# Straight Men Having Gay Sex



## DCPaco

Among Latin American men, it is quite common that there are men out there having sex with other men and still consider themselves heterosexual.  I'm speaking not of chance encounters; rather, these are encounters that are recursive.  Now, many of these men are usually the active partner (aka: the top)--this might be the reason why they consider themselves heterosexual.  Now it should also be said that these men pursue men even when they have a chance to engage in relations with women.  I've heard that something similar occurs in Greece as well.  *I'm curious as to whether there are similar situations to this in other parts of the world and what some of you think the reason for this is.*

There was a study recently that found that "Nearly 10% of Self-Proclaimed 'Straight' Men Only Have Sex With Men":

http://www.webmd.com/content/article/127/116736.htm


----------



## roxcyn

Paco, creo que todo es posible.  Y realmente es un poquito triste porque el sexo con otro, puede causar el SIDA.  En los Estados Unidos creo que es muy común sobre todo con los presos y cuando un hombre (o un mujer) no puede hacer el amor con el sexo opuesto.


----------



## DCPaco

Bueno, pero no me refería a los presos...me refería a hombres libres.  

Let's do this in English because I think English is more accessible.  You're saying that same-sex relations cause AIDS?  That sounds like an issue for another thread...but I think that's religious condemnation and that's not really the subject of this thread.


----------



## roxcyn

Okay, I like to practice my Spanish.  I am talking about anyone---free or otherwise, if they don't have their mate around he/she will have sex with soemone else (gay or straight).  As you know if you have sex with many people you can spread AIDS.

Pues, me gusta practicar español.  Refiero a todo el mundo---libre o preso, si no hace el amor con el novio (la novia) cuando está cerca es posible que haga con otro del mismo sexo.  Como sabes, si uno tiene muchas relacciones sexuales, el riesgo de SIDA será muy alto


----------



## DCPaco

Conscience...do you really think then that sex is sex?  and that men are just ambisexual?


----------



## roxcyn

Mytwolangs, I saw a program about what Paco was describing.  The men were having male partners but they were with their girlfriends.  If they had to be given a label I would say *bi-sexual*, but what I am concerned about is that the spread of AIDS/HIV and other nasty sexually transmitted infections :O


----------



## DCPaco

Morality is another issue...I want to know whether this "phenomenon" if you will arises in other civilizations and what do the people of other cultures think...thank you both for responding.


----------



## cubaMania

DCPaco, I think there is a difference between USA and Mexico with respect to this subject.  In USA any sexual activity between male and male is considered homosexual activity for both partners.  In general, any man who has any sex with another man is considered to be either homosexual or bi-sexual, but definitely not heterosexual.  That is mainstream opinion, at least. 
Of course, there are always men who are homosexual or bi-sexual but who pretend to be heterosexual.  In USA they would not get very far trying to claim that being "on top" with another man somehow made their activity "not homosexual."  "You are in denial about your sexual orientation" we might say.

There is a term "on the down-low" sometimes currently used in describing men who lead overtly heterosexual lives--girlfriends, marriages, etc. but who have homosexual sex in secret.  I don't think this is anything new, however, just a new name for something old.  They are still not heterosexual by mainstream USA standards--they are homosexual or bi-sexual pretending to be heterosexual.


----------



## Paulfromitaly

Being very naive, I've always thought that:

- men who have sex only with women are heterosexual;
- men who have sexy with both women and men are bi-sexual;
- men who have sex only with other men are homosexual.

Is there anything I've been missing?


----------



## DCPaco

Paulfromitaly said:


> Being very naive, I've always thought that:
> 
> - men who have sex only with women are heterosexual;
> - men who have sexy with both women and men are bi-sexual;
> - men who have sex only with other men are homosexual.
> 
> Is there anything I've been missing?


 
Well, it's the whole identity issue.  I mean, in the USA it may be said that they are in denial.  However, in the case of Latin Americans they honestly believe that they are straight...if you read the article that I included the hyperlink to, it says that it is usually foreign men that have this notion.  I mean, I don't mean to continually package people in categories because recursiveness varies from person to person. 

I guess where I'm heading is how do other cultures see this.  During the 19th Century in the USA, there was same-sex sex being had but there weren't homosexuals (because this was a term coined by Freud).  Nevertheless, the acts existed.  During the 19th century they considered men that were passive hermaphrodites and the men that were active, they just considered them so virile that they needed to be with a man because their lust was so great that only another man could endure their drive. (May sound funny, but I've read about this when researching Walt Whitman.)


----------



## jabogitlu

Most (States) Americans tend to have difficulty envisioning a sexuality spectrum, with hetero on one end and homo on the other.  We're making great leaps with sexual identity education (despite the insane abstinence-only education funded by our government) which is making the younger generations more aware that there are more options than two or three.

From an American perspective here... I'm a gay male, but sex with women has been no biggie.  Yet, I don't consider myself bisexual. It's not an attraction thing, it's just sex. :shrug:

And I agree with the person that said AIDS doesn't discriminate.


----------



## DCPaco

Okay, but the American view is to place people into categories; however, I'm referring to a sort of denial that seems to take place in the Latin American male (macho, if you will); or a moralized desire not to acknowledge an attraction for the same sex; or perhaps it's a cultural issue that is readily accepted and as long as he gets married and has children he can have this sort of encounter.  What do other cultures believe?

Another thing that I've noticed is that caucasian males that are closeted often times marry Asian women.  Is there something in the Asian culture that makes it easy for men to engage in same-sex relations without being ostracized?


----------



## Paulfromitaly

DCPaco said:


> Okay, but the American view is to place people into categories; however, I'm referring to a sort of denial that seems to take place in the Latin American male (macho, if you will); or a moralized desire not to acknowledge an attraction for the same sex; or perhaps it's a cultural issue that is readily accepted and as long as he gets married and has children he can have this sort of encounter.  What do other cultures believe?
> 
> Another thing that I've noticed is that caucasian males that are closeted often times marry Asian women.  Is there something in the Asian culture that makes it easy for men to engage in same-sex relations without being ostracized?



I don't think the fact that some men deny to be at least bi-sexual if not even homosexual although they have sex with other men depends on a cultural issue: it seems to be outright hypocrisy to me!
It'd be very different if they were in denial of having sex with other males...


----------



## DCPaco

Paulfromitaly, what would you say about Greeks then. I hear that there is a lot of same-sex being had there but there homosexuals are scarce...does that mean that they just don't like labels or they don't want to be identified with a word that is associated with negatively stigmatized identity?

And thank you and everyone for your feedback.


----------



## jabogitlu

> I don't think the fact that some men deny to be at least bi-sexual if not even homosexual although they have sex with other men depends on a cultural issue: it seems to be outright hypocrisy to me!



If I were to grant that I agree with you (which I don't), perhaps we then need to examine why men who have sex with men avoid such terms as "homosexual." (The term now is avoided altogether in most settings except formal/medical.)


----------



## roxcyn

Hey Paco, well obviously *there are* men just like you described in the USA.  They live "on the down low," meaning that they have sex with other men while they are married or have girlfriends.  Other people may consider them to be bi-sexual, but they see themselves as straight.


----------



## DCPaco

roxcyn said:


> Hey Paco, well obviously *there are* men just like you described in the USA. They live "on the down low," meaning that they have sex with other men while they are married or have girlfriends. Other people may consider them to be bi-sexual, but they see themselves as straight.


 
Roxcyn, I'm certain you were disappointed when Ted Haggard was discovered for his activities on the "down low." 

I don't think you know me so to make statements like "just like you" really disturbs me. It's obvious that you have a separate agenda and I respect that; however, you would need your own thread. At the moment, I feel that you are an obstacle of progress.

But since you are here, let me ask you a question. Which would you prefer: a gay man that is openly gay and engages in gay relationships? or a "Straight man" that is married, goes to church and has gay relationships on the "down low"?


----------



## jabogitlu

Um, dude, she meant "just like you DESCRIBED," not just like you as a person.


----------



## roxcyn

Paco, just like = as.  Es que quería escribir en español, pero fijáte bien, tú me dijiste que yo debía escribir en inglés.  En el inglés "just like" puede signiificar "as" (como).  Pensaba que tú describiste los hombres mexicanos que están casados (o tienen novias) pero hacen el amor con los hombres.  Así que en español: "hay hombres que describiste tú en los Estados Unidos".

Para mí, me gustan las mujeres y no tendría una relación con otro hombre, para mí no sé qué vida es mejor (un homosexual que sí lo dice o un hombre con una mujer que tiene otros novios privados)


----------



## Paulfromitaly

jabogitlu said:


> If I were to grant that I agree with you (which I don't), perhaps we then need to examine why men who have sex with men avoid such terms as "homosexual." (The term now is avoided altogether in most settings except formal/medical.)



Change homosexual with any other term you prefer: for me this word has no negative connotation at all, but it just identifies people who only have sex with people of the same gender.
That's not the point though: the original question was:
Why there are men out there having sex with other men who still *consider (not call)* themselves heterosexual? 
My opinion is that a man can't see, call or consider himself straight or heterosexual if he regularly has sex with another guy.


----------



## roxcyn

jabogitlu said:


> Um, dude, she meant "just like you DESCRIBED," not just like you as a person.



Correction: Soy un hombre: I am a man


----------



## jabogitlu

Well what do these terms involve, love/relations or sexual desires?  If the former, then I think it's entirely plausible for a heterosexual man to have sex with other men.

(Oh, lo siento, roxcyn! )


----------



## DCPaco

jabogitlu said:


> Um, dude, she meant "just like you DESCRIBED," not just like you as a person.


 
Thank you jabogitlu for clarifying and my apologies to Roxcyn.


----------



## DCPaco

jabogitlu said:


> Well what do these terms involve, love/relations or sexual desires? If the former, then I think it's entirely plausible for a heterosexual man to have sex with other men.
> 
> (Oh, lo siento, roxcyn! )


 
Perhaps you're on to something here: So are you saying that these guys have same-sex sex are not interested in an emotional relationship...they're just interested in having same-sex sex. But what happens if one of these guys decides that he likes this guy as a friend and as a sex partner and that relationship becomes love, does he then cross-over and become gay?

Also, if a guy like this is straight and having same-sex sex, what kind of relationship does this man have with his female partner?


----------



## DCPaco

The following is a short film that is called "Recruiting" and it's very interesting.

http://www.logoonline.com/shows/eve...ails.jhtml?cid=1525043&popThis=popVideo(76690)

I think it can be seen on many levels but one that I can clearly see that is most applicable to this thread is the fact that these "Straight" men are having gay sex and enjoying the life that straight people take for granted without the stigma of the "G" word.  If that's the case, then I think these men are playing both sides of the fence and aren't necessarily keeping either side happy (Ennis del Mar comes to mind).


----------



## jabogitlu

> But what happens if one of these guys decides that he likes this guy as a friend and as a sex partner and that relationship becomes love, does he then cross-over and become gay?



I'm not sure one could cross over, per se, as I feel that orientation is biologically set. Perhaps it was innate? 

As for the female partner, perhaps he's in love with her. Or perhaps he's just having sex (physical relationships) with both female and male.


----------



## roxcyn

Well I am sure when their "girlfriend" or whatever finds out that they will be considered homosexual.  Actually, I think in USA that most people are somewhat accepting of homosexual people, so I don't think there is that much stigma.  However, it amazes me that a person would have sex with men and women and not consider himself *bi-sexual*.


----------



## jabogitlu

> Actually, I think in USA that most people are somewhat accepting of homosexual people, so I don't think there is that much stigma.



This might be off-topic, but it needs to be said.  Are you native to the US?  There's an incredible amount of stigma attached to being gay or lesbian, as evidenced by the growing number of states with constitutional amendments barring not only gay marriage, but also same-sex civil partnerships.


----------



## Mate

DCPaco said:


> Okay, but the American view is to place people into categories; however, I'm referring to a sort of denial that seems to take place in the Latin American male (macho, if you will); or a moralized desire not to acknowledge an attraction for the same sex; or perhaps it's a cultural issue that is readily accepted and as long as he gets married and has children he can have this sort of encounter. What do other cultures believe?
> quote]
> Querido Paco: desoyendo tu pedido haré uso de mi lengua materna. Creo no estar violando las reglas de este foro y creo, además, que la mayoría de los foreros que han contribuído hasta ahora entienden el castellano.
> 
> Seré breve. En cuanto a tu última pregunta arriba citada, no puedo responder desde otra cultura _in strictu senso_. Pero sí desde la perspectiva de otra nación: la mía, claro.
> El "macho" argentino arquetípico se dice heterosexual. Y guay de quien se atreva a contradecirlo. Sin embargo (he leído el enlace que has puesto en un post más arriba) debo concluir que muchos machos, sean estos casados, viudos, separados o divorcidos, son frecuentemente seducidos por la abundantísima oferta sexual que hoy existe en la ciudad de Buenos Aires. Aquí es por casi todos sabido que el macho porteño casado frecuenta el ambiente gay, más precisamente el ambiente travesti, en busca de nuevas experiencias. Dícese también que los travestis más demandados son los que no se han sometido a intervenciones quirúrgicas (mutilaciones, según algunos) que no consistan en el agregado de prótesis en base a siliconas.
> 
> Ahora al punto.
> 
> El macho argentino que se acuesta con travestis o con hombres vestidos como hombres, se considera a sí mismo heterosexual.
> 
> Los dos sexólogos más eminentes de la Agentina han dado ya varias veces su opinión ante los medios de comunicación masiva (TV): el hombre que se acuesta con otro hombre, aún ocasionalmente y mal que le pese, es homoxexual. Consideran además que puede ser bisexual en caso de disfrutar -aunque sólo sea ocasionalmente- de relaciones heterosexuales.
> 
> Un saludo - Mate
> 
> PS: Muchas gracias por la peliculita. Es genial.


----------



## ElaineG

> There's an incredible amount of stigma attached to being gay or lesbian


 
Well, it depends where you live... and there's stigma, and then there's stigma.

Here in NYC, stigma=0. Particularly in certain social classes/backgrounds. Therefore, guess what, you get very very few educated "white" Americanized New Yorkers under 45 on the downlow. They're all gay, and happy to be so. Most came out in college if not before, and are completely cool with it.

Now, there's _a lot_ more stigma attached to it in the Latino community and in the African-American community. And guess what? The whole downlow phenomenon flourishes ("being on the down low" originated in black English, although it's popular everywhere now).

I lived in a small town in Sicily for 3 years. Number of out gay men in town: 1 1/2. Number of married men who "go with men" at the other end of the beach where you always see cars lingering around: Dozens. If not hundreds. A very Catholic, and macho, community where the idea of being gay could mean losing everything, family, friends, place in the community. Result: Down low index off the charts.

I also lived in E. Africa for awhile. The person I got to know the best was my driver, bodyguard, help me deal with E.Africa guy, a Ugandan of Rwandan descent. He told me that if his precious beautiful 18 month old son turned out to be gay, he would kill him. He told me of a cousin who went to live in the Netherlands, and came back as openly gay, and the man's mother spit in her son's face and never spoke to him again. That, my friends, is stigma. 

I'm sure there were men who go with men in Kigali, in Kampala, but that degree of stigma drives the downlow down so low, you can hardly see it. You can be sure that men who have sex with men there do not call themselves "gay."

So basically, I see it as a simple stigma/social acceptance thing. The degree of openness in your culture (the wider national culture, your ethnic culture and your micro family culture) to the possibility of homosexuality will determine the degree to which you feel comfortable assuming the label "gay" or "bi." If its highly stigmatized, then you may call yourself "straight" while acting "gay." You may even be lying to yourself.

In my parents' generation, I know of two marriages that broke up in the 80s, once the world started changing and the husbands could finally openly admit that they were gay. Both had been sneaking around for sex for decades before that. Both loved their wives and children deeply.

In my generation, these people never went through the farce of getting married. Maybe a girlfriend in high school or college, but they stopped pretending not long after that. 

The whole "down low" thing makes me sad. For the men who can't be fully themselves, and for the women who get caught up in loving someone who isn't fully theirs.


----------



## DCPaco

Thank you Mate...I'm glad you enjoyed the film...and it serves the purpose of this thread perfectly.

Thank you Elaine for articulating such a succinct analysis of another culture as an observer.

I think it is necessary that we talk about these things openly without the inhibition of stigmas so that we can make progress. What saddens me in the USA is that these people that are oppressors once found out come clean and suddenly they are a sort of hero (McGreevy comes to mind).

I think this is a subculture that has been able to hide within the context of marriage and has enjoyed the privileges of heteronormativity while indulging in the pleasures they find in an oppressed community (this may also serve to explain the emergence of the 'str8 acting' breed within the gay community...because they have learned rapidly that being 'gay' makes them a second class citizen and that being 'str8' allows them to climb the echelons of homophobic societies).

This other film has a bit of what I've noticed in the gay community that says basically that being obviously gay is cheap or makes the person less desirable but it also deals with the issue of "straight guy with gay inclinations":

http://www.logoonline.com/shows/eve...ils.jhtml?cid=1545087&popThis=popVideo(117935)


----------



## fenixpollo

DCPaco said:


> Perhaps you're on to something here: So are you saying that these guys have same-sex sex are not interested in an emotional relationship...they're just interested in having same-sex sex. But what happens if one of these guys decides that he likes this guy as a friend and as a sex partner and that relationship becomes love, does he then cross-over and become gay?


 It seems like somebody in this part of the thread is saying that the men in question are only homosexual if it becomes a romantic relationship; men who have sex with other men can still call themselves heterosexual if there's no love involved, just sex. Does this seem contradictory to anyone else besides me?  After all, the word is homoSEXual. 


roxcyn said:


> Actually, I think in USA that most people are somewhat accepting of homosexual people, so I don't think there is that much stigma.


Add my name to the list of those that disagree with this statement. There are huge swaths of the US in which the majority of people think homosexuality is wrong, offensive, an aberration, etc....


----------



## DCPaco

fenixpollo said:


> It seems like somebody in this part of the thread is saying that the men in question are only homosexual if it becomes a romantic relationship; men who have sex with other men can still call themselves heterosexual if there's no love involved, just sex. Does this seem contradictory to anyone else besides me? After all, the word is homoSEXual.
> 
> I totally agree with you. I think we are in the early stages of promoting tolerance and people that know they have the desire to engage in homoSEXual (I like you're emphasis solution) relations should be honest (at least to themselves) for their own good and for the good of future generations.
> 
> One can be heteroSEXual and have meaningless sex through out their life and never have had homoSEXual experiences.
> 
> This is not the case here; these are men that are consciously aware that there is something about men that rouses their sexual drive (otherwise, they would not be lôôking for this in a man) and are enjoying this type of encounter while also enjoying the benefits of integration into a world that has ostracized people who are openly gay (be it by choice to declare one's preference or be it by their irrepressible OGTs [Obviously Gay Traits]).
> 
> I believe that there is also a certain misogyny tied into this mindset because some guys in the gay community feel that being a "sissy" makes a gay man less desirable (now I understand the argument of "If I wanted to be with a woman I'd be with a woman" and that may be the same argument these "heteroappearingclosethomoSEXuals" ascribe to and they just don't know it). However, one can choose not to date those kinds of guys but when one’s personal choice becomes self-justified in the discourse of hate, this become problematic.
> 
> The latter issue is sort of off topic because for that I’d have to engage my idea of how the radical feminist movement toward removing any _soft_ traits from the woman has had a negative outcome that has affected this subculture within an already marginalized subculture.
> 
> We should ask ourselves where the success of shows like Will & Grace lies. I think it’s the fact that we ONLY knew Will was gay, but we never were truly forced to accept it. I mean he was your basic urban guy and he had a girlfriend for all practical purposes (even if it was an asexual relationship).
> 
> Add my name to the list of those that disagree with this statement. There are huge swaths of the US in which the majority of people think homosexuality is wrong, offensive, an aberration, etc....
> 
> I'm totally with you. The US claims to be a progressive country but many other countries that are considered less progressive have moved beyond this issue. I believe it is only once we have gotten passed this issue that we will loose the need for labels and coming outs. I think as long as there are hypocrites like Jim McGreevey, Ted Haggard and others of the sort, people cannot claim that there is no need for labels. Now I'm not saying "come out" because each person knows when his/her surroundings allow for that...but these people were or are opposed to gay people (and therefore, progress) but were engaged in the very acts that they called abominable. The person that lives a closeted life because he lives in a place where his life would be at danger is a different issue because that person accepts his/ reality and in some cases even with all this against them have managed to have wholesome relationships (cryptogays if you will). These people might even have a small network of friends in whom they have confided.


 
The men we are discussing in this thread are the men that are lying even to themselves. Enjoying the heavy groping out on the field in the costume of a macho athlete; enjoying the long showers with other teammates; enjoying a clandestine encounter in a shady alley; enjoying the promotions of corporations, while engaging in the never-to-be-spoken-of tryst with his boss--all before going home to a happy unsuspecting wife or girlfriend who, in the case of those risk takers caught up in the heat of the moment, have become unknowingly vulnerable to STDs.


----------



## mirx

Are you guys all gay?

Just one thing, if you don't one labes put onto you, then you should start by not doing it yourselves.

I mean with this, just act like what you are normal poeple. You don't need this threads, I have never seen a foroum questioning straiht lifestyle why should we worry for other preferences, isn't it discriminative?

In my opinion (as a latin american) the fact that any man has sex with other men makes him homosexual or bisexual, it doesn´t matter whether he's a top or a bottom.

But fisrt than anything else, we all are sexual so I'd say that all of us could fall into homo-hetero-bi- and other sexual aberrations given certain circumstances.

All the above has been typed by a heterosexual gay guy. Cheers.


----------



## DCPaco

Mirx,

I don't think the issues are labels.  I think it's deeper than that.  It's the honesty.  Nevertheless, the thread is to engage straight men having gay sex.  You're right in saying that whether the person is passive or active, they are homosexual.  That's the point, the men of the study (in the link) were supposedly heterosexual...what I want to know is if what is the cultural environment that allows for that phenomenon--if you will.

Your last statement stating that you are "heterosexual gay guy" makes you a perfect person to answer to the concerns of this thread.

I am, however, concerned with your statement of "act like what your are normal poeple [sic]."  Do you mean to say that openly gay people aren't acting "normal"?  

"Normal" or normativity is quite problematic and varies from culture to culture.  Take for example middle-eastern men.  It is quite common for them to hold hands and lay their heads on the laps of other men while sitting at the park.  This in the USA would be seen as highly indicative of homosexuality.  So, if you are going to speak of normative discourse, I think you also need to engage its parameters and its environment.

I don't think this is a discriminating thread.  It invites all people even those that are the topic to write and defend their take on a particular subject.  So, please, if you are this type of person don't feel offended; rather, speak to us and allow us to see what the motivational factors are for you to profess heterosexuality while engaging in homosexual acts.

Best regards.


----------



## ireney

DCPaco said:


> Paulfromitaly, what would you say about Greeks then. I hear that there is a lot of same-sex being had there but there homosexuals are scarce...does that mean that they just don't like labels or they don't want to be identified with a word that is associated with negatively stigmatized identity?
> 
> And thank you and everyone for your feedback.




Change the tense and you'll be right. In Ancient Greece there were a lot of bi-sexual men. Well, let me correct that. More men who were bi-sexual had homosexual as well as heterosexual relations than today because back then being bisexual wasn't considered wrong in certain conditions. Today, since any kind of homosexual relation is considered "wrong" by many, bi-sexual men tend to go for heterosexual relations only.

To keep things simple. Greece today and well, Greece A.D. is no different than other countries. Therefore, when two persons of the same sex have a sexual intercourse it is considered a homosexual intercourse irrelevant of who is the "active" one of the pair. 

What you have heard probably had to do with ancient Greece and possibly referring to Athens or Sparta for which we have more information. In both, being a homosexual was considered wrong, but having homosexual relations in certain conditions was not. In other words homosexual = wrong, bi-sexual = OK. That's of course very schematic and therefore not 100% accurate.

P.S. Can we leave STD out of it? It's not as if they are transmitted only through homosexual intercourse afterall.


----------



## Paulfromitaly

mirx said:


> All the above has been typed by a heterosexual gay guy. Cheers.



Excuse me, what do you mean with "heterosexual *gay* guy" ? do you mean a "*cheerful* heterosexual guy" ?

Because if you don't mean that, it's like saying you're a tall short guy, or a left-handed right-handed guy..


----------



## elroy

DCPaco said:


> Take for example middle-eastern men. It is quite common for them to hold hands and lay their heads on the laps of other men while sitting at the park.


 Hold hands, yes - but not the latter!  

I guarantee you if you go to the Middle East and sit next to another man on a park bench and put your head between his legs you will get stares and people will wonder what is up with you.

Holding hands, on the other hand, is - as you imply - not seen as indicative of homosexuality.  Men also hug each other and kiss each other on the cheeks when they greet each other, and none of this raises any eyebrows.

I generally don't participate in the threads in this forum, but I felt it important to clarify this point.


----------



## jabogitlu

> The men we are discussing in this thread are the men that are lying even to themselves. Enjoying the heavy groping out on the field in the costume of a macho athlete; enjoying the long showers with other teammates; enjoying a clandestine encounter in a shady alley; enjoying the promotions of corporations, while engaging in the never-to-be-spoken-of tryst with his boss--all before going home to a happy unsuspecting wife or girlfriend who, in the case of those risk takers caught up in the heat of the moment, have become unknowingly vulnerable to STDs.



Or perhaps just having a normal gay relationship?


----------



## DCPaco

Thank you for participating Elroy. Your comments are certainly welcome especially if my perception is skewed a bit from being removed from some of the cultures I speak of. 

As far as Greece goes, I am familiar with the Classical perception of sexuality; however, I had heard that today that Greece is still a gay man's paradise--so long as the label is not applied. Now, I understand that what I was told may have been an isolated case but what he perceived was that it was okay to engage in homosexual sex but that it wasn't okay for assumptions to be made about their manliness. Similarly to what is seen in Latin America. It's okay for them to go and poke some guy but that guy better not be coming by the house or going around saying that they're lovers cause there'll be hell to pay.

