One would hope so, but if he's cheating he's not overly concerned about the wife anyway let alone if he's down-low cheating. It's very sad, but it happens a lot more then we think.
-
If you would like to get your account Verified, read this thread -
The TMF is sponsored by Clips4sale - By supporting them, you're supporting us. -
>>> If you cannot get into your account email me at [email protected] <<<
Don't forget to include your username
Gay flings automatically make a person gay???
- Thread starter goddess_nemesis
- Start date
One would hope so, but if he's cheating he's not overly concerned about the wife anyway let alone if he's down-low cheating. It's very sad, but it happens a lot more then we think.
The down-low issue is almost exclusive to AA and Hispanic/Latino men. Cultural influences and the church's emphasis on sexual orientation make these men go underground for their fulfillment. In other words, being homosexual or bisexual means you're not a man. Is it stupid? Absolutely because it's making our women sick! But this stuff has been going on for a long time and it's going to be difficult for some of our men to get honest with themselves.
Powah
TMF Poster
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2007
- Messages
- 126
- Points
- 16
Well kind of, there are guys that would never do anything, But the concept on curiosity comes to mind. I could wonder what it would be like, Then later find out its just not me.
Ding! We have a winner.
It's not that simple, though. I'd be willing to go to bed with David Bowie, but that doesn't make me gay.
Not gay, but at least it shows you have bisexual tendencies!
I am not attracted to every woman, but there are women I could imagine at least trying to fool around with. If I don't like it afterwards, okay...I guess I'm totally hetero then. If I do like it, I guess I'm bisexual!
So right now I don't know if I am bisexual, but I guess I do have a certain tendency!
I am not attracted to every woman, but there are women I could imagine at least trying to fool around with. If I don't like it afterwards, okay...I guess I'm totally hetero then. If I do like it, I guess I'm bisexual!
So right now I don't know if I am bisexual, but I guess I do have a certain tendency!
c7_assassin
3rd Level Black Feather
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2007
- Messages
- 8,703
- Points
- 0
Dude, what are you talking about? What, in your opinion, would make a man bi if it's not about wanting to go to bed with other men?
No one's making a moral judgement here, but that's what being bi is!
Conversely, we could just anthropomorphize plumbing and muppets. Sorry, those pipe-people from the Vesicare ads and even a real, live Tickle-Me-Elmo would do nothing for me. 😀
Lemme try this again -- I think where I went only was a glancing blow toward my goal...
I'm trying to draw a distinction here between enjoying the process of receiving pleasure, and being fundamentally attracted to that which delivers it. The reason why is it seems to me that there are some arguing that:
Pleasure dictates attraction. (If you like it, you'll seek it out.)
Attraction dictates experience. (Seek and ye shall find.)
Experience dictates orientation. (What you do is what you are.)
Therefore, pleasure dictates orientation.
But then, given my previous statements, and according to this argument, I should be on the prowl for all manner of plumbing fixture and muppet to hump. ...and yet, I'm not.
For all your concern about reduction of a human being to a thing, a tool for pleasure -- about objectification -- I think a lot of that actually goes on, however much we may like to think ourselves better than that. I think there's a reason why porn sells so well, and call me foolish, but I don't think it sells because men appreciate the actresses' minds. People often do view each other as tools of pleasure, with varying degrees of attraction. Sometimes, there's a deeper appreciation, and sometimes what passes for deeper appreciation is the result of sublimating sexual desire into a socially acceptable set of drives.
A man can love and/or lust after a woman and vice-versa, or man for man or woman for woman or whathaveyou, but this is also dragging me away from my main point, which is that while I once received pleasure from strange things, the pleasure I received didn't cause a fundamental shift in my attractions. The enjoyment didn't generalize into any wider attraction to muppets, to books, to swimming pools, or to plumbing. I don't see, therefore, had the pleasure I received come from a person of the same sex (instead of a swimming pool spout), why that would somehow mysteriously change what I'm fundamentally attracted to (my orientation). Was it a magical gay leprechaun* or something?
I'm not sure, but I think you may be inserting a whole other layer of deep emotions into proceedings as a prerequisite to pleasure (and making certain assumptions as a result), when they're not actually necessary, and may not be as involved as much or as deeply as you may think when it comes to the wider population.
But anyway, explain to me how that whole changing orientations thing would work... I've been needing something to turn the whole field of psychology on its head, and Lord knows there are some conservative ideologues out there who'd love to find a "cure" for homosexuality...
This continues to be an interesting discussion, but a certain comedy bit comes to mind every time I look at this thread...
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/iSnNHUaNR_8&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/iSnNHUaNR_8&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
*I hope none of the homosexual community takes offense to this comment. It was only meant to insult the Irish, you drunken, potato-eating Micks.
Powah
TMF Poster
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2007
- Messages
- 126
- Points
- 16
Dude, what are you talking about? What, in your opinion, would make a man bi if it's not about wanting to go to bed with other men?
No one's making a moral judgement here, but that's what being bi is!
Being Bi is going both ways true but what if i did it and I found that i don't like it after all and never do it again. dose that make me permanently bi
c7_assassin
3rd Level Black Feather
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2007
- Messages
- 8,703
- Points
- 0
I guess what I mean is that it wouldn't make you anything, it wouldn't change anything about you, but you'd have to ask yourself why you even felt the need to experiment in the first place. You're either straight, or bi, or gay right now, whether you've had only straight sex or only gay sex. If the thought of touching a naked man turns you on, and you feel the need to pull at that thread, I think that's proof that you have bisexual tendencies. Like I said before, what else would being bisexual be?
@Capnmad:
I think having sex with a vibrator and having sex with a person is nothing you can compare!
Let's get to your porn example: straight guys will not watch gay porn even though they show a guy getting a blowjob! Most straight guys will think that is pretty nasty, and they won't get turned on by it! It does matter who does it to you!
If you do it with lifeless things, it's YOU, yourself, and doesn't tell anything at all about an attraction. As soon as someone else is involved, you need an attraction to want to have sex. Either that or you are totally desparate.
I think having sex with a vibrator and having sex with a person is nothing you can compare!
Let's get to your porn example: straight guys will not watch gay porn even though they show a guy getting a blowjob! Most straight guys will think that is pretty nasty, and they won't get turned on by it! It does matter who does it to you!
If you do it with lifeless things, it's YOU, yourself, and doesn't tell anything at all about an attraction. As soon as someone else is involved, you need an attraction to want to have sex. Either that or you are totally desparate.
c7_assassin
3rd Level Black Feather
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2007
- Messages
- 8,703
- Points
- 0
Well, that's still a difference. I would complain.
starburstz91
2nd Level Orange Feather
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2007
- Messages
- 2,310
- Points
- 0
There is the case in which some people are "bi curious". For example, if you date someone of the same sex for maybe the first or second time, that does not automatically mean you're gay. It just means that maybe it can be something new to try, and experience.
What I believe is that when the a person continues to engage into a relationship with the same sex ( as far as to have an affair ), then technically, you are gay. That's just what I would think, and no, women do not get free passes. I feel that society criticises all gay people the same.
What I believe is that when the a person continues to engage into a relationship with the same sex ( as far as to have an affair ), then technically, you are gay. That's just what I would think, and no, women do not get free passes. I feel that society criticises all gay people the same.
I disagree. If two men are together, they are gay. If to women are together, it's hot.
Huh. I thought that was Ron White's porn example... Oh -- where I said there's objectification involved when men enjoy porn (technically when anyone buys porn)? Well, first, let's ignore your assertion that self-described "straight" men won't get turned on by gay porn because science indicates otherwise, specifically if they're homophobic... That'll help you out... I've already said that that gets away from my main point, but okay. Yes, there are going to be stimuli to which people will not be turned on... ...which is basically as far as that point goes. I don't think anyone should really be surprised by that.
There, naturally, you're making receiving of pleasure contingent upon attraction, by narrowing the only stimuli a visual one, and specific to material you presume would get no arousal from the subject. Your example is dependent upon innate attraction, because that's the only connection available. The reason why the majority of straight men enjoy straight porn is because there is an object of attraction, and they can project themselves onto the male in the scene. Absent that object of attraction, projection generally becomes undesirable. Porn still treats women as objects, however.
You could make a list of all manner of videos by which people will not get turned on. That's good for your argument maybe, but hardly representative of the kaleidoscope of sexual experiences.
Well, I imagine just as I believe there are shades of grey in levels of attraction, and different and sometimes disproportionate levels of pleasure you can receive from these levels of attraction, there are probably shades of grey in desparation. I remember a popular documentary series where a couple of explorers tried living with the Machigenga of Peru. The Machigenga were so very concerned that the explorers didn't bring their women with them on their multi-month trek that they thought certainly the men would be so desperate that they would turn into homosexuals (the Machigenga never being without their own wives or without sex for more than a day or so). Mayhaps your thinking belongs more in Peru.
So "desperation" is relative, I guess, but you go ahead and try to make personal attacks if it makes you feel better, and I'll just continue a criticism of your ideas.
It's a shame when I can't convey an idea as accurately and articulately as I want... It's also a shame, however, when I feel I'm doing my best on the matter and others still can't seem to grasp what I'm getting at.
And you avoided my question. Explain to me how the magical gay leprechaun works that changes someone's orientation. Explain to me how a couple of girls kissing and groping in a bar to hoots and hollers and offers to buy drinks from men suddenly makes them gay or bi.
See, I'm actually a fairly conservative guy when it comes to my own preferences and my own flexibility in that area, but the longer I live, the more I hear and understand about people who are less conservative in their activities -- people who are not turned on by the same sex, but don't mind if they view or partake in activities with them, sometimes involving a person of the opposite gender, and sometimes not. I get to thinking that maybe this thing isn't so simply cut-and-dry as folks like to make it. I hear terms like "heteroflexible" and get the gist that that person is innately attracted to the opposite gender, but isn't so absolutely repulsed by their own that they couldn't accept them being involved or maybe receiving pleasure from them. I don't believe that for them accepting pleasure from a single person requires an innate attraction to a whole gender, and I don't see why it should.
I just think the world's a little blurrier and less easily defined than you do when it comes to sexuality, I guess. But if it gives you such pleasure to strictly categorize the sexuality of other people into your own preferred selection of three simple labels, do as you will, and I shall consider you "categorisexual". 🙂
"ORIGIN late Middle English: from French catégorie or late Latin categoria, from Greek kategoria ‘statement, accusation,’ from kategoros ‘accuser.’" --Thank you, OED!
c7_assassin
3rd Level Black Feather
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2007
- Messages
- 8,703
- Points
- 0
I think you're misunderstanding the use of the word "makes." We don't mean kissing someone makes them bi as in "causes them to magically change orientation," we mean that it proves that they already are bi. And not as in two girls kissing to get approval from a male audience, but actual sexual experimentation.
I think part of some people's need to see human sexuality as totally ambiguous, and not definable in any way ("I'm straight but I sometimes sleep with men, but that doesn't make me gay or bi, I was just experimenting, fuck labels") isn't really that it is so complicated (people like what they like, sometimes it's men, sometimes it's women, sometimes it's either/or...in which case it's called bisexuality), but because in their heads, there's a stigma attached to being "queer." So nothing can be queer to them, nobody is any label except what they choose to call themselves.
Except that's crap. I mean, where do you go from there? Maybe a straight guy can call himself a lesbian. Maybe a nymphomaniac can say they're a virgin. Some labels mean things, you know?
Soda Bobinski
Verified
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2003
- Messages
- 14,926
- Points
- 0
Mr. Treehorn treats objects like women , man.
I think you're doin' alright.
But then, that's very slippery-slopey... You're talking about the act being confirmation, but then in the next sentence, you emphasize a difference within an action dependent on mental goings-on (Did they want it? Did they like it? Did they want another round of beer?). When you have to rely on what's going on in their heads, you can no longer make a distinction based on your criteria, but on theirs.
I think you, Rhiannon and I are destined to remain in disagreement on this, because the question of pinning distinctions on sexual identity seems structured like a few age-old paradoxes...
Greek historian Plutarch suggested that the Athenians had preserved the ship belonging to the mythic Theseus -- the dude who slayed the minotaur, I think. In the interests of keeping the ship in good condition, when the wood would get damaged or rot, they'd replace it with a fresh plank. Over the course of many years, the ship remained well preserved thanks to their efforts, even though pieces were continually replaced. Then, there came a day when the ship, still looking like the day they first set eyes on it, had the last piece of the original wood replaced. Not a bit of wood remained from the ship Theseus captained... ...but there was Theseus' ship, all the same. Or was it?
If we had the original ship before us with all the original wood, there would be no doubt that that was Theseus' ship...
It's hard to say it's not still Theseus' ship if you only replace one plank. Clearly, it would still be Theseus' ship, wouldn't it?
But at what point in these gradual changes do you draw a line and say, "This is no longer Theseus' ship!" One plank? Two? A dozen? When more than half has been restored, or all? And in the end, if all the wood is replaced, would you not still consider it Theseus ship, at least in a way?
Or how about this:
An average human head has, let's say 120,000 hairs. Let's say that's how many I have.
Now, someone who is the definition of "bald" has none.
If I pluck one hair out (so now I have 119,999), there seems to be no significant difference. Or even if I pluck out two or three...
If you've read about Theseus' ship above, you'll see where I'm going with this...
It just seems to me that the three labels "straight", "gay", and "bi" are contrivances used for convenience, irrespective the real complexity of sexuality. They're accurate when a person is strictly attracted to the opposite sex (and never engages in sexual fantasy or activity with a person of the same sex), strictly attracted to the same sex (and never engages in sexual fantasy or activity with a person of the opposite sex), or attracted equally to both sexes respectively. These terms are inaccurate for describing any other arrangement, of which I happen to believe there are more than three tidy categories, and hence, I believe Kinsey to have at least been on the right track with his scale.
To me, the rigid straight/gay/bi categorization is only sometimes an accurate description, and strict reliance on it makes as much sense as denying it's Theseus' ship as soon as someone replaces so much as a single plank. It makes as much sense to say that 120,000 hairs is a full head of hair, 0 hairs is bald, and anywhere from 1-119,999 hairs is "balding".
The slippery slopes of Theseus' ship, balding, and sexuality defy neat and clean definition.
I agree that labels should mean something, which is why if you choose to use a set of terms, you should seriously consider their accuracy. It's also why I'm loathe to use them, especially when it comes to labeling anyone other than myself.
I think you're doin' alright.
Thanks, TKLMAN. 🙂
