Orientation vs. behavior

[LSebastien]

There has been a lot of psych studies lately about 'sexual orientation' being different and separate from 'sexual behavior', meaning, if you engage in sexual acts with a member of the same sex, it doesn't have to mean that you're gay or bi.

To me, orientation means 'what I'm sexually attracted to' and behavior is simply an act that is sexual in nature. For example, if I engage in a sexual act that involves a shower nozzle, it certainly doesn't mean that I'm nozzlesexual (sexually attracted to shower nozzles) nor does the act of masturbating mean that I consider myself sexually attractive.

So how about you guys? Are you comfortable performing sexual acts with a gender you're not sexually attracted to (note, this doesn't mean you're repulsed by that gender, just that you're not aroused by them)? If so, under what circumstances?

 

[Bbucko]

I can imagine any number of scenarios where I might wind up having sex with a woman: they've happened before. Unfortunately they seem incredibly unlikely now, and more so as I get older.

 

[SpeedoMike]

I guess it's another psychology doctoral student pushing his thesis.

 

[Lex]

There have been a number of threads about this topic over the years. I was once married to a woman when I thought I was straight and am now partnered to a guy. I don't have much attraction to women nowadays and I don't believe in forcing something that isn't there. If it is there, then that is another story.

 

[mitchymo]

I'm inclined to believe this is some kind of attempt to create a loophole so some people can 'try it, then deny it'.

No, masturbation does'nt mean you find yourself sexually attractive and using inanimate objects to pleasure yourself does not mean an attraction to whatever inanimate object it is, but, using objects falls under self gratification, and just like simple hand-shandies AND fucking (same sex or opposite) it is all for personal gratification, your pleasure.

If you take pleasure from having a member of the same sex engage in sexual acts with you then on some level you could not legitametly claim to be straight without being partially dishonest. (i.e, you might say straight but actually you are more bi with simply a greater sway towards straight, 80%-20% eg)

 

[alx]

If you take pleasure from having a member of the same sex engage in sexual acts with you then on some level you could not legitametly claim to be straight without being partially dishonest. (i.e, you might say straight but actually you are more bi with simply a greater sway towards straight, 80%-20% eg)

Can't the whole gender thing go 'out the window' in certain situations ie make no distinction between a female/male partner, just sexual beings? Therefore it's not a hetro nor homo act?

 

[Countryguy63]

Can't the whole gender thing go 'out the window' in certain situations ie make no distinction between a female/male partner, just sexual beings? Therefore it's not a hetro nor homo act?

Literally, No. It will either be a male or female that you are with. (Please don't bring up transgendered or similar. We're talking majority here)

The gender of the person will always be a factor, but should'nt be a problem.

 

[alx]

Literally, No. It will either be a male or female that you are with. (Please don't bring up transgendered or similar. We're talking majority here)

The gender of the person will always be a factor, but should'nt be a problem.

I understand that physically one is either male or female {in simple terms} but can't one see past that in certain situations?

Caught in a situation where one doesn't think of who is what, male or female. Just grouping both as sexual entities, and enjoying the moment.

Rather than tag yourself, hetro, homo, bi, just class yourself as a sexual being doing what he/she pleases.

 

[Countryguy63]

{snip}
Rather than tag yourself, hetro, homo, bi, just class yourself as a sexual being doing what he/she pleases.

Now this, I can agree with whole heartedly. Leave the labels on jar where they belong :tongue:

 

[D_Harvey Schmeckel]

I changed my orientation "score" to unsure precisely because of the ambiguity involved in the issue. If it's the percentage I've fucked with, 99% gay; if it's the percentage I've had any kind of sex with, that rounds up to 100% gay. But my porn consumption and overall attraction have been more like 80/20 since I was a teen. And the thing that really clinches the "unsure" is that I prefer fucking to sucking so much that a fucking relationship with a woman would appeal to me more than a nonfucking relationship with a man.

 

[Pendlum]

No, because the only sexual entities to me are the female ones. There are no lines to blur. I can't imagine where someone ceases to be their gender. There are countless situations where someone's gender is irrelevant, but that doesn't mean I'm suddenly not aware of what sex they are. And one of the situations where it does matter to me is sex, and that applies to a lot of people I'm sure.

 

[mitchymo]

Can't the whole gender thing go 'out the window' in certain situations ie make no distinction between a female/male partner, just sexual beings? Therefore it's not a hetro nor homo act?

Like the wise 'country guy' says, any act is a hetero or homo act depending on the involved parties.

I don't agree with not having labels tho. If you don't want to have a label put on what your sexual orientation is, then whether you like it or not, you are saying you're bisexual practically because your mind is open to the prospects of sex with anyone. Well, thats how i see it anyway, but then i prefer to keep things as simple as possible to avoid confusion.

 

[mitchymo]

No, because the only sexual entities to me are the female ones. There are no lines to blur. I can't imagine where someone ceases to be their gender. There are countless situations where someone's gender is irrelevant, but that doesn't mean I'm suddenly not aware of what sex they are. And one of the situations where it does matter to me is sex, and that applies to a lot of people I'm sure.

Exactly.

 

[alx]

Like the wise 'country guy' says, any act is a hetero or homo act depending on the involved parties.

I don't agree with not having labels tho. If you don't want to have a label put on what your sexual orientation is, then whether you like it or not, you are saying you're bisexual practically because your mind is open to the prospects of sex with anyone. Well, thats how i see it anyway, but then i prefer to keep things as simple as possible to avoid confusion.

Im fully aware this is seen as bisexual, and yes by definition it is bisexual. However I agree with the OP's comment, to me bisexual is an orientation.

I would consider my orientation as straight, yet my behaviour/views are more bisexual. These are two different things to me. This is what the OP is getting at I think.

So basically I consider myself straight but I am seen as bisexual, as they look at my behaviour/views and conclude an orientation from that.

I really could write loads about how I see it, but we all know its a complicated subject so best avoid or the OP's thread will change subject.

In regards to hetero and homo acts I know these are very different, Im just saying that on another level they are not, sexual energy is sexual energy, male or female.

Labels are good to define you within a society, which I know is needed. Yet I don't really think they apply to me as labels are too clear cut.

 

[teasedsilly]

Different does not mean unrelated. To draw a loose analogy: if someone said they hated pizza, but you notice they have pizza for lunch every day, what would you conclude? Well, assuming there were other choices available, you'd probably wonder if they were being honest with you. A preference for a type of food is not the same as what one eats, but that doesn't mean they are unrelated; you choose to eat what you like.

Sex is far more discriminating than food preference, because while one can eat for pleasure or just nourishment, the only point of sex is pleasure. You might have to eat something you're not fond of because you're hungry and there aren't any alternatives, but you're not going to have sex with someone who doesn't sexually arouse you. Choice of partners is a reflection of sexual orientation.

Of course working the other way, just because you haven't had sex with a gender is not a sign that you don't find them attractive. It also doesn't mean that in the absence of partners the person's orientation is "undefined". Contrary to the thought on this board, it is possible to be aware of who one is and is not sexually attracted to. Some people grow up confused and later have to come to grips with their orientation. Others (gay or straight) were never confused to begin with.

 

[teasedsilly]

Sex is far more discriminating than food preference, because while one can eat for pleasure or just nourishment, the only point of sex is pleasure.

I will amend this with the obvious point that sex is also for procreation, but there are medical alternatives if one is only looking for a surrogate.

 

[nashboy]

i think its just a way of messing with straight guys lol. if someone isnt attracted to the opposite sex they arent gonna fuck around with them.

 

[LSebastien]

using objects falls under self gratification, and just like simple hand-shandies AND fucking (same sex or opposite) it is all for personal gratification, your pleasure.

If you take pleasure from having a member of the same sex engage in sexual acts with you then on some level you could not legitametly claim to be straight without being partially dishonest.

These two sentences contradict each other. First you say that masturbation doesn't make you attracted to yourself because it's for self gratification. Then you go on to say that you can't take pleasure (self gratification) from a member of the same sex and still be considered straight. HUH?? If you can separate orientation (attraction) and behavior (action) for masturbation or objects then why can't you do the same for people?

You might have to eat something you're not fond of because you're hungry and there aren't any alternatives, but you're not going to have sex with someone who doesn't sexually arouse you.

Not being aroused by someone is vastly different than being repulsed by them and there is no reason why a true heterosexual would be repulsed by other men. There are a plethora of reasons why you might fool around with another guy even if you're not physically aroused by them. There are many psychologically arousing factors that have nothing to do with physical/visual arousal.
-boredom
-bonding/camaraderie
-rebelling against authority
-exhibitionism/voyeurism
-chemical alteration
-loving your friend/ wanting to make him/her feel good
-dared
-just plain horny/don't care
-curiosity/inquisitiveness
-aroused by the 'taboo' aspect
Etc, etc, etc, ad nauseum

As you can see, none these have anything to do with being physically aroused by the gender you are with and can equally apply to either gender. This is why there is a difference between orientation (attraction) and behavior (action).

The reason I put my orientation as gay is because I'm not physically aroused by woman but does that mean that I've never engaged in hetero behavior with woman? Of course not. And if I did does that mean that I'm not really gay? Of course not because I'm still not aroused by woman.

 

[concupisys]

i think what the OP was getting at was whether a person can separate the mechanics of a sexual act they engage in from their sexual orientation.... the answer is yes, but unfortunately sometimes it's for the wrong reasons....

for example: many gay pornstars are heterosexual and classify themselves as such.... the only reason they engage in gay sexual mechanics is for the money because hey: straight guys in straight porn don't make much unless you're peter north or something.... straight women also engage in sexual acts with other women for the same reason.... straight men think it's hot, so women perform the acts for the money in order to satisfy that part of the porn market....

of course there are many other examples and arguments on both sides, but in all actuality the possibility (albeit not absolute) is there....

the same applies with people who perform sexual acts or mechanics related to their sexual orientation that they may not necessarily enjoy with their orientation's respective gender.... anal sex is probably the biggest example.... men and women, gay and straight, engage in this activity even though they don't enjoy it, but do it to satisfy their partner.... i'm 100% gay and have no interest in anal sex, and would never submit to it no matter who i'm with or how much i love my partner.... but some men do, and i can respect that of them because it's their choice.... i also would never have sex with a woman, because well: a woman doesn't have a weiner i can grab and i can't engage in cock2cock sex with them....

but before my rambling doesn't make sense i'll digress: to each their own....

 

[maxcok]

I would consider my orientation as straight, yet my behaviour/views are more bisexual. These are two different things to me. This is what the OP is getting at I think.

So basically I consider myself straight but I am seen as bisexual, as they look at my behaviour/views and conclude an orientation from that.

But your behavior is what determines your orientation. Also your fantasies, dreams, attractions, what 'turns you on', etc. (maybe the 'views' you refer to?) - but first and foremost your behavior. You can label, mislabel, or not label at all if you want, but it doesn't change reality. If you claim an identify or orientation separate from your actual behavior and the rest of it, it's a rationalization, and often, as regards homosexual behavior, denial.