As for the STD comment, I didn't intende it to be directed at the homosexual encounters or to insinuate that homosexuals are exclusive carriers of STDs; rather, it was aimed at the clandestine encounters that are popular among closeted individuals. The article that I mentioned in the first posting of this thread speaks of how many of these men aren't using protection. Although, I'm with you on the STDs thing.


----------



## DCPaco

jabogitlu said:


> Or perhaps just having a normal gay relationship?


 
If that's the case, then good for them and as long as their partner is aware that they are in an open relationship.  However, that's not the focus of this thread...but nevertheless, thank you jabogitlu for your participation. 

But I do have to ask, is there a bit of irony in your question?


----------



## ElaineG

> The article that I mentioned in the first posting of this thread speaks of how many of these men aren't using protection.


 
This is an important feature of clandestinity (not limited to the gay "down low" community, interestingly enough). I have been recently involved in offering some legal assistence to an outreach group here in NY whose focus is women in NY's Hasidic Jewish communities. [For those who don't know, Hasidism is an very strict form of Judaism that preserves 18th C. mores and customs in very closed communities]

Because of the strict rules against pre-marital, extra-marital, and gay sex, as well as extremely strict divisions of the sexes, arranged marriages, and many rules about sex within marriage, Hasidic men are great frequenters of prostitutes male and female, as well as users of sex clubs and other extra-community ways of having sex. 

The very factors that drive them (and I would presume other men) to clandestine encounters drive up the chances that they will be unsafe: To buy and use protection indicates an amount of forethought that someone who is in deep denial/inner turmoil is not likely to have, _education_ about risks is severely lacking, and perhaps, buying and using a condom makes the experience _real_ (not fantasy) in a way that is too troubling.

Imagine -- if you don't even want to admit that you are having gay sex or prostitute sex or whatever -- you are unlikely to engage your partner in a nuanced discussion of their sexual history!!

In addition, someone who contracts an STD in clandestine circumstances may have a world of trouble seeking medical help. And then -- a man can't suddenly return to his wife and say "honey, we'd better start using condoms until this is cleared up"! Especially if condoms are religiously prohibited to start with.

The results -- in this one kind of community that I have had a bit of experience with -- can be very sad.

Someone, male or female, who is _comfortable_ with their sexuality will educate themselves as to risk, get lifestyle-appropriate medical advice, discuss things with their partner etc. etc.


----------



## Outsider

DCPaco said:


> As far as Greece goes, I am familiar with the Classical perception of sexuality; however, I had heard that today that Greece is still a gay man's paradise--so long as the label is not applied.  Now, I understand that what I was told may have been an isolated case but what he perceived was that it was okay to engage in homosexual sex but that it wasn't okay for assumptions to be made about their manliness.  Similiarly to what is seen in Latin America.  It's okay for them to go and poke some guy but that guy better not be coming by the house or going around saying that they're lovers cause they'll be hell to pay.


Isn't that what it's like more or less everywhere in the world? (Noble exceptions like NYC notwithstanding.)

I'm not talking about the official morality or the clinical definitions. I'm talking about how people actually react.


----------



## DCPaco

Outsider said:


> Isn't that what it's like more or less everywhere in the world? (Noble exceptions like NYC notwithstanding.)
> 
> I'm not talking about the official morality or the clinical definitions. I'm talking about how people actually react.


 
Gosh, I didn't realize how much I rely on spell check until I saw myself quoted.

Well, so are you saying then that heterosexual men having gay sex is a common occurrence?

Are there cultures out there where people don't feel the need to live this sort of duality and does it really come out of a need? (The study was conducted in New York City where they could be open about their sexual identity and still they saw themselves as straight.) 

Is France like that? I ask about France because a friend of mine talks about the men he works with and they are technically straight but it seems that there these categories are bit more blurred and to transgress* isn't unusual but they don't go denying what they've done...they're just more frank about it.

*Transgression--not in the moral sense but in the sense of Nietzche and Foucault.


----------



## Lusitania

I think that we're all born bissexuals, until today I've only been with men but I can't say that I won't fall in love with a woman. I think that labels regarding this issues are a problem. You should be with a person you like or want or whatever.

I worked as a streetcorner worker in a team on HIV and STD prevention. We were mainly aiming at sex workers in that area and we found a group of men that would look for other men (not into prostitution) for sexual encounters. They considered themselves as heterosexuals, being married and having family but still this was like their "dark room". Also like mentioned before, it's quite common for inmates in prisons, wether they are men or female to have sex with other inmates and when they leave they just act as it was something natural due to the situation.

I don't see it like a transgression but as something natural. If I like chocolate instead of vanila is there a label to put on me? No. Why on sexuality is that needed?


----------



## DCPaco

Okay, perhaps we _should_ talk about Inmates and Soldiers.

I know that in some circumstances people adapt; however, I know of quite a few cases where inmates have acquired a taste for gay sex and even after they are out of prison, and start a relationship with a woman, they go back to gay sex and still consider themselves heterosexual. (Same with soldiers and I know that I'm going to be condemned for going there...but one only has to go to Circuit in Chicago to get a peek.)

Lusitania, I wish labels weren't necessary and that we could get beyond that point; however, in some countries it is still an issue.


----------



## Outsider

DCPaco said:


> Well, so are you saying then that heterosexual men having gay sex is a common ocurrance?


No, I was referring to the societal reactions to such ocurrences. In polite society, we all agree, yes, men having sex with other men is homosexuality no matter what. And if you're liberal minded you consider it all acceptable, and if you're a conservative you consider it all a sin.
But in practice I think that many, many people, both liberal and conservative, still react according to somewhat different mores: there's having gay sex, and then there's being gay...


----------



## Lusitania

Outsider said:


> there's having gay sex, and then there's being gay...


 

Ok, if you agree on labels. Can we assume that there are people that enjoy having sex with both men and women and sometimes more with men and others more with women?
I'm not sure that we can be that strict on the subject.

People are what they are and the context they are in.


----------



## Outsider

Lusitania said:


> Ok, if you agree on labels.


I'm just acknowledging how the labelling works. I'm not saying I agree with it. And I absolutely agree with you that it has a lot to do with context.


----------



## Lusitania

Outsider said:


> I'm just acknowledging how the labelling works. I'm not saying I agree with it. And I absolutely agree with you that it has a lot to do with context.


 

I know that you aren't a pro-label guy  you're open minded. 
If societies were more open-minded  probably we wouldn't be debating this.


