Orientation vs. behavior

[maxcok]

. . . the only point of sex is pleasure. . .

I will amend this with the obvious point that sex is also for procreation, . . .

Damn your amendment. I was gonna say, don't tell your priest that. :biggrin2:

 

[alx]

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.

I disagree with that, this is my point there could be no attraction, intrest, fantasy, dreams, turn on's etc.... Which would suggest an orientation.

Im talking about sex with anyone just because you can, there is no connection, attraction, as long as you get some pleasure who cares? Basically doIng it for the hell of it, because you choose to, you don't have to nor do you cave or think about it.

This is why Behaviour Is totally unrelated to orientation.

 

[maxcok]

I disagree with that, this is my point there could be no attraction, intrest, fantasy, dreams, turn on's etc.... Which would suggest an orientation.

Im talking about sex with anyone just because you can, there is no connection, attraction, as long as you get some pleasure who cares? Basically doIng it for the hell of it, because you choose to, you don't have to nor do you cave or think about it.

This is why Behaviour Is totally unrelated to orientation.

That's a bizarre rationalization, and it flies in the face of every definition and all accepted science. To say your sexual behavior has no bearing on your sexual orientation is denail, plain and simple. Clearly you're not going to accept that, which is also denial.

 

[mitchymo]

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?



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).

Masturbation and use of objects do not involve orientation, as generally speaking people are not sexually attracted to themselves or inanimate objects. Your hand or a dildo is not a sexual being, a fellow human is. Perhaps the use of attraction to represent orientation is wrong and that orientation means nothing more than male or female sexual interest which would explain why a sexual attraction to sheep does not alter your sexual orientation. Instead it attaches another label which is best described under sexual fetishism perhaps.

The list of examples you used in to give examples of why you might fool around with someone else sexually and it not change your orientation is flawed. I've been bored on many occassions and found hundreds of ways of relieving boredom without involving sexual activity to do so, as do most people. Bonding usually involves non-physical activity and when it does is usually non-sexual in nature because when the physical bonding becomes sexual, the bond must already be strong and is indicative of sexual attraction between bonding persons and not simple cameraderie.
Rebelling against authority??? Choosing to do something you WANT to do comes down to personal interest. If your parents were homophobic but you were not, you would'nt commit gay acts just because you had a fall-out with your family. This reason is probably the most bizarre that you suggested. Exhibition/voyeurism are not reasons for involving yourself in sex with other people whom you would'nt already. Chemical alteration would be taking away your own choice. Loving your friend or wanting to make them feel good can be done without sex in the same way that sex does'nt enter the equation whenever you love a family member or want them to feel good. Being dared is having an incentive to do something which you would'nt normally. Much like being paid to be gay, it is not about how you feel sexually but about the external influence propelling you to act.
The remaining three suggestions are all connected to how you feel, they help create the drive that encourage the action but not if the desire to act is absent.

 

[lopo2000]

I believe sexual orientation is not just about sex. It's about lifestyle, interests, attraction, emotions, as well as behaviors. Although it's not a black or white matter, I know I might be flamed for this, but people who're willing to do some sexual acts with a gender they're not attracted to, might be gay in one aspect. After all, it's not about being gay or not, it's the degree. I am always attracted to men, but sometimes my 'straightness' can come up to the surface when I feel tickled by a woman's big boobs.

 

[LSebastien]

Masturbation and use of objects do not involve orientation, as generally speaking people are not sexually attracted to themselves or inanimate objects.

So if it's not an inanimate object, there has to be a sexual attraction? I'm sorry but I simply don't see any logical basis for this assumption, nor have I seen any proof that this is correct.

The list of examples you used in to give examples of why you might fool around with someone else sexually and it not change your orientation is flawed.

I've looked over your reasoning and quite frankly, you're just splitting hairs. Obviously there would be other factors involved than just simply picking one and just using that as the basis. In fact it's becoming quite apparent that you are simply not allowing yourself to have an open enough mind to consider anything beyond the black and white.

I've been bored on many occassions and found hundreds of ways of relieving boredom without involving sexual activity to do so, as do most people.

If it was so easy to relieve boredom than they wouldn't be bored in the first place. Maybe their options are limited? Maybe they're also horny?

Bonding usually involves non-physical activity and when it does is usually non-sexual in nature because when the physical bonding becomes sexual, the bond must already be strong and is indicative of sexual attraction between bonding persons and not simple cameraderie.

Again, maybe there's nothing on TV and they don't have money to do anything else? Not everyone has the same kind of lifestyle that you do.

Rebelling against authority??? Choosing to do something you WANT to do comes down to personal interest. If your parents were homophobic but you were not, you would'nt commit gay acts just because you had a fall-out with your family.

And why not? There are many ways to rebel against authority and this would probably be one the least self destructive ways of doing so. You can't just say that so and so individual won't do this, without providing any reasoning behind it.

