Category: Dating and Relationships
i do not intend this post to be turned into something religious, psychological, or anything else it could be that'd strike up a massive argument. Here is my question, and i'd just like to know what some other people think. If a person has dated both somone of the same gender and opposite, would they be called bi? also, if that person is more drawn to people of the oppposite gender but does not totally shun dating people of the same sex, are they just bicurious, or openminded? I'm not talking about just sex with opposite gender and same gender, but an actual relationship, to be clear.
I am a straight guy, and so I don't have the firsthand experience. I have never been curious or turned on by another guy. What I can tell you is this, and if I'm wrong please someone correct me. Being bi-sexual means you are more so flexible in the sense of gender differences. From what I have been told someone who is bi can lean towards one sex over the other, but at the end of the day it doesn't matter a big lot. Being curious is different. You may have had experience with the opposite sex, and one of two things could happen. Either that experience wasn't that great in your opinion, and so you want to see what it's like dating another guy or girl and what it would be like at a sexual level. Or, take out the bad experience part, and you are just genuinely curious. Once you have sex with someone of the same gender, or different for the first time, then you determine what you like. This is an interesting question, and perhaps I don't know as much as I think. The fact that people don't choose whether or not they are gay, bi, straight, etc. also plays somewhere in this.
i just think that with some people, the person they are interested in's gender does not matter, and it is a personal preference. and good points there.
I think people have preferences bi or not.
Here is my thoughts .
You say relationship. Okay, if you just have a no sexual relationship, but enjoy a person of the same gender, you are interested in people.
Now if you add sex to that relationship and they are the same gender, you'd be lesbian.
Now the third part is, if you than have a sexual relationship with a man, you'd be bi sexual.
Here is the thing though. If you are sexually interested in both genders, and I mean they turn you on without a relationship being involved, you'd be bisexual, but if you are only sexually interested in the same gender after you've had a friendship, and her or his gender doesn't matter, you'd be a person that doesn't see gender, but a person interested in people.
One gender can sexually excite you, because they are that gender, but having sex with the same gender depends on the relationship factor. You aren't excited by women, because they are women, but excited by the person no matter her sex.
Chelsea has a term for it, and every time I get in a discussion like this, that term eludes me. Lol
actually i think part of what you said depends a bit on how much of a sexual creature you are, and what you consider to be a ligit relationship. if the person, for instance, has a totally loveable personality and you have a serious connection with them, moreso than a very best friend, that person could be relationship-worthy. as i said it depends on what you consider a relationship to consist of, the must-haves.
sexuality means different things to different people, and some people would even say it isn't constantly one thing or another (not saying I agree with that particular stance) but I'm trying to shed some light on the point I made about it being quite broad, depending on who you ask.
for me, personally, I don't like, or need, labels. I'm attracted to people based on who they are as individuals, and what's between their legs never crosses my mind.
I struggled with how to identify myself for a long time, did a lot of back and forth between saying I was straight, bi, lesbian, and ultimately, have settled on my above conclusion.
what works for me may not work for others, but the only thing I have left to say, at the moment, is just giving you/others encouragement to fully embrace who you are.
if you feel finding a label is best for you, by all means, go ahead. however, sometimes, it becomes a lot more stressful than it's worth, and that's why I say, at the end of the day, it's all in how you feel about yourself.
very well put i think, chelslicious, and that is the idea i have began to form.
I agree with that.
Now, for me what is between a persons legs matters, and many other factors to if I call it a relationship or not.
I'm a sexual creature, so can have close friendships, or relationships, or friendship/relationships,but I can't have a relationship without sex.
When I add sex to the friendship, I'm interested in females for more reasons than what is between their legs. Lots of factors cause this.
Men, I'm only interested in friendships, and I have reasons for that as well. They don't sexually make me hot.
like Wayne, I'm a sexual person, so if I'm in a relationship with someone, sex has to be involved. if it isn't, we're just friends.
I can also have sex with friends, and unlike many, I don't need to be attached to a person, in order to do so.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the term is pansexual. Individuals who are pansexual are attracted to people based on bond and personality, regardless of gender.
Yes that term. I don't like labels either, but that one suits.
When it comes down to it, friendships, and relationships that are sexual depend on what you think of the person, or how they make you feel, not gender.
When you add sex it seems to me to be an extenchen of sharing your inside feelings out.
I'd like to be pansexual, but I am not. I guess it amounts to preference. I like steak, but liver I only eat if I have no choice.
When I'm at the market, I don't even think about liver.
I happen to think women that are pansexual make better lovers, and friends. Again that could be just a perception. Not that women that are not aren't just fine, but seems a woman that is free in this manner is also free sexually.