----------



## jabogitlu

> But I do have to ask, is there a bit of irony in your question?



Well, yes, in the sense that I was hoping you realized that portraying as "down lowers" only as some kind of alley-stalking sexual deviants was absurd.   But I think you did.


----------



## DCPaco

jabogitlu said:


> Well, yes, in the sense that I was hoping you realized that portraying as "down lowers" only as some kind of alley-stalking sexual deviants was absurd.  But I think you did.


 
No I totally agree that we don't all live in a utopia and that caution and discretion, in some cases, are matters of life and death.


----------



## mirx

I am, however, concerned with your statement of "act like what your are normal poeple [sic]." Do you mean to say that openly gay people aren't acting "normal"? 

"Normal" or normativity is quite problematic and varies from culture to culture. Take for example middle-eastern men. It is quite common for them to hold hands and lay their heads on the laps of other men while sitting at the park. This in the USA would be seen as highly indicative of homosexuality. So, if you are going to speak of normative discourse, I think you also need to engage its parameters and its environ

Best regards.[/quote]


I agree with this and that´s exactly what I meant, if we don't have "threads and thousand different articles of straight men" Why should we make such distintion and emphizising "the gay side of life".

Lusitania, I completely agree with you, we shouldn't be discussing this thread, for me it's as foolish as opening a thread of "Who likes vanilla icecream?".

And my italian fella, I am an "hetero gay guy" if I may say so. (not homosexual)


----------



## timpeac

jabogitlu said:


> Most (States) Americans tend to have difficulty envisioning a sexuality spectrum, with hetero on one end and homo on the other. We're making great leaps with sexual identity education (despite the insane abstinence-only education funded by our government) which is making the younger generations more aware that there are more options than two or three.
> 
> From an American perspective here... I'm a gay male, but sex with women has been no biggie. Yet, I don't consider myself bisexual. It's not an attraction thing, it's just sex. :shrug:
> 
> And I agree with the person that said AIDS doesn't discriminate.


I think this puts it very well. If you consider this spectrum then you would have the 3 categories of homo- bi- and hetero-sexual. However, I think the question comes down to how much of the spectrum each of these categories takes up. If you consider that the homo and hetero parts are pretty much single dots then this would lead to most of the population probably falling in the bi category, which doesn't equate with how many people view themselves. If you therefore accept that both the homo and hetero parts of the spectrum are wider than a single point then it becomes possible that men who consider themselves in the hetero part to indulge there more gay nature occasionally, without them feeling they've "crossed over".

I think this whole question really comes down to, or rather highlights, how unhelpful labels are. I know someone who lived a straight lifestyle, and then in his 20s came out as bisexual. Then in his 30s he came out as homosexual - these labels are just a matter of perception (personal and of others) and he obviously felt it necessary to define himself in this way. I see no contradiction in this.

To put it another way, I think it would be ridiculous to label someone as "bisexual" just because during their lifetime they had slept with a man at some point and a woman at some point, if they then went on to adopt, or even embrace, all of the trappings of either being gay or straight. Presumably those "straight" men who sleep with men see the "homo" part of the spectrum as very small and the "hetero" part as being very large.


----------



## DCPaco

timpeac said:


> Presumably those "straight" men who sleep with men see the "homo" part of the spectrum as very small and the "hetero" part as being very large.


 
Okay, but here you are talking about quantity. This is almost like the Kinsey report.

If you read the reports of the study, there were men that engaged in exclusively same-sex sex and considered themselves heterosexual. This is why I think gender identity might be a cultural issue and I'm interested in the factors that compose that identity in all cultures. The only way we can speak of this is through labels. I don't think that I'm being judgmental...perhaps I'm just trying to understand the mind set of a group of people that I don't understand. It is through this type discourse that we transcend prejudice.

Since the arrival of the Internet, people have become more open about their tastes because the Internet provides them with a sense of controlled anonymity. On the Internet, I have encountered men that claim to be bi-curious. How many tries does a person get to have at this "curiosity" before they become a full fledge aficionado?

Mirx: Any time in history that there has been an issue to overcome; the subject becomes a constant topic of conversation. Take for instance in the 20s the flappers, in the 50s rock-n-roll, the 60s sexual revolution, etc. etc. If you look to the history of those periods it wasn't just about music, it was about a mind set and certain barriers to be transcended. Before the 20s, women showing their ankles was an issue...it is by talking about these things that we progress. There can be no progress without opposition. If Freud had never made homosexuality a pathology, we might not be having this multilogue on this matter. What I think we need in this case, is to learn from other cultures where tolerance is more readily available. My purpose in starting this thread is that as each culture evolves there are individual factors that enable some cultures, more than others, to explore new terrain. The way people perceive themselves is rooted in the values that have been instilled in them by their family and the society in which they live. I also want to tell you, Mirx, that if you find the subject so disturbing, you needn’t participate. Don’t take this as a dismissal, rather as simple common sense. I apologize if you find it disturbing, but I cannot apologize to find the subject matter curiously interesting. 


And allow me to redirect you: With regard to your vanilla comment, this thread is not about who likes what; rather: 


many of these men are usually the active partner (aka: the top)--this might be the reason why they consider themselves heterosexual. Now it should also be said that these men pursue men even when they have a chance to engage in relations with women. I've heard that something similar occurs in Greece as well. *I'm curious as to whether there are similar situations to this in other parts of the world and what some of you think the reason for this is.*


Now Mirx, I feel that I must note that if this thread hadn't caught your attention you wouldn't be here. But I also sense defensiveness in each of your comments.


----------



## mirx

DCPaco said:


> Okay, but here you are talking about quantity. This is almost like the Kinsey report.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And allow me to redirect you: With regard to your vanilla comment,
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry you´re right the thread´s name should have been "Who eats vanilla icecream but claims he only likes chocolate"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now Mirx, I feel that I must note that if this thread hadn't caught your attention you wouldn't be here. But I also sense defensiveness in each of your comments.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...



Remember I am gay heterosexual, thus everything with the word "gay" will get my attention.

And what exactly would be defensiveness for you, to defend (probably agressively and rudely) one's point of view, well then you're right again, I´ve been showing a lot of "defensiveness".


I think my opinions here are the ones who disturb and not your thread to me, I will stop participating . I do hope, however that you find the answers you're looking for.

Humans are not hetero, bi or homosexual, but merely sexual, sex is the icecream and just like with icecream we have preferences, some only like chocolate, some like vanilla and many more like both, and just like with icecream some poeple don't like any "flavor" at all.