Exhibition/voyeurism are not reasons for involving yourself in sex with other people whom you would'nt already.

Again, there would be other factors involved. The fact that you didn't think of this yourself only shows how close minded you are.

Chemical alteration would be taking away your own choice.

If it's not their own choice, then why do people get arrested for drinking and driving? Even if they're drunk, they still made a conscious decision to get into the car.

Loving your friend or wanting to make them feel good can be done without sex in the same way that sex does'nt enter the equation whenever you love a family member or want them to feel good.

Again, it depends on the specific circumstance.

Being dared is having an incentive to do something which you would'nt normally. Much like being paid to be gay, it is not about how you feel sexually but about the external influence propelling you to act.

Which is exactly my point, that orientation (feel sexually) and behavior (act) are different things. Also take note that every other item on the list are also external influences propelling you to act and are not about how you feel sexually.

The remaining three suggestions are all connected to how you feel, they help create the drive that encourage the action but not if the desire to act is absent.

Again, depending on circumstances.

Well mitchymo, I don't what else to say other than that you are trying to set in stone (in your own mind more than anything) that this is how things have to be without providing any logical reasoning or evidence as to why that is. But I guess you've answered my original question, in that you'd never fool around with a member of the opposite sex because you can't separate orientation and behavior.

 

[mitchymo]

So if it's not an inanimate object, there has to be a sexual attraction? I'm sorry but I simply don't see any logical basis for this assumption, nor have I seen any proof that this is correct.




I've looked over your reasoning and quite frankly, you're just splitting hairs. Obviously there would be other factors involved than just simply picking one and just using that as the basis. In fact it's becoming quite apparent that you are simply not allowing yourself to have an open enough mind to consider anything beyond the black and white.



If it was so easy to relieve boredom than they wouldn't be bored in the first place. Maybe their options are limited? Maybe they're also horny?



Again, maybe there's nothing on TV and they don't have money to do anything else? Not everyone has the same kind of lifestyle that you do.



And why not? There are many ways to rebel against authority and this would probably be one the least self destructive ways of doing so. You can't just say that so and so individual won't do this, without providing any reasoning behind it.



Again, there would be other factors involved. The fact that you didn't think of this yourself only shows how close minded you are.



If it's not their own choice, then why do people get arrested for drinking and driving? Even if they're drunk, they still made a conscious decision to get into the car.



Again, it depends on the specific circumstance.



Which is exactly my point, that orientation (feel sexually) and behavior (act) are different things. Also take note that every other item on the list are also external influences propelling you to act and are not about how you feel sexually.



Again, depending on circumstances.

Well mitchymo, I don't what else to say other than that you are trying to set in stone (in your own mind more than anything) that this is how things have to be without providing any logical reasoning or evidence as to why that is. But I guess you've answered my original question, in that you'd never fool around with a member of the opposite sex because you can't separate orientation and behavior.

If no-one else answers this as i would, i shall respond when i get home from work in about 10 hours.

 

[554279]

I think given environment and circumstances anyone is capable of anything. The label thing bothers me from the standpoint that most times I see it used ("gay" or "straight") as an issue it is from the radical "gay" crowd trying to "out" someone or push an agenda, while the "straight" use it to bash or belittle someone (in many cases because of their own fears and insecurities).

All said and done I think many guys fall into the Bi or Bi-curious realm, with the difference being that the Bi are primarily guys or gals that actively pursue both genders, while a Bi-curious person is more of stays within a particular preference but will probably engage within their own personal limits sex or sexual activity with the same gender.

Bottom line is live and let live, and no means no, regardless of how or what you call it.

 

[D_Bemeslay Bugthorpe Boobtube III]

I agree with the original poster. I consider myself a straight male, I've only had sex with women. Yet once and a while for the sure sexual thrill, I've watched porn or jacked off with a guy before. At no point did I question my sexuality or did my desire for women decrease and/or my desire for men increase. Its simply an act for pleasure and thats it. I find in general when I bring up my experiences and how I look at it, the people who disagree and are most aprehensive about it are homosexual males. I am not sure if they are offended by the concept or its a pyscological thing that they need to have confirmation that straight men are gay or what, but I dont consider watching some porn with another guy an event that changes my sexual orientation to bisexual. So be it.

 

[D_Bemeslay Bugthorpe Boobtube III]

Being dared is having an incentive to do something which you would'nt normally. Much like being paid to be gay, it is not about how you feel sexually but about the external influence propelling you to act.

Which is exactly my point, that orientation (feel sexually) and behavior (act) are different things. Also take note that every other item on the list are also external influences propelling you to act and are not about how you feel sexually.

This is an incredibly ironic point made by this poster that proves exactly what I am talking abou. Given certain circumstances we may act outside of our sexual orientation and that does not mean when you commit the sexual act that you've suddenly changed your sexual orientation.

