Do gay men ever have straight experiences after they come out as gay?

[njersey]

Hypothetically assuming this person is acting sincerely in good faith, I think he sees himself as battling for recognition for homosexuals, for the immutability and innateness of the homosexual orientation. Arguing that homosexuals can be circumstantially comfortable with sexually interacting with members of the opposite sex introduces a fluidity to sexuality, which in turn opens a door for saying there actually is no discrete sexual orientation. This possibly poses problems for the social recognition of homosexuals, which at least appears to have been founded on and justified by the notions of innateness and immutability.



Well, if you assume that "gay" must mean the same thing as "purely homosexual", then you would be right about these responses voiding its use of meaning.

But what would it mean to be purely anything with respect to sexuality? As far as I can tell, sexual attraction is a modification of aesthetic appreciation (i.e. one responds to someone sexually because one finds them aesthetically pleasing), and aesthetic appreciation falls along an extensive continuum. Where exactly does one draw the line of where mere aesthetic appreciation stops, and sexual attraction begins? If I thought a certain woman's body looked very nice as a whole, would I have to say I'm not purely homosexual, even if I didn't necessarily want to have sex with her? If so, what do we do with the fact that regarding many of the men that I believe I find sexually attractive, I also do not want to have sex with them?



Biological reality? What are you referring to? Sexual orientation? What do you mean by calling it a biological reality?



Gay rights are the rights that pertain to gay people, which have a specialized sense because gay people are conditioned to live differently from straight people in certain respects, and everyone being assumed to have the same rights, these rights have to be applied in a way that adapts to this different condition. I don't know about the designation "gay marriage". "Same sex marriage" may be more appropriate, because what is distinctive about such a marriage is that both parties are of the same sex. Identity is not essential to such a marriage, but identity motivates granting same-sex marriage as a right, since gay people are excluded from being married without it, with respect to the relationships the differing condition leads gay people to have.



I'm with you on this, in part. Having some degree of significant attraction to the opposite sex, in addition to a predominant attraction to the same sex, qualifies some shade of bisexuality. Where I don't agree with you, to refer back to the distinction I made between the concepts of "gay" and "purely homosexual", is that "bisexual" and "gay" are absolutely mutually exclusively categories.



As far as I am concerned, being gay means that one is predominantly attracted to members of the same sex, such that one will feel driven to focus on them in the romantic/sexual dimension of one's life rather than members of the opposite sex, or, to put it in negative terms, that one will be unsatisfied if this drive is suppressed (e.g. closeted married men). So, being attracted to members of the same sex is central to being gay. But the relevant consideration is that one has a drive that shapes one's life and identity; purity needn't come into this picture. Additionally, a gay person would not be able to be satisfied, in the same way, if his/her romantic/sexual life only involved members of the opposite sex.

Notably, this way of looking at what being gay involves does not rule out secondary (i.e. not of the same degree or significance) interests in the opposite sex. From what I have observed of the way the terms "gay" and "straight" on the one hand, and "heterosexual" and "homosexual" on the other, are used, is that the former are chiefly personal identities, whereas the latter are clinical descriptions of a person's sexual behavior and inclinations. Further, I have observed that, though heterosexuality is related to and partially involved in being straight, and likewise homosexuality with being gay, that they are not treated as equivalent notions. Being straight involves being predominantly heterosexual, and how that shapes one's life and relation to the world, and likewise for being gay and predominantly homosexual. But, whether one is purely or just predominantly heterosexual or homosexual typically makes no necessary, critical difference for one's relation to the world. If a straight, married man occasionally checks out other guys, and thinks things like "oh, wow, his butt looks nice", but is entirely satisfied with his relationship with his wife, and never cares to stray into messing with other guys, there is no significant sense in which his identity is altered by that mild, passing attraction to members of the same sex. Sure, he is not purely heterosexual. But there is also no important reason to not apply straightness as an identity to him, given the way his predominant heterosexuality shapes his life.

As such, no, I don't think there is any clear, necessary reason why gay men passingly commenting that they have some sexual interest in female bodies should negate their gay identities, since it likely has no significant effect on their lifestyles and their relationships to society. If you want to argue about sexual orientation in the other sense (the more clinical sense), you're welcome to do that. But I think negating all the rest of what is involved and follows from being predominantly homosexuality, just because it's not pure, is reductive and unhelpful. Further, as I explored earlier in this post, I question how one would even explain an absolutely pure sexuality.