And now that I think back, I do remember an inccident, a classmate was talking of a guy that had been kidnapped, then raped then murdered, my other classmate asked "Entonces era marica el que lo mató" en my classmate answered "No, marica es el muerto por que a el es al que se la metieron".  So my answer would be yes, many people consider as homosexual only the pasive homosexuals

And my bottom line, gay life will stop being an issue when you stop calling it that.


----------



## Outsider

As with human races, I don't think you can put that genie back in the bottle, now.


----------



## timpeac

DCPaco said:


> Okay, but here you are talking about quantity.


No - I don't think I am, or I certainly didn't mean to. I don't think that you're placed along that spectrum according to how many men you've slept with on one side compared to how many women on the other.

I mean rather that these "straight" men who sleep with men consider the heterosexual part of the spectrum to be so large that they'd virtually need to be sashaying down sunset boulevard in high-heels, pink hotpants and a fur coat with a miniture dog called mimi on a leopard skin leash before they'd consider themselves homosexual.

I think we basically agree - I am saying that the areas of the spectrum relate to what people mean locally by these labels, and that of course is the cultural question.


----------



## loladamore

DCPaco said:


> Among Latin American men, it is quite common that there are men out there having sex with other men and still consider themselves heterosexual.
> [...]
> *I'm curious as to whether there are similar situations to this in other parts of the world and what some of you think the reason for this is.*


 
There is an organisation in the UK called *MESMAC*, which stands for *Men who have Sex with Men - Action in the Community*. It's a sexual health charity whose name recognises the fact that many men do indeed have sex with other men, but do not necessarily identify themselves as gay or bisexual: they just happen to have sex with men.

People are sexual beings and we do all kinds of things behind closed doors. We don't always like to talk about what we do, though, and even in liberal societies we may subconciously feel guilty about, and therefore conceal aspects of our behaviour that go against the prevailing norm. Whereas celebrities may flaunt their sexuality and drug use, the rest of are more likely to keep quiet about such things. In some cultures, not keeping quiet might land you in prison; in others, it can lead to public humiliation and/or violence against you.

From my unofficial surveys of sexual behaviour in parts of Mexico and the UK I would say that the same essential issues are involved. Some people are out and are accepted by family and friends; some are out and are ostracised; and some gay men pretend to be straight, and tell you how they plan on getting married to a woman in few years, while you sit there wondering who they are trying to kid.

When my best friend came out about 15 years ago, my dad stopped speaking to me because he thought I was going out with her. Outright rejection by a loved one is one of the reasons why people claim to be straight, and therefore identify as such, when in fact their private behaviour may be more complex.

That's my 2p.
Cheers.


----------



## DCPaco

Thank you for visiting Lola (and thanks for sharing about MESMAC, I had no idea that there was an organization like that).

I do understand what you and Timepac are saying about how we identify ourselves and I also understand the notion of thinking:  "I'm not like them."  I mean this happens with national identity.  I can explain till I'm blue in the face how my culture as a Mexican is so different from the culture of Salvadoreans...but the difference is minute to a non-discerning eye.

When I lived in Colorado, I became very familiar with the discourse of "str8 acting." These guys could define themselves as gay but str8 acting and flaunted their achievement by posting the scores to a quiz (*http://www.straightacting.com/quizzes/guy/index.php*) they obtained from a site called:  *www.straightacting.com* (which calls itself: *Your masculine gay hang out:  Masculinely Politically Incorrect--*the questions play on stereotypes and it's quite funny actually).  Now in this case, they are at least being honest that they are gay and want to identify themselves with a hypermasculine image.  What I noticed in this group was a sense of misogyny toward anything remotely soft or feminine.  (It is necessary to note that some of these guys had been married and were womanizers...to them, women were for their entertainment and not their equal--something like the ancient Romans.)  With this group I can't help to think that it is a reactive response to the tired stereotype of the effeminate gay guy and to their surroundings (I was told many times that in Colorado to be femme was dangerous...in fact, there was even gay bashing from within...I wonder what Foucault would have thought about that...internalized censorship...I mean many of these guys obsessed about how they were perceived...and I don't think these are the guys that are "heterosexual" but have gay sex).  I can certainly appreciate a persons desire to declare autonomy and to express their individual identity.  But I also think that it is a marketing strategy; I think that these hypermasculine-admitedly-gay guys have realized that they can capitalize on their masculinity--perhaps because of the internal desire to have been born straight.

Since the surge of feminism, it seems increasingly obvious that (in general) everything soft and feminine has been reduced to cheap and unattractive--and well that would be a whole other thread.  

Going back to the straight acting gays, it should be said that to these guys your average urban heterosexual is a Nelly.  I think Colorado was very "butch" lesbian friendly because there was a certain ruggedness to the environment that welcomed butchness.  (I had a lesbian professor there and she said that she had a hard time telling who was a lesbian and who wasn't because the setting was just very masculine.)

As far as gay people go, I know that the spectrum is vastly diverse.

But again, I'm more and more inclined to believe that the men that consider themselves "heterosexual" after actively pursuing sex with men is the fact that they are the inserter and not the insertee.  Perhaps its like in classical Rome where a boy could be passive until a certain age and then he must assume the active role; his failure to assume the role of the "man" (the inserter) was seen as pathetic and was ridiculed.

I'm still hoping for the other cultures to become involved...but thanks to all of you who are posting your observations.  It is complicated to articulate the issues surrounding this topic.


----------



## Paulfromitaly

The more I read in this thread the less sure I am to know the correct meaning of the word "heterosexual"...
Would anyone be so kind to enlighten me, please?
What I've always thought and I still think is that "heterosexuality" means  sexual attraction to people of the opposite sex *only*; without that "only" we're not talking about heterosexuality any more, but about bisexuality or homosexuality.

I frankly don't think that people are bisexual or homosexual only if they admit it whereas they keep on being heterosexual if they deny it, although they've had sexual intercourse with someone of the same sex.

Just to make it really clear, by my opinion the use of the words heterosexual, bisexual and homosexual does not convey any negative meaning: those terms only identify someone's sexual inclination without any further judgement.


----------



## DCPaco

Personally Paul, I believe the same way you do. However, I'm also trying to keep an open mind to see what people who view things differently than you and I might sa--that might make a sound argument to deconstruct the notion of hetero and homo -sexuality. Perhaps we have a very black and white view of gender, but I don't think we're wrong to think that way...I agree that one has a right to privacy; however, beyond the privacy issue I think there are men and women out there in serious denial.


----------



## Paulfromitaly

DCPaco said:


> Personally Paul, I believe the same way you do. However, I'm also trying to keep an open mind to see what people who view things differently than you and I might sa--that might make a sound argument to deconstruct the notion of hetero and homo -sexuality. Perhaps we have a very black and white view of gender, but I don't think we're wrong to think that way...I agree that one has a right to privacy; however, beyond the privacy issue I think there are men and women out there in serious denial.



