've known I was attracted to females since I was in 1st grade. I didn't even know what sex was in 1st grade but I knew I was attracted to females. So obviously sex by itself has nothing to do with what gender you're attracted to.
You might think sex is the be all, end all to determine someone's orientation. But I don't agree with your sex-centric way of thinking.
It sounds like you're one of those people that only cares about sex in a relationship. If 2 people are in a relationship but don't have sex, would you say they're asexual just because they don't have sex? It's possible to have a relationship without sex. Maybe it's not possible for you, but it's possible. You can have an orientation without having sex.
When I used to go to church, my priest was extremely anti-gay. Being a priest, he was also a virgin. He never had sex but he was clearly straight.
I can't believe I'm admitting this but yes, I've looked at straight porn. In fact, I get emails sent to me from Playboy on a regular basis.
Let me ask you this: if someone is a virgin, how would you classify them as far as orientation goes?
Well there you have it...your actions are consistent with your claims...you are watching straight porn, as do most straight people, which reflects your sexual preference. If you claimed to be straight or gay, yet never followed any impulse to act either way, in my opinion that would be little more than lip service. I believe actions speak for who a person is, and words/thoughts are just that - words and thoughts. If a person claims they are sexually attracted to their dog, they COULD be a zoophile. OR they could just be having thoughts about being attracted to animals..Until they have been so compelled to act on that impulse, (watched pornographic zoophilia, practiced bestiality etc.), they are simply making unsubstantiated, abstract claims about their sexual attraction...and in my opinion couldnt be categorized as anything other than what their actions portray.
As to your question: I actually am not as fixated on sex as you seem to be. You seem to be returning back to this virgin thing. Again, if someone is a virgin AND makes no physical effort to act on their attraction to women (watching pornography, or pursuing women) I would classify them as sexually neutral...they have no sexuality as of yet. There is nothing wrong with that; but they havent substantiated their declaration of their sexual identity with any tangible or real proof through action. Therefore, they can claim to be an astronaut for all I care, until I see them on the moon, or at least boarding a spaceshuttle, they are certainly not an astronaut in my eyes.
This of course is simply my own belief system...I dont expect everyone else to accept my beliefs about sexuality. I simply dont believe that we are nothing more than a repressed _______ *fill in the blank* (someone who considers eating seafood = repressed seafood eater? attracted to the idea of killing, automatically = closet murderer? I like basketball = Im a basketball player?)
Like said, for me, non of the contemporary beliefs about sexuality really make sense...we just dont apply the same logic that we apply to sexuality to anything else that we do in life. - I like asian people, therefore I am an asian person? -
It seems like in every other facet of life, we designate people by what they do...yet for sexuality, we are all able to make baseless claims regarding our sexual identity and have them be accepted as absolute?
Some homosexuals claim they were born gay. But I know a gay person that recently became straight. This makes me wonder if people are really born gay. Not trying to offend any homosexuals.
It's a CHOICE. Otherwise, how do you explain gay men who have biological children? Or married "straight" men who are living two lives and meeting guys when their wives aren't looking? I know somebody who caught HIV whle he was married.
it's not really a choice, gay men can easily lay with a woman to father a child, but that doen't mean they necessarily enjoyed it...,they can't because they're not born that way ...there have been gay people for hundreds of years, throughout history, some maybe for profit, or ulterior motives, but the REAL gay man is born that way
it's not really a choice, gay men can easily lay with a woman to father a child, but that doen't mean they necessarily enjoyed it...,they can't because they're not born that way ...there have been gay people for hundreds of years, throughout history, some maybe for profit, or ulterior motives, but the REAL gay man is born that way
I dont know about that. I think this is part of the problem I have. All of this vague arbitrary rationale that doesnt really coincide with the reality of people's actions..as a biological function, the human male must on some level, enjoy sex, in order to father a child. Reproduction does not occur without his arousal, and often, his satisfaction is required for reproduction to have the greatest chance of occurring. The two are co dependent.
If he simply lays with a woman, without actually having sexual intercourse with her, merely to have a child, then he has not truly been compelled by any straight motivation, to act upon his impulses toward the opposite sex..so there is a great probability that he could (or could not) yet be gay.
Honestly, at the very base level, all men's interests in women are driven by the desire to procreate. This doesnt mean that every man wants to procreate...but procreation is the precursor for the male interest in females. so, that he only had sex with a woman to procreate, doesnt mean that he is gay per se. When you consider all things, procreation is the motivator for pretty much all men. And those for whom it isnt, their genetics will cease to be in circulation.
Last edited by solytaire; 07-17-2010 at 11:14 PM..
Yes, I understand that argument - but Im not buying the argument that someone who thinks about having sex is therefore not a virgin - or that they are therefore sexually active...or that a person who thinks about playing football, is therefore automatically a football player...no clearcut designation of people can ever be made from that standpoint.....I dont buy that there are 90 year old men who are gay, who have never had sex. They may claim to be gay...but they dont truly know. If their attractions were truly that strong, they would have been compelled to act on them, whether openly, or clandestinely. so that just doesnt compute to me...The act, by definition, validates the designation imo. If someone isnt compelled enough to act on their thoughts, then in my opinion, those are no more than simple thoughts...
Sexual orientation is not who you have sex with- it is who you are primarily drawn to. There are people in this world who literally have never had sex. Ever. They are still gay or straight. (or whatever derivative)
And there are gay people who have only ever had sex w/ someone of the opposite sex.
Hiding or supressing what you do does not change what you are. You can bleach your hair but you are still a brunette.
You can abstain from sex- but that does not make you devoid of a sexual orientation.
It's a CHOICE. Otherwise, how do you explain gay men who have biological children? Or married "straight" men who are living two lives and meeting guys when their wives aren't looking? I know somebody who caught HIV whle he was married.
It's a CHOICE!
In the case you describe above, this man was more than likely gay. And if he was- he did not "choose" to be gay (in fact- it appears he went to great lengths to actually FIGHT being gay).
It appears his choice was to deny and repress his gayness (they do it for a variety of reasons) and succumb to a sham marriage, ensnaring a female (this does not make him straight- it makes him a lying gay guy) and leading a false identity, fooling (lying to) everyone (or no one).
Well there you have it...your actions are consistent with your claims...you are watching straight porn, as do most straight people, which reflects your sexual preference. If you claimed to be straight or gay, yet never followed any impulse to act either way, in my opinion that would be little more than lip service. I believe actions speak for who a person is, and words/thoughts are just that - words and thoughts. If a person claims they are sexually attracted to their dog, they COULD be a zoophile. OR they could just be having thoughts about being attracted to animals..Until they have been so compelled to act on that impulse, (watched pornographic zoophilia, practiced bestiality etc.), they are simply making unsubstantiated, abstract claims about their sexual attraction...and in my opinion couldnt be categorized as anything other than what their actions portray.
As to your question: I actually am not as fixated on sex as you seem to be. You seem to be returning back to this virgin thing. Again, if someone is a virgin AND makes no physical effort to act on their attraction to women (watching pornography, or pursuing women) I would classify them as sexually neutral...they have no sexuality as of yet. There is nothing wrong with that; but they havent substantiated their declaration of their sexual identity with any tangible or real proof through action. Therefore, they can claim to be an astronaut for all I care, until I see them on the moon, or at least boarding a spaceshuttle, they are certainly not an astronaut in my eyes.
This of course is simply my own belief system...I dont expect everyone else to accept my beliefs about sexuality. I simply dont believe that we are nothing more than a repressed _______ *fill in the blank* (someone who considers eating seafood = repressed seafood eater? attracted to the idea of killing, automatically = closet murderer? I like basketball = Im a basketball player?)
Like said, for me, non of the contemporary beliefs about sexuality really make sense...we just dont apply the same logic that we apply to sexuality to anything else that we do in life. - I like asian people, therefore I am an asian person? -
It seems like in every other facet of life, we designate people by what they do...yet for sexuality, we are all able to make baseless claims regarding our sexual identity and have them be accepted as absolute?
For me, personally, that has never added up.
Very respectfully, not trying to be argumentative at all- but by your rationale, the man who identifies as loving his Lord and worshipping the God of Abraham is not Christian if he remains home on Sunday mornings- praising only from his heart.
You would say he can only be Christian if he puts on a tie and drives his car to church on Sunday mornings and sings hymns while waving a paper fan and dropping coins into the collection plate, partaking of coffee and donuts and gossip in the vestibule afterwards.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
