Gay flings automatically make a person gay???

[goddess_nemesis]

Ok, I was reading a tabloid at work and I read an article about Barack Obama and that rumor that he had a gay fling with some guy and Michelle is trying to get pregnant to end that rumor that Obama is gay. But whatever.

This thread is not about Obama at all; I'm using him as an example because it got me thinking. It pretty much equated a gay fling to being gay; and I was wondering does it really automatically make you gay if you have a sexual fling with someone of the same sex? Or is just with men who have gay flings that are automatically labeled gay because it's 'wrong' for men but ok for women?

I'm just curious what everyone's opinion is. If a man has a gay fling, is he automatically gay? If a woman has a gay fling, is she automatically a lesbian? Do women get more of a free pass?

 

[MrMacphisto]

If you've had sex with someone of the same sex but you still prefer the opposite sex in most cases, I would define that as bisexual.

 

[c7_assassin]

Well, it wouldn't mean that an otherwise heterosexual man was suddenly a full-blown, baton-twirling "gay guy," if he wasn't like that already. But it would mean that he could get it up for a man, making him bi at the very least. There's no such thing as a "straight" man who's had sex with another guy. Period.

I don't know about women... I suppose women sometimes have sex without enjoying it or really being into it. So I guess a straight woman could technically have sex with another woman...but then why bother?

Actually, come to think of it...I can't even imagine going down on another guy, and I could physically do that without getting it up... so scratch what I said about women; you have sex with someone of the same sex, you're bi.

But female bodies are beautiful; who can blame women for being a little experimental... 😉

 

[Skipadeedoodah]

If you have a "gay fling" I wouldn't say you're officially a homosexual always and forever. But I would definitely say you were a little...hetero-flexible (my new favorite word btw)

 

[Helena]

The world is full of double standards and snap judgements, and we are very quick to label people. The extent that standards, judgements, and labels are used to put humans into cateogories vary from person to person.

For the hypothetical man or woman in this scenario I'm assuming the sex was consentual.

Hetero men don't usually get wood for other men, so I suppose if he has full sex with another man, at the very least he is bi. Women who have full sex with other women is at the very least bi. I think society tends to dismiss lesbian behavior more because it's acceptable to label it "experimenting". But really, both acts are homosexual.

 

[Strider]

Do women get more of a free pass?

Yes.

Fairly or not, there's definitely a double standard at work here. For whatever reason, the idea of a man who is predominantly hetero (in the sense that all of their relationships are with members of the opposite sex but they still happen to enjoy making out-or perhaps a bit more-with other men) is just not going to be accepted as easily as a woman who fits roughly the same categorization.

For what it's worth, that's the category I'm in; and if someone asks me, I don't define myself as anything, I just tell them that I like what I like.

 

[ParanoidChant]

Honestly? I've made out with guys. I've tried to get with guys. But I've never had sex with guys.

So tell me: what would happen if I did let some dude have his way with me and I didn't like it? What if I found myself in some hotel room, naked, with some other guy, but not turned on? The idea of being with a guy is something I'm still interested in, but I still hold doubt that I could ever do a guy. I'm bi-curious, I suppose, rather than bi-sexual.

Frankly, labels given to sexual orientation piss me the f*ck off. Human sexuality is so varied and so unique to each person that the whole 'gay/bi/straight' trifecta that its been boiled down to just doesn't seem realistic to me. I say everyone should experiment with their sexuality, everyone should at least TRY a gay fling, and NO ONE should care what a tabloid labels them as in the process.

 

[rhiannon]

Yes.

Fairly or not, there's definitely a double standard at work here. For whatever reason, the idea of a man who is predominantly hetero (in the sense that all of their relationships are with members of the opposite sex but they still happen to enjoy making out-or perhaps a bit more-with other men) is just not going to be accepted as easily as a woman who fits roughly the same categorization.

For what it's worth, that's the category I'm in; and if someone asks me, I don't define myself as anything, I just tell them that I like what I like.

Agreed!

I also think, if you do something sexual with the same sex, you are at least a tiny little bit bi. It doesn't mean that you will do it again, but if you enjoy it, you have bi tendencies.

As for the free pass for women - definitely! I think it's considered pretty much natural that women fool around with other women. Maybe because we are considered more touchy! If someone sees me walking downtown with my best - female - friend hand in hand or arm in arm, nobody will think of us as being lesbian. They'll think we are friends. If men do the same thing - everyone will think they are gay, because men just don't touch like that!

Maybe that's the reason why women can do more without being considered lesbian right away while men are more easily looked at as being gay!

