Questioning

[antiochian]

I'm hesitant to interrupt all the political talk with a personal problem, but frankly not sure who else to talk to.

I've always believed myself gay. I find men attractive physically, and it is masculine intimacy that I want. It is a man with whom I want to spend my life if I'm so lucky as to find that kind of love.

Having said that, there have been occasions where I've had attractions to the opposite sex. At least one crush I had on a girl about ten years ago was reasonably strong. There have been a few women who have stated they found me attractive, and on some level I realized the attraction was mutual. Was it the fact those women flattered me, or was it more? I'm not sure.

Any interest in the opposite sex has been fairly absent from my life throughout my young adulthood, but as of late the interest has resurged. An attraction I may feel towards a lovely lady is almost never as strong or as "complete" as the feelings I would have for a cute guy.

Is it dishonest to keep calling myself gay? Would you say I'm bi? Does the label even matter? In my heart I believe no one can define me but me, still I would appreciate some input.

[labguy22]

I am admittedly not bisexual, but for what it's worth I offer my two cents.
While I was living that double life many of us lead, I had relations with several women, but it was always a lie. I am homosexual, there is no doubt. I have dated a few bisexual men, a very close friend of mine is bisexual and my niece recently came out also as bi. I believe that bisexual persons actually have a unique place in life; they are able to look beyond gender. Try as I might, it would never work between me and a woman, but it sounds like that may be possible with you. Many blessings on your journey!!!

[Alecto]

You're right that no one can define you but you. Only thing we can really share is our experience, and hope you can see yourself in some of it.
I'm Really Pretty Gay (TM). And, yeah, it was a whole big thing in highschool coming to terms with that. Because it's a whole big thing, and I thought I had that figured out, when I eventually had little inklings of attraction to females, it was very threatening at first; I had worked so hard on figuring myself out and I had gotten it wrong! I've had time to examine those feelings (rare though they are) and kind of accept that I'm 95% gay (the 1-6 thing doesn't do justice for me). That other five percent...it probably isn't enough to ever see me in a relationship with a woman, but it is there and I'm ok with it.
I guess I should also address that for me, there's something....unifying about labels. Like it reminds me that I'm not the only one, that dysfunctional though we may be, we are a family of sorts. I understand for other people, the labels just don't fit and further complicate their lives. If you're like me, it'll probably be really important to figure out exactly where you fit in, but if you're not and you can just not worry about it, there's probably some freedom in that.

[scott snedeker]

Life is not all politics. Your post is a welcome breath of fresh air.

What you are is a human with capacity for intimacy. It's what we are meant to do. I too have sort of enjoyed sex with a woman, but I can honestly say I have already had all of the heterosexual experience I want. My appetitie for male intimacy is unquenchable, however....and I hope that never changes!

You have great capacity for intimacy with men for passion loving and just plain rutting! and it's all wonderful

When you are 80 years old and look back are you going to say: "Gee I wish I had less sex with men?"

Ha! Of course not! I for one think about your sexy mug when i read your posts!

I have had sex with men who weren't gay. And they weren't because the label is just that! A label, nothing more!

One was a 20 year old rodeo rider from Okeechobee florida... grrrr! he was a pistol! And though he was straight I could tell he was rode regular by his buddies--if you get my meaning. :D

Male humans with desire for Man to man rutting and intimacy can be called whatever they want to be called. Heinlein called it Ortho-male, the Oxoaca tribe calls them Muxes. Cowboys of the early 20th century just called each other good buddys or partners.

You are a Hottie. Go play live and love with fellas the way your lust takes you. Your lust is good healthy innocent and trustworthy. It's part of your soul. Free it from labels, judgements and inhibitions!

[RedneckDyke]

According to Kinsey, everyone is on a spectrum from 0 (all het) to 6 (all homo). most people are somewhere in the middle.

[u-dog]

antiochian,

The way you describe your sexuality sounds a lot like my experience. I would guess that I'm a Kinsey 4.5 or something. When I met Polly way back a million years ago I had stronger "feelings" for her than I had ever experienced for a woman before. We began a sexual relationship which sort of blew me away. Then we married, had children, did careers and now its been a quarter of a century. We love each other intensely and she is like the best human being on the planet, but our sexual relationship has never been that great for either of us.

All of this is to say that ... passion is important. if your passion is for men then follow that passion until you find the man (or men, Scotty ;o) ) that completes and confirms who you are and who pushes you to be all that you can be.