 

[v32bone]

So much emphasis on definition. Really doesn't matter. It is all about the moment as is all of life. Can't change the past, can't predict the future...how do you deal with right now. Right now, I'd tell folks I'm heteroflexible if I must define. Had "PENETRATIVE SEX" with only women and adore it. Fantasize about guys as much as women, generally group fantasy. In life I love group stuff. Have been in three MFFM foursomes but with minimal MM contact. In one, the M and I kissed and I jerked him off. Been in more FMF threesomes and am way into them. My favorite sexual encounters. But I am basically up for MM as well with the right person, fun, comfortable, sexy... in my head I try not to define myself but on all of these websites you've got to put something, right...just be who you are and enjoy the opportunities afforded you...life is short.

 

[Viking_UK]

I think sexual orientation and sexual behaviour can be separate and distinct from each other. There are men and women who are attracted to those of the same gender, but are married to and having sex with people of the opposite gender and have never done anything physical with the people they're attracted to, either because of cultural convention, religious beliefs, fear etc.

Second, there's the "any port in a storm, any hole in a hurry" scenario, where you're horny and want to have sex, but there's no-one you're attracted to around, so you just take what's available. I wouldn't class a straight guy who's in prison any less straight for letting someone else suck him off or whatever, because although his behaviour might be homosexual, his orientation hasn't changed.

A third scenario is the whole "gay (or straight) for pay" thing. There are loads of guys out there who'll suck someone off or take a cock up the arse if someone pays them enough to do so. There are also plenty of gay men and women who're prepared to have straight sex for money. They may even enjoy it, but the fact that they're willing to have sex with someone they aren't attracted to doesn't change their orientation.

 

[mitchymo]

So if it's not an inanimate object, there has to be a sexual attraction? I'm sorry but I simply don't see any logical basis for this assumption, nor have I seen any proof that this is correct.

I did not say there HAS to be, you've put words in my mouth. I clearly cited reasoning where sexual behaviour does not have an effect on orientation such as being paid. The prisoner analogy given before is also an example (though this doesn't mean all prisoners still would even consider it) and then the 'under the influence' scenario where you are not necessarily thinking in your right mind. All other scenarios are linked to pure pleasure and even if you don't have a sexual attraction to a person you are engaging in sex acts with, generally speaking you still maintain the gender choice of your preference.

I've looked over your reasoning and quite frankly, you're just splitting hairs. Obviously there would be other factors involved than just simply picking one and just using that as the basis. In fact it's becoming quite apparent that you are simply not allowing yourself to have an open enough mind to consider anything beyond the black and white.

I'm not splitting hairs, i'm providing a logical counter-argument, thus, if i'm splitting hairs, you are too. If the examples you cited involve other factors then they obviously don't stand up as viable examples without you being more clear on the scenarios you are envisioning.
Oh, and my mind is open far enough on a great deal of issues as many here will vouch for. I simply disagree with this suggestion of orientation and behaviour being disconnected (without coercion). Essentially it seems to me, that the studies into this are looking to kind of eradicate sexual orientation by determining that we must all be bisexual, and whilst i agree that this would be the greatest thing for humanity, for us all to be bisexual, it will only happen naturally, up until which point there are straights and gays who are clearly well represented by their own admission (myself included) that their orientation and sexual behaviour are consistent and accurate.
Orientation defines the gender(s) with whom you conduct your sexual gratification with (acts). If incentive or mental deterioration for example are involved then they don't count and thus do not change orientation.
It seems simple enough to me, i'm gay so if i have sex with a woman because i was bored, horny, anti-establishment and slightly tipsy combined, then i would not be gay because it would take a damn sight bigger a thing than those suggestions to make me voluntarily have sex with a woman for simple pleasure.

If it was so easy to relieve boredom than they wouldn't be bored in the first place. Maybe their options are limited? Maybe they're also horny?

I have to roll my eyes at this comment, sorry. I please myself if i'm so bored and there is nothing else to do, or i'll start ironing! I won't get a sudden urge to go find a woman for sex.

Again, maybe there's nothing on TV and they don't have money to do anything else? Not everyone has the same kind of lifestyle that you do.

My kind of lifestyle? I'll swap ya!, i'm poor as hell mate, i can't do all the things i'd like, i get bored plenty of times and before i had the internet installed a couple years ago i used to smoke cannabis to dull my mind and cheer me up. Not once did i ever think about shagging my female partner in crime to alleviate the boredom.

And why not? There are many ways to rebel against authority and this would probably be one the least self destructive ways of doing so. You can't just say that so and so individual won't do this, without providing any reasoning behind it.

Reasoning? Logic is my reasoning, start a poll, i'd be surprised (very) if people said they WOULD have sex with someone they are not sexually attracted to by gender preference just to vent their disgruntlement with the authority.

Which is exactly my point, that orientation (feel sexually) and behavior (act) are different things. Also take note that every other item on the list are also external influences propelling you to act and are not about how you feel sexually.