I'd say you're right, in saying we're free sexually, Wayne.
The terms are more descriptors than anything else. We attach labels to everything. We say one thing is macaroni, another is spaghetti, etc. A label, or a word for something, isn't inherently bad, and in fact is what makes us human and able to describe our world.
Yes, pansexual is the term for it. Because it means the person is attracted to people regardless of gender, and doesn't see anything special about one gender or another.
For the record, those that are attracted to one gender or another are not just "caring about what someone has between their legs," as it were. A man could be neutered and have his penis cut off but I would still not find him attractive, because I don't find men sexually attractive.
It's a complicated subject, and words or, if you will, labels, help us describe it.
If we had no labels, we would point at a fruit in a tree and just grunt when indicating it. But since we have labels or names for things, if I say orange, you know what an orange is, not just what is between its peels but you know oranges. Same goes for any fruit. Or even snow or rain, or clouds, or even sunshine itself.
Here in Oregon we use lots of words for different kinds of rain because it is raining a lot. The Inuit have over fifty labels for different kinds of snow, as they describe conditions around them.
A label doesn't put you in a box, it describes something about you that you already know, but in a way for you to describe it to others who know what that label means. Even birds do it. Crows use different calls to mean different kinds of food, predators, all sorts of things.
To go without labels or words for things is to go without language.
I don't mind labels, but I don't like being labeled sexually, because people assume I'm going to be this way or that way.
It's not bad, just leaves out creative thinking.
I do need labels, and am a person that applies them too, so that makes me as bad as everyone else. Smile.
You see, I've got no problems with kissing a man, hugging him, being close to him physically, but I won't get sexually excited and want him naked, or more than that.
If I touch a male that is not comfortable with being touched non sexually, I'm labeled as bi or homosexual, when in fact I'm not.
You see me on the corner kissing my son, you say "yep, gays." hahaha.
wayne. One minute you're saying you can go either way, and the next, you're totally straight? Make up your mind already. I don't have a problem with someone being whatever they are, but when you say you can enjoy either a man or a woman sexually, and then say that a man doesn't excite you sexually, um, well, okay... If you're really not in to men sexually, why not just say so and be done with it?
lol.
I never said I could enjoy a man sexually. I said I can, and have, and will be close physically, it just doesn't make me hot.
I know, I confuse some, so I'm careful of the men I am touchy with. Lol
I'll put it like this, it feels like when I'm with my sister. She doesn't turn me on at all, but I can be close to her.
I wholeheartedly disagree that labels don't put people in boxes. that's exactly what they do, so far as I see things.
sure, most people say, and feel, that they help them identify things, which is true, to an extent. however, when talking sexually, labels do no good, in my opinion.
for instance, if a person says he or she isn't bisexual, people will assume he or she is straight, just like if someone says they can be physically close to a male without being sexually attracted to him. even if they're a male themselves, people make assumptions.
so, that knowledge alone, is why I'm all for steering clear of labels, at least when it comes to something like sexuality.
But bisexual, pansexual, heterosexual, homosexual, all have meanings. If the meaning doesn't fit the individual, there is a word, or can become a word, to illustrate that.
For example fluid or bi-curious have different meanings.
Are there shades of meaning?
Sure. And once you use the term that most generally describes you you can elaborate after that. But human language operates from the general to the specific. So Wayne saying he's heterosexual but enjoys physical nonsexual contact with men is descriptive. Not all men want to be physically close to other men, and that doesn't mean they're phobic or cold or something.
People that want us to regress to early hominid status and forfeit symbols in language to illustrate things have usually just had the wrong word for it. Something like pansexual, where people are sexually attracted to other humans and gender has no part in it, is a valid term with a valid definition.
Lots of things in life are complicated and are expressed by multiple types of words. Have you ever seen the descriptions for peppers? You're from Texas so I imagine so. To someone from up here this was foreign when I went to Florida. They had words that described a zillion types of pepper combinations I hadn't even heard of.
Again, I say, nothing wrong with words that describe preferences and things. It's just that people have had one mis-applied, and then want the rest of us to forfeit 50,000 years' worth of evolution to go without words / symbols that describe things. I suppose to you or I we would think it odd if an Inuit said "Don't put snow in a box, by just calling it snow." Except that in their world there are fifty words for different kinds of snow, because it's relevant.
So now with more understanding of sexuality and related stuff, sounds like they have more words that describe more shades of meaning or orientation.
Whether or not you choose to label yourself is obviously on you, but you can't stop other people from placing labels on you. It's not that they are trying to be prejudice. Think for a second about how the world would be if there weren't labels. How dull it would be, how hard it would be to discern differences. We fortunately live in a society where it is unacceptable to deprive someone of something because of color, ethnicity, sex, disability, etc. But there is no rule saying you can not label someone. Even without saying anything at all everybody judges and labels. This has to do with personal preference and what you find attractive or unattractive, right or wrong, moral or immoral. To say you don't label is not true, because if you didn't put labels on people that basically means you would be fine hooking up with the very first person you come across in this case.
Fine. Label me please so I can explain my issue with a word. It be nice.
Less work trying to explain to the guy I kissed why he can't take me home?
I guess I don’t have problems with labels as long as I’m the one who gets to define myself. I am gay. I like cock. I like the male personality that goes along with that. So, what's between the legs is important, but it has to be combined with the male persona and everything that goes along with it. That said, I was once married to a woman, and there was a lot about her I did like and even love. I just couldn’t love her enough or in the way she deserved, so I ended up embracing who and what I really am. So, my point is that I don’t necessarily think putting ourselves in boxes is necessarily a bad thing as long as we’re the ones who do the putting and defining. But we have to do it in a way that is honest to ourselves and the people we love. If being gay puts me in a box, it’s a box I want to be in. And you know what? I’ve found that recently I get a lot of support from people I never expected to get support from. It’s made me a more honest, more open and much happier person. I honestly like the person I am. The only regret I have is that I didn’t embrace who I was much earlier.
thank you, Wayne.
Hmmm, Wayne, as I read this, it makes me think of the girls who get off on teasing the guys, saying, "You can just barely touch it, but you can't go any further than that." Things like that are usually frowned upon, if I'm understanding you correctly. So, you'll kiss some guy, but will only let it go so far? That's okay, depending on context, which I don't have enough of here, so I can't say much about it. I'm simply going on what I've heard many a straight guy say. If the girl is all close to the straight guy, sending out all the let's fuck signals, and then she won't actually do it, the guys usually get pretty frustrated. Is what you're describing different? If so, how? This is interesting, and I'd love to get your perspective on it. As far as being close to someone of the same sex, sure, I have women that I'm very close to, but I could never be sexual with them. To me, that doesn't change my sexual orientation status though. as far as sex, men do it for me and women don't. for me, that line is very definite. I do understand that others may not have such a clear cut line. It's just that from what you've said, you can be close to a man, but not be sexual with him. You're only sexually excited by women, so I'm not sure why the term straight wouldn't apply, unless you really do think that you could meet a guy one day that would excite you. In that case, then I understand that you're just doing your best to be open minded. I'm just trying to understand where you're coming from.
Johndy I appreciate your post. You really were descriptive. Yes, I like can relate, only my orientation is for women.
People get so afraid of being in a box that they put themselves in the box that says I'm not in a box, so don't touch me. You're right, so long as the box is of one's own making.
I wouldn't want to be assumed homophobic because my orientation is strictly straight. My orientation is not a harmful box. But claiming because I'm straight, white and in my 40s I must be closed and phobic to other types of people would be a harmful and unfair box.
Would that more people felt that way. Would that more gay people felt that way. Some of the biggest homophobes I’ve ever seen are self-hating gays, and this was especially true when I was growing up. In my early teens I was one of them. The irony was that I grew out of that, and before I met my ex-wife, I was pretty out except to my family. When I met her I thought there was enough wiggle room where I could be happy and make her happy as well, but I knew deep down, even several months before I proposed to her, that it wasn’t working. I tried to break it off and it seemed I was only hurting her, and that made me stay where I knew I shouldn’t be. At the time there was a guy who was extremely interested in me and wanted me to be my true self. Had I done that, I’d have saved at least two people (myself and my ex) a lot of heartache. But I came out, except that I don’t think my brother really knows, and that’s okay; there are still instances in which I don’t think it’s always good to be out, but the vast majority of the time I am, and I’m happier for putting myself back in the gay box where I belong. Right now I don’t have a boyfriend, but I’m happier even being a gay singleton and knowing who I am than I was when I was in a straight marriage that wasn’t working, if that makes any kind of sense.
I can't say exactly Anthony, and I think straight apply's just fine to me, but others seem to not.
It is like you say, you can be close to women, but it doesn't change your orientation at all.
I don't go about teasing men, and I only touch these that understand my motives. If I know a man is interested, or gay, or whatever, I am careful what I do to him.
I make it plain where I am, but it doesn't matter it 1. A guy is interested. He's just that, and like guys with women, nothing she does can change it. That woman can’t change how she is, or how she reacts. What I mean by that, she might give the guy a hug, because she's just a friendly person, even though she has plainly explained she's just not interested in him for whatever reasons.
2. When I am seen being close to a man, it is assumed I'm gay, or what to be, or curious. I have lived long enough, and had enough opportunity to know what I am, but it isn't seen in that light.
How can you kiss a man, but not be sexually interested?
Well, we don't lip lock, tongue kiss, and such things. Might be a kiss on his cheek.
I have a friend I love dearly. When out in public and I see him, say sitting in a rest aunt, he doesn’t drink, but goes to bars sometimes for business, I’ll walk up and hug him from behind. I might even rest my chin on the top of his head, but I’ve never wanted to take him to bed. This is just how I’m built.
I do the same to women I am not sexually interested in either, so it isn’t just a male thing. The difference, is when I do to a woman, others don’t think it odd, and unless they think I’m coming on to her.
I’ve learned to be selective, because it makes people uncomfortable, but it is there.
3. How can you think it okay to kiss a man, touch a man, and that sort of thing, but not be sexually interested? Well, I don’t know, but I just don’t have a problem with men, gay or not. I don’t get upset and all male when a gay men is paying attention to me.
I allow it with an explanation to him, but I won’t rebuff him.
What I mean by that, is I have a guy who for reasons just liked me. When I come in to a place he was in, he’d come over, hug me, hold my hand, and tell me about it. Smile. I never pushed him away, or made him feel bad about it. It was as it was.
I was in a bar one night and some stranger was admiring my body due to the way I was dressed. Well, I didn’t dress to please the boys, but it happened. I just told him thanks.
It happens to me for some reason often. Smile.
I know guys that would get really mad about it, but I just don’t see the point.
For the poster that knows he's gay, that is great.
I must say, I find it beyond silly that some people are opposed to labels not being used for certain things.
as I've said, if people wanna use them cause they feel they're suitable, fine. however, there's nothing wrong with taking a different approach.
I'm fully aware that people will always put each other in whatever boxes they see fit, which is one reason why I feel it's of the utmost importance for another perspective to be brought up.
actually, in today's society where people are more and more comfortable with defining different perspectives on sex, I think labels are even more important than they were at one time. Gone are the days when people could just assume that people were always (or mostly) attracted to the opposite sex; hell, you can't even assume anymore that someone is either gay or straight. This is a good thing, because it means that there is a lot more awareness and understanding about all kinds of different orientations. Without putting descriptive (and accurate) labels on people, I think the confusion might cause a lot of issues in relationships. I think Wayne's example above--liking physical closeness with a man but not being sexually attracted to him--could cause a lot of confusion, heartache, and awkwardness if it wasn't clearly defined to whomever else might become involved with him. You don't need labels to explain where you stand, but it is very helpful if you can provide one that can be clearly understood. This is not to say that, if you're not sure how you might be labeled, that you should devote all your energies to finding one. It just means that labels, if used correctly, are becoming more and more helpful, and may one day even be considered necessary to avoid confusion.
Thank you Meglet for saying things in a way I could not have.
So give me one baby! I need it. Smile.
Lol Wayne the only word I have heard that describes this is 'bromance'. Meaning two straight guys having a kind of romantic type relationship except that it isn't sexual.
I guess some girls think that's cute. These are the same straight girls who go visit the Dangler, a famous gay bar in Portland. lol
As to labels, why not just use the word definitions? If I have a single word that describes something about me, then that works. Of course, there are all kinds of birders. Some have mass amounts of lookout and recording equipment and some are like me, very mobile and not a lot of gear.
But all of us who are birbirds, not just their songs (What's between their beaks? lol), but their habitat, foraging, flight, and so on. To us it's a privilege to see and hear them.
Are we all environmental extremists? Hell na and many of us will go eat chicken afterwards. But we're all confident enough to say yeah I'm a birder. Lol that is real confidence, being able to find a definition that works for something, not just being blunt or whatever.
Thank you, leo and Meglit. I think that lables should be used and they are helpful to identify things, but lables don't define that something, as there's more to the person and how he/she feels.
Oh my, I meant could. I also meant, that just because I'm streight doesn't mean I am against gay and lesbians, it just means that I am attracted to guys. Their manly voice, strength and inteligence and what not, because there's more to a man than his penis. I just wouldn't feel attracted to women. So I understand leo's point.
I find the idea appealing, soft is sometimes thought of, sometimes a man is too hard in a sense. Though I do enjoy a man's company so much more, I would stop to think of seeing a girl. But I suppose because I'm just opened minded, that;'s all I can say.