 

[Perduabo]

Honestly? I've made out with guys. I've tried to get with guys. But I've never had sex with guys.

So tell me: what would happen if I did let some dude have his way with me and I didn't like it? What if I found myself in some hotel room, naked, with some other guy, but not turned on? The idea of being with a guy is something I'm still interested in, but I still hold doubt that I could ever do a guy. I'm bi-curious, I suppose, rather than bi-sexual.

Frankly, labels given to sexual orientation piss me the f*ck off. Human sexuality is so varied and so unique to each person that the whole 'gay/bi/straight' trifecta that its been boiled down to just doesn't seem realistic to me. I say everyone should experiment with their sexuality, everyone should at least TRY a gay fling, and NO ONE should care what a tabloid labels them as in the process.

Quoted for the truth.

I agree with everything you just said, despite the fact that I do label myself as gay and have absolutely no sexual attraction to females. Human sexuality does run much deeper than the simple blacks and whites we boil it down to.

 

[Capnmad]

Several good comments on this. I just think the notion is stupid. Here's the same logic applied to food:

You have eaten liver and onions, therefore you like liver and onions.

It just doesn't hold. I've eaten many meals, and I like a lot of things, but there are some things I've tried and I just don't like, and I wouldn't ask for them from the menu for the life of me. In fact, I hate liver and onions, but I've had it.

For me, it's not a matter of what you've tried, but a matter of what you like. To assume otherwise is absurd. Consider the converse (if the logic held, what you haven't tried would also play a part in defining your orientation label): Would we call the virgin "asexual"? Or because they haven't been with a member of the opposite sex yet, are all virgins by default "gay"? A family man who, strictly because of cultural demands, has never acted on his overwhelming homosexual urges -- would it be accurate to say he's "straight as an arrow"?

It's a load of nonsense. I believe it's a matter of what one is attracted to, not what one has experienced.

 

[c7_assassin]

Several good comments on this. I just think the notion is stupid. Here's the same logic applied to food:

You have eaten liver and onions, therefore you like liver and onions.

It just doesn't hold. I've eaten many meals, and I like a lot of things, but there are some things I've tried and I just don't like, and I wouldn't ask for them from the menu for the life of me. In fact, I hate liver and onions, but I've had it.

For me, it's not a matter of what you've tried, but a matter of what you like. To assume otherwise is absurd. Consider the converse (if the logic held, what you haven't tried would also play a part in defining your orientation label): Would we call the virgin "asexual"? Or because they haven't been with a member of the opposite sex yet, are all virgins by default "gay"? A family man who, strictly because of cultural demands, has never acted on his overwhelming homosexual urges -- would it be accurate to say he's "straight as an arrow"?

It's a load of nonsense. I believe it's a matter of what one is attracted to, not what one has experienced.

That's an interesting way of looking at it, and it's a good argument. The problem is, most virgins aren't asexual; people know who they're attracted to before they experience anything.

If you feel the need to experiment with someone of the same sex, that does mean you're attracted to the same sex, doesn't it? I've never had even the slightest urge to go to bed with another man (not that there's anything wrong with that...). I knew I liked women when I was a kid, and I knew I liked tickling when I was a kid. My sexuality was there already.

 

[Sanhael]

IMHO, we are far too quick to create classifications where nature didn't intend them, and we are even quicker to force things into them. Not everybody is gay or straight. Even "bisexual" is often such a ramrod classification; it implies that the person is equally disposed towards sex and/or romantic feelings with either gender. Terms like "bi-curious" are a cop-out; they concede that our system of classifying things in a comfortable, orderly fashion doesn't always work, while continuing to employ that very system by being just one more label themselves.

Most people, during their teenage/twenty-something years, have at least one "homosexual" fantasy and/or encounter. It doesn't make them gay, or bisexual; it means their hormones are still setting themselves up. A strong personal connection with another individual can also form a bond of attraction, call it what you will, regardless of someone's sexual preferences. The ancient Greeks are often spoken of as "embracing homosexuality," but the fact of the matter is that 99% of them had sex with women... they simply felt that platonic, close personal relationships with other men were more natural than enjoying such with the opposite sex.

Sure, some people are flat-out attracted only to one gender or another. Maybe many, although likely not as many as you think. I also know people who are only attracted to individuals of a certain race, or hair color, or hobby. Cultural pressures to conform to heterosexuality, and their inevitable results, aside, I don't see the difference.