I'm not seeing this? You didn't even mention transsexuals explicitly before he responded. The notion of having a vagina not indicating a woman is still counterintuitive for many, so if you just mention having sex with a person who has a vagina, many will assume you're talking about a person who identifies as a woman, and you can't assume thereby that they're being transphobic.

There are some moderated posts you’re missing. lol

 

[malakos]

There are some moderated posts you’re missing. lol

I can see "You've had sex with a woman" because it's still quoted in your response, so my comments were taking that into account. "Vagina -> woman" is a common intuition that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with transphobia.

 

[njersey]

I can see "You've had sex with a woman" because it's still quoted in your response, so my comments were taking that into account. "Vagina -> woman" is a common intuition that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with transphobia.

And there were more posts after that, where it was clear he considered trans men to be women in men’s clothes. I get the reflexive desire to be correct; but you aren’t in this case.

 

[tnman]

YAWN

 

[Schabowy44]

Drama alert

 

[njersey]

Drama alert

It has “gay men” in the headline. What did you think you’d find inside? lol

 

[London74]

It has “gay men” in the headline. What did you think you’d find inside? lol

Fair point

 

[malakos]

And there were more posts after that, where it was clear he considered trans men to be women in men’s clothes. I get the reflexive desire to be correct; but you aren’t in this case.

My motive here is not primarily an attachment to being correct, but rather an interest in making sure that accusations of bigotry are well-founded.

 

[dreambridger]

But what would it mean to be purely anything with respect to sexuality? As far as I can tell, sexual attraction is a modification of aesthetic appreciation (i.e. one responds to someone sexually because one finds them aesthetically pleasing), and aesthetic appreciation falls along an extensive continuum. Where exactly does one draw the line of where mere aesthetic appreciation stops, and sexual attraction begins? If I thought a certain woman's body looked very nice as a whole, would I have to say I'm not purely homosexual, even if I didn't necessarily want to have sex with her? If so, what do we do with the fact that regarding many of the men that I believe I find sexually attractive, I also do not want to have sex with them?

Interesting. I have to say, in myself, I've never really experienced a connection between sexual attraction and aesthetic appreciation. To me aesthetic appreciation is a higher consciousness thing, something that's in the cerebrum. Sexual attraction comes more from the animal brain in me, the instinctual part, the part triggered by smells and cues and hormones and physical regulation and magnetism. I think different people experience themselves differently, but for me, sexual attraction and aesthetic appreciation are separate frequencies.

 

[hawkeye15]

Here’s a wrench for you to deal with: I’ve never had sex with a woman. But I’ve had vaginal intercourse.

You’re picking the wrong battle here. We want recognition for same-sex attraction as a normal part of human sexuality, not recognition as a completely different race of humans.

Sharing a label with someone else means nothing about you but a generosity of spirit.

You had sex with a biological woman.

 

[BIGBULL29]

Yes...but pretty rarely. A few gay men are strongly attracted to pussy, but don't like women romantically. So they will hook up with real women at times for the pussy. As I said, most gay men (not bi) will not be into pussy at all.

Bi men (as I say here): romantically attracted to women, too (not the case with gay men ever).

 

[hawkeye15]

I'm not insulted.

Sexuality is a spectrum that people are free to slide around whenever they want. That means there aren't any rigidly enforced Rules Of Sexuality Law that people have to adhere to, in case you were wondering.

So, that means that someone who identifies as straight man can go out and suck a dick if he wants. Or, someone who identifies as a lesbian can have a hot and torrid evening with a guy. Or, a gay guy can have sex with a woman.

At the end of those, they can still identify as they did before. Nothing magical has changed.

That doesn't move someone out of a perfectly crafted, well-labeled box, into another rigid box where they have to stay put, be chastised for their deceitful behavior, and made to feel like they are answerable to the global community for their transgressions.

I'm going to let your own words echo to you, in hopes you think about what your perceptions are:



It helps to keep an open mind. If you said what you did to someone in real life, I guarantee you would get an earful at the minimum.