It does'nt matter if they are external factors, what matters is internal and whether you have any DESIRE to do it, if you have that desire to engage sexually with anybody then you are at least bisexual, at most going through a phase. (by phase i mean sexual awakening/discovery which is generally a very temporary thing)

Well mitchymo, I don't what else to say other than that you are trying to set in stone (in your own mind more than anything) that this is how things have to be without providing any logical reasoning or evidence as to why that is. But I guess you've answered my original question, in that you'd never fool around with a member of the opposite sex because you can't separate orientation and behavior.

This is the most ridiculously utter rubbish (i editted my original phrase out of politeness). Basically you are saying that i am wrong because some studies have been published to say otherwise and that i simply need to learn that i can be 'not gay' or that a 100% hetero can learn to be not straight if only we did'nt limit ourselves to living within our orientation. Our orientation does not dictate our behaviour, our behaviour dictates our orientation. I'm using plenty of logic here mate and i'm not saying that my mind cannot be changed if the right argument is put across by an opposing view but until such time as these studies are creditted within the scientific community with little contest then i'm firmly sticking to what my logical assumption is. Can you perhaps link to these studies so i can read them for myself, who knows i might learn something of an aspect i have'nt yet considered.

I agree with the original poster. I consider myself a straight male, I've only had sex with women. Yet once and a while for the sure sexual thrill, I've watched porn or jacked off with a guy before. At no point did I question my sexuality or did my desire for women decrease and/or my desire for men increase. Its simply an act for pleasure and thats it. I find in general when I bring up my experiences and how I look at it, the people who disagree and are most aprehensive about it are homosexual males. I am not sure if they are offended by the concept or its a pyscological thing that they need to have confirmation that straight men are gay or what, but I dont consider watching some porn with another guy an event that changes my sexual orientation to bisexual. So be it.

This behaviour does'nt count either, pleasing yourself whilst enjoying a porn film with however many other blokes is not a gay act, switch the porno off and wank each other off then THAT IS.
If you thought about doing it just out of curiosity once in your life then i'd assume a phase of bi-curiosity because a 100% straight guy just would'nt consider it.

 

[LSebastien]

I clearly cited reasoning where sexual behaviour does not have an effect on orientation such as being paid. The prisoner analogy given before is also an example (though this doesn't mean all prisoners still would even consider it) and then the 'under the influence' scenario where you are not necessarily thinking in your right mind. All other scenarios are linked to pure pleasure and even if you don't have a sexual attraction to a person you are engaging in sex acts with, generally speaking you still maintain the gender choice of your preference.

So basically, what you just said, is that you agree with me that orientation and behavior are separate. So then why are you arguing with me?

I have to roll my eyes at this comment, sorry. I please myself if i'm so bored and there is nothing else to do, or i'll start ironing! I won't get a sudden urge to go find a woman for sex.

My kind of lifestyle? I'll swap ya!, i'm poor as hell mate, i can't do all the things i'd like, i get bored plenty of times and before i had the internet installed a couple years ago i used to smoke cannabis to dull my mind and cheer me up. Not once did i ever think about shagging my female partner in crime to alleviate the boredom.

But not everyone is the same as you. In both these scenarios you only put forth what you would do. That doesn't mean everyone on the planet is a clone of you or that they should adopt your way of thinking.

Reasoning? Logic is my reasoning, start a poll, i'd be surprised (very) if people said they WOULD have sex with someone they are not sexually attracted to by gender preference just to vent their disgruntlement with the authority.

That would depend on the person and the circumstances, which can't be expressed in a simple yes or no poll. There's that famous black and white thinking again!

It does'nt matter if they are external factors, what matters is internal and whether you have any DESIRE to do it, if you have that desire to engage sexually with anybody then you are at least bisexual, at most going through a phase. (by phase i mean sexual awakening/discovery which is generally a very temporary thing)

So by this reasoning, if a straight guy closes his eyes and thinks of chics while his gay buddy blows him, he's suddenly bi? Sorry but I don't see how this is any different than masturbation except using your friends mouth instead of your own hand. Just because you won't consider fooling around with the opposite sex doesn't mean there isn't a gay person that would.

Our orientation does not dictate our behaviour, our behaviour dictates our orientation. I'm using plenty of logic here mate

LoL!! This made me laugh out loud. According to your 'logic' all people wake up in the morning and 'decide' what they're orientation is going to be that day. I don't know about you but being gay was never a choice for me and I'm pretty sure it isn't for you either. So no, your wrong. Our behavior (actions) don't dictate our orientation (sexual attraction). In fact, the opposite is also not the case. Neither is true because orientation and behavior are different things, which you yourself agreed with me on earlier.

but until such time as these studies are creditted within the scientific community with little contest then i'm firmly sticking to what my logical assumption is.

Of course you'd say that because you're close minded and/or think you're correct about everything you say.

Can you perhaps link to these studies so i can read them for myself, who knows i might learn something of an aspect i have'nt yet considered.

If you haven't already convinced yourself that you're correct about everything you say, you would have found these yourself just by doing a simple search. But I've saved you the trouble.

Sexual orientation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Situational sexual behavior - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Defining Sexual Orientation | Articles
What Made You Gay - What Are the Causes of Homosexuality
Am I Gay?
Joe Kort, Ph.D, LMSW

 

[mitchymo]

So basically, what you just said, is that you agree with me that orientation and behavior are separate. So then why are you arguing with me?

I agree with you that the two are different but i do not agree that they are seperate. They are linked to each other, that is a perfectly logical asumption, i would have thought.

But not everyone is the same as you. In both these scenarios you only put forth what you would do. That doesn't mean everyone on the planet is a clone of you or that they should adopt your way of thinking.

I use myself as an example sure, but i do so knowing that most people would agree that a straight guy taking voluntary pleasure without extenuating circumstances (none of which are examples you cited) with another guy can truly be heterosexual, whether he says he is, is irrelevant.
To the latter point, i'm fully aware that not everybody is a clone of me and think differently. I'm also pretty damn confident tho that it would'nt be a bad thing if they did think more like me. I'm open-minded but well grounded and have a strong identity. (Unfortunately for me, i am also highly neurotic and timid by nature, if i was'nt then i would be a household name as a politician or something like that)
It really is quite bugging that you have referred to me as being narrow minded on a few occassions during this thread. It's simply inaccurate and makes me wonder whether or not, in fact, YOU are merely more open minded than i am, noting that this is not necessarily a good thing!)

That would depend on the person and the circumstances, which can't be expressed in a simple yes or no poll. There's that famous black and white thinking again!

How grey do you like your questions? I like mine simple and easy to understand, black and white. Yes and No are the only two main answers there are to the question i posed. I would'nt not have included an 'unsure' or 'maybe' option for people to elaborate if they felt unrepresented by a simple yes/no.

So by this reasoning, if a straight guy closes his eyes and thinks of chics while his gay buddy blows him, he's suddenly bi? Sorry but I don't see how this is any different than masturbation except using your friends mouth instead of your own hand. Just because you won't consider fooling around with the opposite sex doesn't mean there isn't a gay person that would.

This depends entirely on how such a circumstance arises. I've already explained 'extenuating' circumstances where it would'nt alter a person's sexual orientation. A straight guy who then becomes bi-curious before settling after all on being straight is not the same as being absolutely straight, because such a guy would'nt be involved in gay behaviour without there being a reason far more influencing than simply wanting to have sexual pleasure. It is not a pleasure inducing desire to have sexual interaction with someone that does not float your boat and tends to occur most when people have their beer goggles on, they would even more rarely be likely to do the same thing with someone who does'nt even match their gender preference.

LoL!! This made me laugh out loud. According to your 'logic' all people wake up in the morning and 'decide' what they're orientation is going to be that day. I don't know about you but being gay was never a choice for me and I'm pretty sure it isn't for you either. So no, your wrong. Our behavior (actions) don't dictate our orientation (sexual attraction). In fact, the opposite is also not the case. Neither is true because orientation and behavior are different things, which you yourself agreed with me on earlier.

I'm glad you had a laugh, its always good to have cause to smile and so on. Sadly, you appear to have been laughing over your own confusion.
I did not say anything which could logically assume i was inferring 'waking up and choosing your sexuality'. In actual fact it is you implying such a thing, this is because you take the view that sexual orientation is self defined, just like Joe Kort whose article you linked to.
The links you provided did nothing other than to reaffirm my logical asumption because although initially pausing to rethink a couple of times, i found contradiction. I think you have read the articles literally or something without stopping to think about what exactly was being referred to.
Joe Kort states that sexual orientation is how we define ourselves, only to state in the next paragraph, that sexual orientation is constant, in which case it is irrelevant as to how we define ourselves because ultimately that does'nt change who we are. A straight guy indulging in gay acts can define himself as straight, yes, but he is not straight. It would be good if such a guy could be more at ease with who he is, and the same is true of gay guys who believe themselves to be gay but indulging in heterosexual acts.
it.
Another article explained how the definition of sexual orientation is divided into three main groups. Science, Politics and Self identification by non-heterosexuals. Note that the only one of these which refer to self identification relates to those who are NOT straight, this does not indicate an 'across the board' method of determining what we are.
I, like most intelligent people, would be inclined to use the scientific definition to determine their orientation. After all, if i defined myself as a block of cheese........makes sense to you now, maybe, at all?

Of course you'd say that because you're close minded and/or think you're correct about everything you say.

Oh, close minded again. I usually AM correct about things i say because i am an honest person. I am also sometimes wrong when expressing my opinion, as are most people at some point now and again.

If you haven't already convinced yourself that you're correct about everything you say, you would have found these yourself just by doing a simple search. But I've saved you the trouble.

Sexual orientation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Situational sexual behavior - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Defining Sexual Orientation | Articles
What Made You Gay - What Are the Causes of Homosexuality
Am I Gay?
Joe Kort, Ph.D, LMSW

http://www.joekort.com/articles84.htm

Why would i have to research unless i doubted my opinion. I asked you for links so that i could get some insight into where you are gauging YOUR opinion. Subsequently i found those sources fail to argue the case to your first post suggestion.

I thus stand resolute that a straight man doing gay things, generally, is NOT straight.

 

[alx]

So basically, what you just said, is that you agree with me that orientation and behavior are separate. So then why are you arguing with me?
I agree with you that the two are different but i do not agree that they are seperate. They are linked to each other, that is a perfectly logical asumption, i would have thought.


It's no more logical than them being seperate.


But not everyone is the same as you. In both these scenarios you only put forth what you would do. That doesn't mean everyone on the planet is a clone of you or that they should adopt your way of thinking.

I use myself as an example sure, but i do so knowing that most people would agree that a straight guy taking voluntary pleasure without extenuating circumstances (none of which are examples you cited) with another guy can truly be heterosexual, whether he says he is, is irrelevant.
To the latter point, i'm fully aware that not everybody is a clone of me and think differently. I'm also pretty damn confident tho that it would'nt be a bad thing if they did think more like me. I'm open-minded but well grounded and have a strong identity. (Unfortunately for me, i am also highly neurotic and timid by nature, if i was'nt then i would be a household name as a politician or something like that)
It really is quite bugging that you have referred to me as being narrow minded on a few occassions during this thread. It's simply inaccurate and makes me wonder whether or not, in fact, YOU are merely more open minded than i am, noting that this is not necessarily a good thing!)

1. How do you know most people will agree, So far it doesn't look that way.

2. So someone elses way of thinking isn't inline with yours so their point/view is Irrelevent?

3. Really, You don't come across very open minded. Again enhancing the fact that your way of thinking is best.

That would depend on the person and the circumstances, which can't be expressed in a simple yes or no poll. There's that famous black and white thinking again!

How grey do you like your questions? I like mine simple and easy to understand, black and white. Yes and No are the only two main answers there are to the question i posed. I would'nt not have included an 'unsure' or 'maybe' option for people to elaborate if they felt unrepresented by a simple yes/no.

'Unsure' & 'maybe' are just as vaild as 'yes' or 'no'.


So by this reasoning, if a straight guy closes his eyes and thinks of chics while his gay buddy blows him, he's suddenly bi? Sorry but I don't see how this is any different than masturbation except using your friends mouth instead of your own hand. Just because you won't consider fooling around with the opposite sex doesn't mean there isn't a gay person that would.
This depends entirely on how such a circumstance arises. I've already explained 'extenuating' circumstances where it would'nt alter a person's sexual orientation. A straight guy who then becomes bi-curious before settling after all on being straight is not the same as being absolutely straight, because such a guy would'nt be involved in gay behaviour without there being a reason far more influencing than simply wanting to have sexual pleasure. It is not a pleasure inducing desire to have sexual interaction with someone that does not float your boat and tends to occur most when people have their beer goggles on, they would even more rarely be likely to do the same thing with someone who does'nt even match their gender preference.

1. Going from straight-to Bi- to straight is the same as a constant straight surely.
The outcome is the same, its just a different method of reaching the outcome.

2. Why is sexual pleasure not enough, I know for a fact that a fair amount of people put sexual pleasure before floating their boat.



LoL!! This made me laugh out loud. According to your 'logic' all people wake up in the morning and 'decide' what they're orientation is going to be that day. I don't know about you but being gay was never a choice for me and I'm pretty sure it isn't for you either. So no, your wrong. Our behavior (actions) don't dictate our orientation (sexual attraction). In fact, the opposite is also not the case. Neither is true because orientation and behavior are different things, which you yourself agreed with me on earlier.

I'm glad you had a laugh, its always good to have cause to smile and so on. Sadly, you appear to have been laughing over your own confusion.
I did not say anything which could logically assume i was inferring 'waking up and choosing your sexuality'. In actual fact it is you implying such a thing, this is because you take the view that sexual orientation is self defined, just like Joe Kort whose article you linked to.
The links you provided did nothing other than to reaffirm my logical asumption because although initially pausing to rethink a couple of times, i found contradiction. I think you have read the articles literally or something without stopping to think about what exactly was being referred to.
Joe Kort states that sexual orientation is how we define ourselves, only to state in the next paragraph, that sexual orientation is constant, in which case it is irrelevant as to how we define ourselves because ultimately that does'nt change who we are. A straight guy indulging in gay acts can define himself as straight, yes, but he is not straight. It would be good if such a guy could be more at ease with who he is, and the same is true of gay guys who believe themselves to be gay but indulging in heterosexual acts.
it.
Another article explained how the definition of sexual orientation is divided into three main groups. Science, Politics and Self identification by non-heterosexuals. Note that the only one of these which refer to self identification relates to those who are NOT straight, this does not indicate an 'across the board' method of determining what we are.
I, like most intelligent people, would be inclined to use the scientific definition to determine their orientation. After all, if i defined myself as a block of cheese........makes sense to you now, maybe, at all?