You see, I don't expect people to tell me about their sexual inclination when I meet them and actually I'm not even interested in it: it's not my business, I am not and I don't want to be the one who judges folks about their sexual behaviour or like.
However, once they have decided to talk to me about it I can't understand, for example, how a man who's had sex with other men and keeps on doing it could deny to be at least bisexual.
It's not an opinion, it's a fact: when a guy enjoys having sex with both men and women *he is* bisexual and not straight.


----------



## Bonjules

HELLO ALL,
It seems utterly amazing to me, the endurance of so many in re-hashing the terms and definitions of human sexuality; it seems we never get tired if beating up on that old, almost DEAD horse. Is there really much that hasn't been said a million times?
So, for those who haven't gotten it yet, here is Bonjules'
'low-down'(pardon the term) on HUMAN SEXUALITY.

Different from the majority of species in the animal world, H.S. is not only defined by HORMONAL URGES.
Fortunately/unfortunately we've got, besides the Amygdala and the Hippocampus also the Grey 
Matter (also called Cerebral Cortex), giving rise to
a great variety of ideas, thoughts and IMAGINAION (although
some clearly could use more), often of a sexual nature. These might involve members of the same, opposite sex, children, old people, animals, inanimate
objects or Madonna. Any of these (Ideas, fantasies, nowadays often called 'perversions') are really ok as long as you are not
trying to force them upon any one and keep your language, little fingers or other body parts away from anybody that has not invited you in this respect.
Now the Greeks understood that much more than
2000 years ago and our incessant PREOCCUPATION with WHO is exactly WHAT and WHEN would seem rather PECULIAR to them; after all many/most of us have had various 'crushes' of a very different nature at different times growing up and later(examples are too numerous to tell). What the Greeks didn't sufficiently understand is that you can't use those
that are VULNERABLE, like children or those in a way
dependent (power) on you to live out your little games. That's why we need strict laws enforced to protect them.
But among adults able to consent most of this discussion is a GRAND WASTE of time.
Ok, History is sometimes 1 step forward and 2 steps back, the upright gait also took a long time.
But why do the bidding of zealots and fundamentalists of any persuasion when we have
really IMPORTANT things to attend to, like the SURVIVAL of the planet (NO PLANET, NO SEX - get it?)
Is there hope in the aforementioned Grey Matter?
We call ourselves 'Homo Sapiens' (Latin for '(The gay) man is wise'); Let's hope this is not a misnomer!
That's IT.

P.S. Someone might disagree with my Latin


----------



## ireney

Lots of capitals there! Are you sure you've got all the facts about ancient Greece? Pedophilia as we define it today was outlawed.


----------



## Bonjules

ireney said:


> Lots of capitals there! Are you sure you've got all the facts about ancient Greece? Pedophilia as we define it today was outlawed.


Ireney, I don't know specifically about the laws; the practice, however was widespread and as it seems culturally accepted. I'd prefer though not to go off on another tangent, we can PM each other about the subject, if that's ok
saludos


----------



## Thomsen

DCPaco said:


> When I lived in Colorado, I became very familiar with the discourse of "str8 acting." These guys could define themselves as gay but str8 acting and flaunted their achievement by posting the scores to a quiz (*http://www.straightacting.com/quizzes/guy/index.php*) they obtained from a site called: *www.straightacting.com* (which calls itself: *Your masculine gay hang out: Masculinely Politically Incorrect--*the questions play on stereotypes and it's quite funny actually). Now in this case, they are at least being honest that they are gay and want to identify themselves with a hypermasculine image. What I noticed in this group was a sense of misogyny toward anything remotely soft or feminine. (It is necessary to note that some of these guys had been married and were womanizers...to them, women were for their entertainment and not their equal--something like the ancient Romans.) With this group I can't help to think that it is a reactive response to the tired stereotype of the effeminate gay guy and to their surroundings (I was told many times that in Colorado to be femme was dangerous...in fact, there was even gay bashing from within...I wonder what Foucault would have thought about that...internalized censorship...I mean many of these guys obsessed about how they were perceived...and I don't think these are the guys that are "heterosexual" but have gay sex).


 
Is it really fair to paint people with such broad strokes?  

But more to the subject, I don't care what anyone does or calls themselves.  It doesn't offend me if a guy who has sex with another guy doesn't want to call himself gay (it does strike me as silly, but doesnt offend).  

The problem is that many of these men seem to be violating a trust that should exist in a commited relationship.  Now I don't think people should have to be in one if they don't want to, and a I realize that there can be societal pressure pushing them in the direction of getting married, but any person who cheats be it with a man, a woman, or a cow for that matter is reprehensible.


----------



## mirx

Thomsen said:


> Is it really fair to paint people with such broad strokes?
> 
> But more to the subject, I don't care what anyone does or calls themselves. It doesn't offend me if a guy who has sex with another guy doesn't want to call himself gay (it does strike me as silly, but doesnt offend).
> 
> The problem is that many of these men seem to be violating a trust that should exist in a commited relationship. Now I don't think people should have to be in one if they don't want to, and a I realize that there can be societal pressure pushing them in the direction of getting married, but any person who cheats be it with a man, a woman, or a cow for that matter is reprehensible.


 

Exactly, and if they are decided to live in denial for the rest of their lives (eventhough it's obvious what their inclinations are), then it's fine, since when did we become judges to tell people to come out of the closet, or to stop lying to themselves.

If gay people keep saying their straight, just let them be. They don't hurt anyone. 

PS. I don't aprove of people who are comitted in a relationship to mess wiht someone else, be it gay, lesbian, "straight", pedophile or any other sexual pervesion you may like.

Live and let live (or die)


----------



## Lusitania

mirx said:


> Humans are not hetero, bi or homosexual, but merely sexual, sex is the icecream and just like with icecream we have preferences, some only like chocolate, some like vanilla and many more like both, and just like with icecream some poeple don't like any "flavor" at all.[
> 
> And now that I think back, I do remember an inccident, a classmate was talking of a guy that had been kidnapped, then raped then murdered, my other classmate asked "Entonces era marica el que lo mató" en my classmate answered "No, marica es el muerto por que a el es al que se la metieron". So my answer would be yes, many people consider as homosexual only the pasive homosexuals
> 
> And my bottom line, gay life will stop being an issue when you stop calling it that.
> [/color]


 
I agree, it's just need that people have to put other in compartiments and label them as if there is (or should be) an explanation and a label for every behaviour for every thing.

People are what they are and the context that they are in.


----------

