I wonder if he was meaning that he wants gay sex but without the intimacy, which is reserved for the opposite sex. I guess that would mean liking the physical act with same sex but the cardiac emotions and relationship aspects with the opposite gender. I'm kinda that way myself. Never really understood it. I'm trying to get better at it though.
In that scenario, though, he'd be bisexual due to his contact with men. There's a medical/sociological term for this which is
MSM. It's used as a completely judgment-neutral way to discuss sexual activities between men and does not infer any specific emotional attachment (or lack thereof).
I really can get on board with this designation. I think too many guys split hairs and over-qualify their sexual expression; I also think that far too many guys reject the whole bi/gay label because they internalize the social stigma associated with being a sexual minority. Stereotyping labels to specific behaviors and mannerisms sure doesn't help, either.
I also get the disconnect between emotional bonding and feeling horny. More on that below:
Well it all depends on your POV. There are people who have very intimate emotional relationships that are not sexual. Personally I don't do very well being sexual without emotional intimacy also, but there are a lot of people who can have sex without caring about the other person at all. In fact it's pretty common these days.
I think I overstated my feelings on the connection between sexual expression and intimacy (which isn't exactly a razor-specific noun, IMO), so I'll take a second and elaborate on what I meant in my first post regarding equating the two:
1) I agree completely that one can have intensely meaningful and deeply intimate relationships that have no sexual component whatsoever. I currently enjoy just such a bond with at least three people whom I can think of off the top of my head. There really should be a better word than
friend for such relationships;
2) When I was still in my late teens, I recognized a concept I called
casual intimacy, which I applied to many, though hardly the entirety, of my sexual contacts. Casual intimacy involves the chemistry that seems to evolve quickly with someone one's having an otherwise emotionally unattached encounter with. It doesn't involve anything other than the time you share, be it a few hours or a series of encounters spread over weeks or months. It's a bonding that allows trust to open enough at least to explore intense physical sensations and the resulting, inevitable emotions such sensations impart.
Kissing during sex is an excellent illustration of this concept. It can be a strictly sexual thing: "I love the way this feels". It can be a casually intimate thing: "I love the way you make me feel and the way you have let me into your head and not just your ass". Obviously it can also be a deeply intimate thing, too: "I love you and our lovemaking is yet another demonstration of this";
3) I have always appreciated a good sportfuck, and have never required any degree of emotional bonding to get a nut off. But I also expect (no: require) that my partner be on the same page as me in this regard. That lesson was learned just once, when I was 20 and assumed that an FB felt as casually intimate with me as I did with him; the chemistry and sex were superb, but he was completely unsuited to my tastes and requirements for a real BF to take it any further. The problem arose when I rejected his overt expressions of love for me and I attempted to pull away. He reacted poorly and beat me up, pretty badly: so much for his "love" :wink: