How does this work?

Gathomas88 said:

Ironic that you'd say this, given that I'm pretty sure the OP actually isn't heterosexual, but some variety of self-identified Bi or Pan, and most of the actual heterosexuals here have basically dismissed the question on common sense terms (a la: if you want to have intercourse with the same sex, and you act upon that urge, you are most likely not 'heterosexual').

Click to expand...

How is it ironic? He's pointing out the absurdity of the issue. You are aware there's more than the handful of people in this thread on DP who have given their opinion on the matter, and some really do believe in the "cooties" theory of sexuality, yes?

Further, you yourself are quibbling over it a bit, when someone's stated reason for doing whatever they've done is "questionable" and when it isn't.

SmokeAndMirrors said:

How is it ironic? He's pointing out the absurdity of the issue. You are aware there's more than the handful of people in this thread on DP who have given their opinion on the matter, and some really do believe in the "cooties" theory of sexuality, yes?

Further, you yourself are quibbling over it a bit, when someone's stated reason for doing whatever they've done is "questionable" and when it isn't.

Click to expand...

Well, exactly how "straight" can you really consider someone who turns to men the moment a woman isn't available to be? :shrug:

Frankly, even that's being overly charitable in the case Calamity described. The boys in question had never been with a woman (though women certainly were present in the environment). Like it or not, that does sound suspiciously similar to an "in the closet" type situation.

Gathomas88 said:

Well, exactly how "straight" can you really consider someone who turns to men the moment a woman isn't available to be? :shrug:

Frankly, even that's being overly charitable in the case Calamity described. The boys in question had never been with a woman (though women certainly were present in the environment).

Click to expand...

Probably depends on culture and personal psychology, really.

For a lot of people, sex with their non-preferred sex is... well, inoffensive. Fine. Gets the job done. More exciting than a wank, anyway.

That shouldn't be surprising. Anyone who's ever hooked up knows how that goes. It doesn't always matter if you're genuinely attracted to someone.

Our culture tends to force a purity standard on straightness, which makes some people feel more actively frightened or repulsed by a come-on from the same sex than they probably would otherwise.

But anthropologically? People having sex with their non-preferred sex is common, just like straight people screwing someone of the opposite sex that they're not attracted to is common. :shrug:

maquiscat said:

Several times in discussions on various sexualities, there are those people who say that it is the act that determines whether one is a homosexual or not. So this question is addressed to them. I honestly want to know how such people are making their classifications.


Is a person asexual while being a virgin? Does it take only one time of sex with the same gender to become homosexual for life? Or does the number of times with same gender and opposite gender weigh the results as to homosexual and heterosexual? Is there a criteria for bi sexual? If you abstain from sex for a given period of time do you become asexual again, and how long does that take?


These are just some of the possibilities that popped into my head, but I want to know what you think.

Click to expand...

It all depends on what you fap to.

SmokeAndMirrors said:

Probably depends on culture and personal psychology, really.

For a lot of people, sex with their non-preferred sex is... well, inoffensive. Fine. Gets the job done. More exciting than a wank, anyway.

That shouldn't be surprising. Anyone who's ever hooked up knows how that goes. It doesn't always matter if you're genuinely attracted to someone.

Our culture tends to force a purity standard on straightness, which makes some people feel more actively frightened or repulsed by a come-on from the same sex than they probably would otherwise.

But anthropologically? People having sex with their non-preferred sex is common, just like straight people screwing someone of the opposite sex that they're not attracted to is common. :shrug:

Click to expand...

I'd dispute the bolded, first off. Some people might have an "anything that moves" mentality, but they tend to be a small, incredibly oversexed, minority. The vast majority of people aren't having sex with someone they don't find at least somewhat appealing.

Yes, culture can certainly play a role (the Greeks, for example, were basically a culture of depraved perverts - gleefully engaging in everything from bestiality, to pedophilia, to casual homosexuality regardless of orientation). However, your allusion to anthropology is false. Most hunter-gatherer tribes (probably the closest thing to a 'default' state of humanity you're going to find) haven't even heard of homosexuality, and find the very idea puzzling.

Human sexuality simply isn't that fluid, for most people.

Gathomas88 said:

I'd dispute the bolded, first off. Some people might have an "anything that moves" mentality, but they tend to be a small, incredibly oversexed, minority. The vast majority of people aren't having sex with someone they don't find at least somewhat appealing.

Yes, culture can certainly play a role (the Greeks, for example, were basically a culture of perverts - gleefully engaging in everything from bestiality, to pedophilia, to casual homosexuality regardless of orientation). However, your allusion to anthropology is false. A Hell of a lot of hunter-gatherer tribes (probably the closest thing to a 'default' state of humanity you're going to find) haven't even heard of homosexuality, and find the very idea puzzling.

Click to expand...

Not necessarily. Not everyone who's done that necessarily does it frequently. The vast majority of people I've met have at least person in their history who was pretty much a write-off. Even most of the people I know who heavily prefer a real relationship with attachment.

The reason they haven't heard of homosexuality is because they don't base home groupings on romantic attraction, per se, and in many cases, don't place limits on romantic attractions in accordance to marriage status. Therefore, they don't have any need to delineate between straight and non-straight people, since people's relations and sexual actions are a non-issue to the structure of the tribe. It's like how some languages have 20 words for snow, while others have none -- how a society builds language depends on what they need. These tribes don't need language for sexuality; it's not relevant to their structure.

People of mostly same-sex attraction, however, do persist.

I always find it interesting when people point out prisoners for this kind of thing like somehow we are just supposed to assume the guys that start having sex with other dudes are all straight. They rationalize this by the no women around excuse, but the fact is a lot of these dudes flip decks pretty quickly, so it's mostly not a desperation kind of matter.

maquiscat said:

You said that actions count. Is someone attracted to their own gender gay or bi(depending on whether they are also attracted to the opposite gender) even if they never act on that attraction? Does one become gay or bi if they have same gender sex for money but have no real attraction to the same gender? Does one become gay or bi if a gun is put to their head and they are told to do so?

Click to expand...

You think inaction is the same as action? If someone fails to act then they're not providing evidence one way or another, but if someone acts there exists evidence towards an answer to the question.

SmokeAndMirrors said:

It has always perplexed me how much energy some people put into deciding what is and is not gay. Ah, the fragility of the heterosexual...

Click to expand...

I suspect some are actually some degree of bi-sexual, and it is cognitive dissonance trying to fight something that was socially unacceptable in their youth.

calamity said:

Married dude who goes to get or give some head at the gay bar at every available opportunity...definitely not heterosexual, even if he plays one at home. So, yes, your actions matter.

Some guy (or chick) who experimented with gay sex when younger or even when older...probably not gay or bi.

Someone who has no gay sex at all, ever, but fantasizes about it often...probably gay or bi.

So, to sum it up...it's a mix.

It gets even more complicated if you take the example from that Heath Ledger movie: straight guys who had some gay sex and still have a crush on each other. Now you really hit a gray area.

Click to expand...

You sound like you know a lot about this?

What about me wearing a beige half slip , black fishnet panty hose and red heels as I type this?
All the time retaining my hairy ass, hairy legs and chest, but having a bald head, and being 61 years old.

What does that make me?

Other than an evil heartless SADIST for putting that picture in your head.

I hope you have eaten already?

RetiredNSmilin said:

You sound like you know a lot about this?

What about me wearing a beige half slip , black fishnet panty hose and red heels as I type this?
All the time retaining my hairy ass, hairy legs and chest, but having a bald head, and being 61 years old.

What does that make me?

Other than an evil heartless SADIST for putting that picture in your head.

I hope you have eaten already?

Click to expand...

Creepy?

RAMOSS said:

I suspect some are actually some degree of bi-sexual, and it is cognitive dissonance trying to fight something that was socially unacceptable in their youth.

Click to expand...

For some I'm sure, but I think many just also like their "purity standard" to straightness. It's a club with a lot of social benefits, which you get to exclude people from if they haven't toed the line perfectly throughout their entire multi-decade life. Notice all the hedging between straight males in this thread, threatening those who don't seem to be entirely "pure."

SmokeAndMirrors said:

Not necessarily. Not everyone who's done that necessarily does it frequently. The vast majority of people I've met have at least person in their history who was pretty much a write-off. Even most of the people I know who heavily prefer a real relationship with attachment.

Click to expand...

By your own admission, you tend to hang out with a rather "non-standard" crowd, so I don't think I'd put a terribly large amount of weight to what "most people you've met" happen to say.

I'd also point out that not everyone has the same definition of a "write off." My last gf might not have been "gorgeous" by own standards, but she was, at the very least, "cute." I can honestly say that I couldn't go for anyone below that metric.

The reason they haven't heard of homosexuality is because they don't base home groupings on romantic attraction, per se, and in many cases, don't place limits on romantic attractions in accordance to marriage status. Therefore, they don't have any need to delineate between straight and non-straight people, since people's relations and sexual actions are a non-issue to the structure of the tribe. It's like how some languages have 20 words for snow, while others have none -- how a society builds language depends on what they need. These tribes don't need language for sexuality; it's not relevant to their structure.

People of mostly same-sex attraction, however, do persist.

Click to expand...

To the contrary, even if you describe the physical acts involved in homosexual behavior to them, the members of most tribes will look at you like you have three heads. It's just honestly never occurred to them, in most cases.

Widespread sexual deviancy is mostly something you find in post-agricultural societies. The jury's currently out on just why that is, exactly - Some blame the hormones in our food, some blame the stress of living in larger communities, and some blame the combination of culture and having far too much time on one's hands.

RetiredNSmilin said:

...What about me wearing a beige half slip , black fishnet panty hose and red heels as I type this?
All the time retaining my hairy ass, hairy legs and chest, but having a bald head, and being 61 years old...

Click to expand...

Well, hello sexy.

Gathomas88 said:

By your own admission, you tend to hang out with a rather "non-standard" crowd, so I don't think I'd put a terribly large amount of weight to what "most people you've met" happen to say.

I'd also point out that not everyone has the same definition of a "write off." My last gf might not have been "gorgeous" by own standards, but she was, at the very least, "cute." I can honestly say that I couldn't go for anyone below that metric.

Click to expand...

Yup. And yet, you yourself are included in that club. In fact, it seems you haven't really had much of a connection with most people you've slept with. So clearly this isn't about my personal social club.

I mean, why do you think I take interest in places like DP when almost no one here is someone who would be part of my social group? I like to stay aware of what's going on in the world.

How pretty she was doesn't mean anything about whether or not you were attracted to her, and to what extent. Why do you keep going back to that?

To the contrary, even if you describe the physical acts involved in homosexual behavior to them, the members of most tribes will look at you like you have three heads. It's just honestly never occurred to them, in most cases.

Widespread sexual deviancy is mostly something you find in post-agricultural societies. The jury's currently out on just that is, exactly - Some blame the hormones in our food, some blame the stress of living in larger communities, and some blame the combination of culture and having far too much time on one's hands.

Click to expand...

Can't say I've ever heard of any society like that, at any scale, in my entire life. But as usual, I don't expect you to be connected to reality.

Gee, better inform the hundreds of other mammals who do the exact same thing that humanity's been doing so antiquity.

SmokeAndMirrors said:

Yup. And yet, you yourself are included in that club. In fact, it seems you haven't really had much of a connection with most people you've slept with. So clearly this isn't about my personal social club.

I mean, why do you think I take interest in places like DP when almost no one here is someone who would be part of my social group? I like to stay aware of what's going on in the world.

How pretty she was doesn't mean anything about whether or not you were attracted to her, and to what extent. Why do you keep going back to that?

Click to expand...

Looks generally play a strong role in attraction, Smoke.

Can't say I've ever heard of any society like that, at any scale, in my entire life. But as usual, I don't expect you to be connected to reality.

Click to expand...

Then you clearly haven't been looking very hard. :shrug:

Primitive Man's Sex Life Was Free of Perversions and Hang-Ups (Studies Show)


There's a lot of evidence to suggest that people in primitive societies simply don't "get down" the same way we depraved moderners do, by and large. :shrug:

Gee, better inform the hundreds of other mammals who do the exact same thing that humanity's been doing so antiquity.

Click to expand...

Frankly, the prevalence of that kind of thing tends to be overstated in popular culture as well.

Gathomas88 said:

Looks generally play a strong role in attraction, Smoke.

Click to expand...

Sometimes, depending what you mean. Enough to build a relationship on? Not really. Personally, I haven't found looks alone very swaying since my late teens. In fact, I feel genuine attraction is really quite rare.

I suppose for someone who's never gone through most of the relationship phases, that idea might make sense. It doesn't to those of us who have, as you've been told many times, by people of a variety of genders, ages, and relationship statuses.

Then you clearly haven't been looking very hard. :shrug:

Primitive Man's Sex Life Was Free of Perversions and Hang-Ups (Studies Show)

There's a lot of evidence to suggest that people in primitive societies simply don't "get down" the same way we depraved moderners do, by and large. :shrug:

Click to expand...

Says one little blog reporting from a single pair of known homophobes in Africa, a continent on which some countries still kill people for admitting to being gay. Whatever. :roll:

Frankly, the prevalence of that kind of thing tends to be overstated in popular culture as well.

Click to expand...

Not really. A lot of primarily opposite-sex attracted people do have at least one instance of same-sex experiences or feelings. As much as a quarter of women, and men aren't actually as far behind as you'd think.

SmokeAndMirrors said:

Sometimes, depending what you mean. Enough to build a relationship on? Not really. Personally, I haven't found looks alone very swaying since my late teens. In fact, I feel genuine attraction is really quite rare.

I suppose for someone who's never gone through most of the relationship phases, that idea might make sense. It doesn't to those of us who have, as you've been told many times, by people of a variety of genders, ages, and relationship statuses.

Click to expand...

Show of hands, how many people here think looks are irrelevant to either finding or attracting a mate? :roll:

Says one little blog reporting from a single pair of known homophobes in Africa, a continent on which some countries still kill people for admitting to being gay. Whatever. :roll:

Click to expand...

It cites several different reputable academic articles by anthropologists, first off. Secondly, the tribes mentioned aren't "afraid" of homosexuality. They literally haven't heard of it. The idea doesn't even compute to them. The same goes for a lot of other sexual acts we tend to take for granted, like oral and anal sex, as well as masturbation. They just don't do these things, apparently (though they do have a Hell of a lot of vaginal sex).

And really, have you ever actually heard of "gay" hunter-gatherers? Everyone seems to just kind of assume that they must exist (largely based off of the modern Western cultural meme you yourself mentioned, which holds that we're a bunch of prudes, and everyone else is somehow more 'sexually liberated' than we are), but I really can't remember hearing of any specific examples.

The closest thing I've heard of is one tribe which basically FORCES young men to fellatiate their elders as a coming of age ritual. Frankly, even that doesn't really count, as it's not something being done for pleasure. It's pretty explicitly meant to be an unpleasant "ordeal" young people have to go through to be recognized as full members of the tribe; like tattooing, scarification, self-mutilation, or any number of other unpleasant tribal rituals.

Not really. A lot of primarily opposite-sex attracted people do have at least one instance of same-sex experiences or feelings. As much as a quarter of women, and men aren't actually as far behind as you'd think.

Click to expand...

Which could very well be due to the way in which our culture pushes the idea of homosexuality these days putting the idea in people's heads to begin with.

Either way, such research is hardly conclusive.

Gathomas88 said:

Show of hands, how many people here think looks are irrelevant to either finding or attracting a mate? :roll:

It cites several different reputable academic articles by anthropologists, first off. Secondly, the tribes mentioned aren't "afraid" of homosexuality. They literally haven't heard of it. The idea doesn't even compute to them. The same goes for a lot of other sexual acts we tend to take for granted, like oral and anal sex, as well as masturbation. They just don't do these things, apparently (though they do have a Hell of a lot of vaginal sex).

And really, have you ever actually heard of "gay" hunter-gatherers? Everyone seems to just kind of assume that they must exist (largely based off of the modern Western cultural meme you yourself mentioned, which holds that we're a bunch of prudes, and everyone else is somehow more 'sexually liberated' than we are), but I really can't remember hearing of any specific examples.

The closest thing I've heard of is one tribe which basically FORCES young men to fellatiate their elders as a coming of age ritual. Frankly, even that doesn't really count, as it's not something being done for pleasure. It's pretty explicitly meant to be an unpleasant "ordeal" young people have to go through to be recognized as full members of the tribe; like tattooing, scarification, self-mutilation, or any number of other unpleasant tribal rituals.

Which could very well be due to the way in which our culture pushes the idea of homosexuality these days putting the idea in people's heads to begin with.

Either way, such research is hardly conclusive.

Click to expand...

Except that's not what I said, is it. :roll:

There are lots of reports of hunter gatherers who have same sex relationships. They have opposite-sex marriages, but that doesn't dictate who they're allowed to have relationships with, per se. That is why they have no use for sexualities. It doesn't matter to their structure.

It's a lot more conclusive than your single study by some homophobes in a place where the state murders gay people. As usual... :yawn:

I love how these discussions always go back to "but looks don't matter". Sorry, but since ****ing when is that a fact? :lamo

SmokeAndMirrors said:

Except that's not what I said, is it. :roll:

Click to expand...

Ummm... Yeah. It pretty much is.

You came in here talking about how allll these people out there, apparently, have sex with people they're not attracted to, and then followed that up by going on a tirade about how looks don't matter.

There are lots of reports of hunter gatherers who have same sex relationships. They have opposite-sex marriages, but that doesn't dictate who they're allowed to have relationships with, per se. That is why they have no use for sexualities. It doesn't matter to their structure.

Click to expand...

Ya-huh. Let's see some sources. :roll:

It's a lot more conclusive than your single study by some homophobes in a place where the state murders gay people. As usual... :yawn:

Click to expand...

You realize that these tribes represent entirely different cultures than the rest of Africa, right?

Gathomas88 said:

Ironic that you'd say this, given that I'm pretty sure the OP actually isn't heterosexual, but some variety of self-identified Bi or Pan, and most of the actual heterosexuals here have basically dismissed the question on common sense terms (a la: if you want to have intercourse with the same sex, and you act upon that urge, you are most likely not 'heterosexual').

Click to expand...

I am heterosexual, with the only other possibility being heteroflexable, since there have been a couple of trans women I have been attracted to. But a trans woman is going to have to hit my radars as female before I would consider a relationship.

The question came from where I came across an older post where someone stated that if a person has sex even once with the same gender they were gay. Didn't seem to allow for drunk or drugged, or bi, or doing it for pay or at the point of a gun or any other factor. I know they are not the only one over the years who have espoused such a sentiment. So I wanted to see if I could get them to expand upon their concept.

TheGoverness said:

Some of them might've been bisexual, who knows.

Click to expand...

I don't know any of them now, but by the end of highschool most began dating girls, not that dating girls proves anything. My guess is a lot of kids I grew up with are gay and/or bi. It stands to reason.

maquiscat said:

More than likely bi if we are to assume attraction, especially if they we're still wanting to hook up with girls. However as noted above, doing an act, such as same gender sex for money, doesn't necessarily mean they are attracted to what they are screwing.

Click to expand...

Sex is physical, especially sex drive. So, it's hard to say where the line should be drawn. If a person no longer desires sex, they're probably asexual.

RetiredNSmilin said:

You sound like you know a lot about this?

What about me wearing a beige half slip , black fishnet panty hose and red heels as I type this?
All the time retaining my hairy ass, hairy legs and chest, but having a bald head, and being 61 years old.

What does that make me?

Other than an evil heartless SADIST for putting that picture in your head.

I hope you have eaten already?

Click to expand...

Clothes wearing has never been an indicator of either gender preference or gender identity.