1. Why is he not straight if he indulges in 'gay' acts? It must depend on their way of thinking and how they feel about the act.

Some people will have sex with the same gender just for the heck of it, because they just see it as sexual pleasure.
Giving no thought to their gender, having no emotions, no attraction, they just see pure sexual pleasure.

2. People like this are at ease, thats the whole point. They are so at ease that they do not have a problem with sex with any gender, They don't think of themselves as any less straight than the next guy.

It is this whole at easy thing that society finds hard to understand. People at ease are open minded in life generally.

Of course you'd say that because you're close minded and/or think you're correct about everything you say.
Oh, close minded again. I usually AM correct about things i say because i am an honest person. I am also sometimes wrong when expressing my opinion, as are most people at some point now and again.

1. Honesty doesn't make you correct unfortunately.

2. You are not wrong in what you say, if this is what you think/feel is right, however someone with a different outlook is just as right as your personal opinion.



I thus stand resolute that a straight man doing gay things, generally, is NOT straight

why? can you explain?

 

[mitchymo]

It's no more logical than them being seperate.

Well i guess it all depends on how you define sexual orientation. For me, sexual orientation IS linked to sexual behaviour and vice versa. If you have an opposeing view, then we can only agree to disagree.

1. How do you know most people will agree, So far it doesn't look that way.

Very few have posted on this thread, of those that have i would say it looks pretty even actually, the uneven slant that is current is largely due to me arguing one side and two of you arguing the other as other posters have only commented once.

2. So someone elses way of thinking isn't inline with yours so their point/view is Irrelevent?

I did'nt say that, if i do'nt get somebody else's way of thinking then i naturally disagree. If i can be 'educated' or convinced with a reasonably good argument then i am more than capable of changing my way of thinking.

3. Really, You don't come across very open minded. Again enhancing the fact that your way of thinking is best.

Tiring now.

'Unsure' & 'maybe' are just as vaild as 'yes' or 'no'.

Which is why i said i would include them in a poll. For many people a yes or no is apt enough.

1. Going from straight-to Bi- to straight is the same as a constant straight surely.
The outcome is the same, its just a different method of reaching the outcome.

Yes, the outcome is the same but the sexual interactions are most definately not. The only people who i can imagine engaging in sexual behaviour which is 'gay' if they are straight or 'straight' if they are gay are those who are not being true to themselves. This is because the science definition which i use to define sexuality is simple.
Again, another person can have their own definition but i'll agree to disagree.

2. Why is sexual pleasure not enough, I know for a fact that a fair amount of people put sexual pleasure before floating their boat.

Perhaps sexual pleasure itself IS floating their boat, perhaps they are loose, i dunno, but their are plenty of people I know who don't fuck around with people they're not into.

1. Why is he not straight if he indulges in 'gay' acts? It must depend on their way of thinking and how they feel about the act.

I call it denial at the worst but most likely lack of identity.

Some people will have sex with the same gender just for the heck of it, because they just see it as sexual pleasure.
Giving no thought to their gender, having no emotions, no attraction, they just see pure sexual pleasure.

Some people are bisexual.

2. People like this are at ease, thats the whole point. They are so at ease that they do not have a problem with sex with any gender, They don't think of themselves as any less straight than the next guy.

It is this whole at easy thing that society finds hard to understand. People at ease are open minded in life generally.

Yes, of course, so at ease that they cling to a straight label!



I thus stand resolute that a straight man doing gay things, generally, is NOT straight

why? can you explain?

I have already explained over the course of my posts on this thread. I have counter argued a point made by the OP. I found the material he linked to to be contradictory and merely covered extenuating circumstances where there are psychological reasons behind some acts which clearly do not alter sexual orientation.
Essentially, if sexual orientation is based on how you feel, and that feeling is one of ease which is why 'some' people have sex against their sexual preference, this is tantamount to saying that 100% gay guys and straight guys who define themselves as a 'true' orientation are somehow 'not comfortable' which is basically questioning their sexuality.
Perhaps a new label could be created to define such people, but i don't see why when bisexual more than covers that ground.

 

[alx]

Ok so from the above, Simply put. Your view of bisexual is someone that does any kind of gay act yet still carrys out hetero acts?

If this is the case then this is just a disagreement on what we define as bisexual. as for me I think a true Bisexual will have feelings for the same gender as well as the opposite, Not equally but can be put on a scale i.e 1-10.

Someone that finds the same gender sexually attractive as well as the opposite gender.

Someone that gets 'turned on' by the same gender as well as the opposite.

So this doesn't even take into account behaviour, but still an Orientation is established. This is why I don't think behaviour defines your Orientation. Hence Orientation can be seperate from behaviour.

whilst you see behaviour as influencing orientation. Correct?