 

[Capnmad]

That's an interesting way of looking at it, and it's a good argument. The problem is, most virgins aren't asexual; people know who they're attracted to before they experience anything.

And that's precisely my point that calling them asexual would be absurd.

If you feel the need to experiment with someone of the same sex, that does mean you're attracted to the same sex, doesn't it? I've never had even the slightest urge to go to bed with another man (not that there's anything wrong with that...). I knew I liked women when I was a kid, and I knew I liked tickling when I was a kid. My sexuality was there already.

You're making a bit of an assumption with that "feel the need" notion, I think. I'd suggest that the vast majority of most early sexual experiences are hardly well-planned seductions or things given much premeditation at all. The maxim "if it feels good, do it" probably characterizes them much more accurately than anything else.

An old philosophy prof of mine tended to believe that people are at root polymorphously perverse, but social factors helped form what we call orientation. While I believe orientation is more biologically based than he did, I do believe social factors play a role, but I also believe that a body will respond to certain stimulation regardless the gender of the person administering it. I also believe that the vast majority of humans, however much we may wish to assert our personal control and a belief in our strength of will, are profoundly weak-willed when it comes to matters of pleasure. These being so, I believe many unplanned sexual experiences with people outside of ones ordinary realm of attraction happen across the planet every day.

The matter of orientation aside, "beer goggles" and the results thereof is a classic example.

 

[rhiannon]

Several good comments on this. I just think the notion is stupid. Here's the same logic applied to food:

You have eaten liver and onions, therefore you like liver and onions.

It just doesn't hold. I've eaten many meals, and I like a lot of things, but there are some things I've tried and I just don't like, and I wouldn't ask for them from the menu for the life of me. In fact, I hate liver and onions, but I've had it.

For me, it's not a matter of what you've tried, but a matter of what you like. To assume otherwise is absurd. Consider the converse (if the logic held, what you haven't tried would also play a part in defining your orientation label): Would we call the virgin "asexual"? Or because they haven't been with a member of the opposite sex yet, are all virgins by default "gay"? A family man who, strictly because of cultural demands, has never acted on his overwhelming homosexual urges -- would it be accurate to say he's "straight as an arrow"?

It's a load of nonsense. I believe it's a matter of what one is attracted to, not what one has experienced.

Ok, but if you try the same sex and like it, what then? I guess then it would be bi-sexual, wouldn't it?

 

[Capnmad]

Ok, but if you try the same sex and like it, what then? I guess then it would be bi-sexual, wouldn't it?

It depends. Are you then attracted to the sensation, or the characteristics of the person who gave you the sensation?

That is to say, does enjoying a vibrator make you vibe-sexual?

 

[Bohemianne]

The only time a person is gay is when he admits it verbally or in black & white. No one can brand anyone by plain hypothesis ever!

 

[Redmage]

A friend of mine replies, when someone asks him if he's bisexual, "I don't know. I've never met a man I was attracted to."

 

[c7_assassin]

That is to say, does enjoying a vibrator make you vibe-sexual?

Well, funny you should mention, there are people in this world who aren't interested in sex with others at all. I think the word is onasexual, but I'm not sure about that...

Maybe what you're saying is true of some people, maybe some people really are just slaves to the sensations in their genitals and it doesn't really matter who or what is causing them... But I don't think that's true of most people, I certainly wouldn't say it's true for me.

Not that there's anything wrong with that... 😉

 

[rhiannon]

For some fetishists it is that way....when it goes so far that only the fetish itself matters. I've talked to some people who didn't care who they tickled or got tickled by as long as there was tickling.

 

[Capnmad]

Maybe what you're saying is true of some people, maybe some people really are just slaves to the sensations in their genitals and it doesn't really matter who or what is causing them... But I don't think that's true of most people, I certainly wouldn't say it's true for me.

Well, like I said, people like to think they're in control, that things are a certain way -- that they're this or they're that, and all is well with the world. It doesn't surprise me that you responded such.

But what say you go out to a bar, and you're drinking a little, and there's this girl who's totally into you, and you take her back to your place. And you all are kissing and playing around a little, things start getting hot and heavy, and one thing leads to another, and you're both up in you bedroom and before you know it you're both undressed and then suddenly...

PENIS.

WHAT?! Yes. Sorry to disrupt your little fantasy, but that "girl" you took home is actually a very well disguised transvestite. (Remember kids: "'Buzzed' flirting is drunk flirting!" 😀)

But waitaminnit. You took him home, you were kissing, you were aroused, you got undressed... Are you now gay? After all, you were turned on by a guy.

"But I thought he was a girl!" you say.

"PENIS!" I remind you. "You've already said you're no slave to the sensations in your genitals, so the only logical conclusion (according to your own system) is that men turn you on -- specifically if they're dressed like women. After all, one such has turned you on before... There are a number of sites that specialize in transvestitism. Perhaps you should have a look around there."

I guess these things would turn worlds upside down for people who believe sexuality is so simply and strictly compartmentalized, unless they found a way to rationalize their way out of it...

But for me, it would just be a matter of, "Whoops! My brain was mistaken."

At various times in my life, I've been aroused by a detachable shower head, the ejection port of a swimming pool, and the book,"Grover and the Everything in the Whole Wide World Museum". Yet I've never been oriented toward plumbing or muppets. 😕

I find women sexually attractive and men not, but I recognize the capacity for even a well-built massage chair to turn me on.

Even arousal is not orientation. Orientation is innate, deeply rooted attraction.

For some fetishists it is that way....when it goes so far that only the fetish itself matters. I've talked to some people who didn't care who they tickled or got tickled by as long as there was tickling.

Then you've answered your question for some.

It's best that we not try to put too fine a point on sexuality, I think -- specifically when it comes to others. And it's always hard to define things in absolute terms that fit every circumstance and individual. Know and be comfortable in your own, define yourself as you see fit, and let others define themselves as they choose.

 

[rhiannon]

At various times in my life, I've been aroused by a detachable shower head, the ejection port of a swimming pool, and the book,"Grover and the Everything in the Whole Wide World Museum". Yet I've never been attracted to plumbing or muppets.

Capnmad, I really think you are comparing apples and oranges here. 🙂

 

[Capnmad]

Capnmad, I really think you are comparing apples and oranges here. 🙂

Thank you, but I respectfully disagree. 🙂 You are welcome, however, to offer what you think is the significant difference in the analogy in order to better support whichever argument you choose.

 

[c7_assassin]

Well, that's a good example of something, just not what I think you're trying to say. If I accidentally went home with a tranny, and then: PENIS 😱 then I would do exactly as you said you would:

But for me, it would just be a matter of, "Whoops! My brain was mistaken."

I would still be totally straight. If I knew that the person was really a man, but I still went home with him because I was attracted to him, then I'd be bi. If I had sex with him after figuring out he was a man, I'd be bi. Otherwise there wouldn't be an attraction...

What you're saying (I think) is that a "straight" man would look at a woman dressed up as a man, and still be magically attracted to her even though he thinks it's another man. Which of course wouldn't happen.

Accidentally going home with someone wouldn't turn a straight person gay or a gay person straight. Wanting to is what makes you gay or straight.

 

[rhiannon]

Thank you, but I respectfully disagree. 🙂 You are welcome, however, to offer what you think is the significant difference in the analogy in order to better support whichever argument you choose.

c7_assassin already pretty much wrote down what I think. 🙂

But besides that, you can't really compare using any tool to get aroused with the attraction to a gender! 🙂 Then you would have to reduce the person to that part of their body they cause arousal with....i.e. hands, penis, tongue or whatever the person may prefer. There we would maybe even cross the line to a fetish again!

 

[Capnmad]

Accidentally going home with someone wouldn't turn a straight person gay or a gay person straight. Wanting to is what makes you gay or straight.

I think we're in more agreement than you know.

I would still be totally straight. If I knew that the person was really a man, but I still went home with him because I was attracted to him, then I'd be bi. If I had sex with him after figuring out he was a man, I'd be bi. Otherwise there wouldn't be an attraction...

And if you didn't know he was a man until afterward (I don't know how that could possibly be, but let's "what if" it)? What would you be then?

Intercourse aside, if you knew, but decided to give it a go just because you were drunk, horny, and figured a handjob's a handjob? Then what would you be?

And if you tried, but afterward decided you didn't like it? What then?

If nothing else, these illustrate part of the endless possible outcomes, to which I sense there must be more than simple gay/bi/straight answers. I believe a man can be gay, hide his desires, and get married, have children, and only ever be with a woman until he dies, yet he longs for something else. I believe a woman can kiss and fondle another woman for fun (and sometimes applause), and yet be simply an attention-seeking straight. I believe people can be oriented one way, experiment another, and maintain the same orientation, because there is a certain innate attraction. I believe that orientation can but does not have to dictate experimentation, and conversely that experimentation does not dictate orientation.

That's been my argument throughout -- that experience and/or arousal does not necessarily dictate orientation. So are we on the same page now?