Why are you worried about real life? You have a very loose connection with the real world. Bisexuality is on a spectrum, homosexuality does not slide around. Bisexuality is hardly a rigid box, we who live in the real world know that. If I ever meet a fake gay in real life I have no problem saying what I said.

 

[hawkeye15]

Well I’m gay, so I wouldn’t know

We've already pointed out you're a liar. You're bisexual.

 

[London74]

We've already pointed out you're a liar. You're bisexual.

I’ve already pointed out you’re wrong. I totally understand you don’t have the mental capacity to grasp that though.

 

[njersey]

You had sex with a biological woman.

Genetically female. I think you’ll find that neurology, endocrinology, and ethology are all closely related to biology. That’s like saying an electron can’t be a fundamental particle because it’s subatomic. They’re one in the same.

Here’s the mistake you’re making: you’re trying to think categorically about continua.

You can take any behavior, say a handshake. You can ask what’s happening physically that causes that to happen. What stimuli? Psychologically? Hormonally? Ethologically? Sociologically? What’s the evolutionary basis of a handshake?

You can follow a path so reductionist and choose any point on that path to say that it’s the basis of a handshake.

You’ve chosen genetic and morphological explanations of sex and gender; but there’s this whooooole huge story that happens before and after that that explains what gender is.

There’s this huge field of human sexuality. You can read up on attractive, proceptive, and receptive behaviors. You can read about how perception of gender feeds into the attraction wiring of the brain. You can learn how humans, uniquely and perversely, enmesh sex and aggression. You can learn how sexual orientation is an input to sexual behavior, not a defining characteristic.

There are biological gender differences. They are much more significant than your genes and what’s presenting on morphologically.

Your definition of sexual orientation is, clearly, pretty shallow and has no bearing whatsoever on what I, or anyone else, actually is.

TLDR; no person is literally 100% gay because, on a holistic scale, sexual orientation is a nearly insignificant component of a person’s sexuality.

 

[hawkeye15]

I’ve already pointed out you’re wrong. I totally understand you don’t have the mental capacity to grasp that though.

You've pointed out nothing except the capacity of gays to be fake.

 

[London74]

A secure person does not claim to be gay while engaging in bisexuality. The secure thing would be to own it.

Goodbye to the troll

 

[njersey]

No mister I'm highly secure, you support gay erasure and that's on you. You deceived yourself into fucking a woman, the ultimate mindfuck. It's you pussy fuckers who lack security.

I know you said to save the academics; but we aren’t fucking right now.

That little shot of norepinephrine? The one you can tell from how you’re feeling a bit warmer and your eyes are a bit watery? You might feel it as a little niggle in your stomach from the inhibition of digestion.

That’s a limbic response. It’s your body preparing you to take action. Over the years, your amygdala has trained you to associate the sexuality of others with fear.

You might have been in a classroom as a kid, in the closet, and heard someone making a gay joke. You would have felt your vision narrow, your hearing become amplified. You were afraid. And your brain told you to remember that.

Or maybe someone was teasing you. Just a kid being cruel. They didn’t know you were gay. But you did. And you felt like you would be in danger if they did. And your brain did a mean trick. It made you shake.

That happened because the andrenergic receptors in your cells were bathed and your limbic system was reflexively preparing you to flee the scene.

But your brain inhibited that. A pretty admirable characteristic. You’re a fighter. All those chemicals couldn’t make you run. But your brain couldn’t just do nothing.

So it used the first line of defense: you called them a name. See, you know that people who are humiliated are harmless; because you had been in those shoes many times before. And it might’ve worked. It didn’t. But you pretended it did.

Your brain remembered that. All those years later. You don’t feel safe when you talk about sexuality. That’s insecurity.

I might be wildly off the mark; but that’s my take on your responses.

Some things to remember: no one is trying to steal your identity. No one is making fun of you. And what you believe is one perspective in a whole universe of differing perspectives.

 

[njersey]

Goodbye to the troll

Eh. It’s something to do between emails. lol

 

[marcobello15]

Eh. It’s something to do between emails. lol

You say this after hijacking a thread that was asking about straight experiences after coming out.