 

[mitchymo]

Ok so from the above, Simply put. Your view of bisexual is someone that does any kind of gay act yet still carrys out hetero acts?

If this is the case then this is just a disagreement on what we define as bisexual. as for me I think a true Bisexual will have feelings for the same gender as well as the opposite, Not equally but can be put on a scale i.e 1-10.

Someone that finds the same gender sexually attractive as well as the opposite gender.

Someone that gets 'turned on' by the same gender as well as the opposite.

So this doesn't even take into account behaviour, but still an Orientation is established. This is why I don't think behaviour defines your Orientation. Hence Orientation can be seperate from behaviour.

whilst you see behaviour as influencing orientation. Correct?

I see it more like a triangle, where sexual behaviour defines your orientation but where your behaviour is defined by your identity which in turn is defined by your orientation.
I hope i have'nt confused you. I see your identity as being the top of the triangle and the most important. This identity dictates your behaviour and then sexual orientation is just the label that reflects your identity.
So, sexual orientation is not important in any way except to be definitive and so seperating it from sexual behaviour is like breaking the link between sexual behaviour and identity because the sexual orientation part (connected not seperated) is just the label that science can best define the identity with. If the behaviour does'nt match the orientation then it therfore cannot match the identity.
The only circumstances that i have thought this is not the case are only when external (and valid) factors kind of create a bending of the link between behaviour and identity such as being paid to do it or having psychological reasons that affect your identity (isolation in prison analogy or being heavily under the influence of personality distorting drugs). The kind of reasons that were being suggested, about sexual pleasure resulting in gay acts, are part of the identity and NOT a bending of the link between it and behaviour so it must be internal. This means the label needs to change because it becomes inconsistent with identity and behaviour.

I hope i have been as clear as i've hoped to be. I do'nt have the most articulate way of saying things sometimes.

 

[LSebastien]

I agree with you that the two are different but i do not agree that they are seperate. They are linked to each other, that is a perfectly logical asumption, i would have thought.

Why you'd think that would be a logical assumption is anyone's guess. Do you always act on something you you have an attraction toward? Of course not. Are your reasons for doing a certain action always going the be the same? Of course not. It couldn't be any more obvious that they're different.

I use myself as an example sure, but i do so knowing that most people would agree that a straight guy taking voluntary pleasure without extenuating circumstances (none of which are examples you cited) with another guy can truly be heterosexual, whether he says he is, is irrelevant.

You only think it's irrelevant because you're not capable of separating attraction and action. This is just another example of you thinking you're the pinnacle of correct thinking.

I like mine simple and easy to understand, black and white.

That's exactly what your problem is. The world isn't black and white but shades of grey and all sorts of colors too. A person with a simple and easy mind like yours can't fully grasp anything beyond their own limited experience.

A straight guy who then becomes bi-curious before settling after all on being straight is not the same as being absolutely straight, because such a guy would'nt be involved in gay behaviour without there being a reason far more influencing than simply wanting to have sexual pleasure.

Again, you're not giving any logical reasoning behind this other than 'because you say so'. What if they like the concept of not doing any of the work and just have someone else do it for them? Maybe they just like the feeling of not being alone while they get off? There could be any number of reasons that you probably haven't even bothered to think about until I mention them.

Joe Kort states that sexual orientation is how we define ourselves, only to state in the next paragraph, that sexual orientation is constant, in which case it is irrelevant as to how we define ourselves because ultimately that does'nt change who we are.

No, you're just simply taking the word 'define' out of context to suite your own argument. Joe is using the word 'define' to mean 'label', not 'create. In other words, I say I'm homosexual in order to label who I am, not create who I am. Nice try though.

Note that the only one of these which refer to self identification relates to those who are NOT straight, this does not indicate an 'across the board' method of determining what we are.

I don't know why you quoted that part of the article since it's completely irrelevant to what we're debating. The part of the article that you should have payed attention to is where it says ""One of the questions useful to ask about research results is whether the study was of sexual behavior or sexual orientation. The two are often confused."" No matter which article you look at, they all clearly imply that orientation and behavior are different things.

Oh, close minded again. I usually AM correct about things i say because i am an honest person.

Honesty has nothing to do with intelligence or facts, so it's ironic that you'd say you're usually correct when in the same sentence, you said something completely illogical.

I am also sometimes wrong when expressing my opinion, as are most people at some point now and again.

Wrong again! Opinions are neither right nor wrong since they are only opinions. "I like the color red" is an opinion. A person who says this can neither be right nor wrong in his/her opinion. However, what you're 'trying' to put forth in not an opinion but a fact and facts need evidence and proof in order to be true rather than false. So far, you haven't provided any sufficient evidence or reasoning other than you're own personal preferences.

I thus stand resolute that a straight man doing gay things, generally, is NOT straight.

And where is your evidence to support this?