Be who you are boldly. The world will respond positively.

U-dog

[Zerbie]

You don't have to label your feelings unless you want to. I HATE labeling mine and get all twisted in knots when I try, which is why I HATE having to clarify when people start labeling me the wrong way or asking how I identify.

We are similar. Very much so, in fact. I have never been able to authoritatively classify my feelings for people according to gender, and freedom came when I determined it was a waste of energy to keep trying. Just this week I was reflecting that maybe I've migrated over to straight now, but it's an irrelevant question anyway. For some of us, sexual and romantic feelings are very fluid insofar as which gender lights us up. If you want to start calling yourself bi now, then do. If not, don't. Which name you give it will not have much affect on your life, so go with your comfort level.

Simply live life and when you meet the ideal partner, you will know. It's a cliché, but that's because it's true - you'll know when you find your partner (or, per Scotty, your circle of loves if that turns out to be your best fit.)

Fair question, buddy, and one that you get to answer however you like. :)

[tymejumper]

I think you are at the place where many of us find ourslves when we seek to fit into a class and belong. To explain that further, I think that is what makes it so darn hard for young gay people to make sure they are REALLY gay and not going through a stage(as I convinced myself ,as I not so merrily screwed tons of guys to become straight).

I had an idea I was attracted to women, at about 14 or 15, heck at 13 I remember going up to the mall and staring at one beautiful young lady that came there often. Looking back, I guess I was a love lorn young girl, with her first crush. I guess it was just not done in the 80s, much less in my conservative family, so I tried to be a good daughter, handle the feelings and be straight. I knew the ONLY option for me would to be with a man. I did not look forward to having sex with a guy, but I knew that I would have to, so it seemed to me to be a neccisary thing. I even did enjoy it sometimes. I was so out of touch with my feelings, I never even actually acknowledeged my feelings until my mid 20s' , then I chose Bi for a lable. It was not until I had actually been with a woman, that I realized that I felt so complete that I could never have that with a man so I must be lesbian actually. I went to therapy for a year or more to figure it all out in my mid 30's(it seems like a slow trip to me!).

Now, it seems like I was really stupid about it all when I look back on it. I see all kinds of red flags in the past that I obviously did not see at the time. I always lost interest in any sex with a man within 3 months or so, with a woman, never, always desiring them. With a man, I was never having sexual tention to go past kissing(which I did enjoy with either sex) or holding hands, with a woman, the tention was unbearable. After orgasm with a man, it was like masturbation and during it was like "are you done yet?" just to get it over with! With a woman, it is a soul affirming experience and I am in NO hurry. I also had several persons ask me if I were gay when younger, or pick on me in high school and call me a lesbian, so I would just go get another boyfriend to prove them wrong. I also have always been surrounded by gay friends.

Where does all this leave you? I would say that if you feel more complete with a man, then gay seems a good lable, if you feel that you could feel complete with either a man or woman, then maybe Bi. Also, be aware that sexuality is fluid and can change over time. It makes it so darn confusing at times! Whatever you say to yourself, you need to be happy with your own self in your own heart and comfortable in your own skin. That is what is important.

[antiochian]

I appreciate each of your posts, especially your openness. Lots of wisdom here. Thanks! :love:

[tdogg]

Yeah, what Scotty says! It's a great answer. People are always trying to figure out what label they might fall under, when what really matters is getting to 'you' and following your heart (with your brain somewhat engaged). Just being you, whatever that means. Without labels, without boxes, with a neat and tidy category under which to classify what you think is 'you'. Just 'be' you.

I like it! Although I can easily identify myself as a lesbian, and on occasion I may feel a physical attraction to a male, and I do believe that most people are bisexual on some level at least physically, I'm the sort of person who can morph depending on my mood, how I perceive the world and the energy of those around me. In other words, I sort of see myself as not really belonging to any 'group' necessarily, but more of an individual who simultaneously belongs to every group and none.

Kinda complicated when you try to break it down I guess. I truly believe if we all weren't so obsessed with the labeling process, our struggle towards equality would be over as everyone would be respecting others for their individual qualities instead of likenesses.

[Eugene]

Within the context of Christianity, a moral life consists of monogamy/long term commitment or celibacy. It seems logical that either of these should eliminate conflicts regarding bisexuality. You can only be in a monogamous relationship with one man or one woman.

I like it! Although I can easily identify myself as a lesbian, and on occasion I may feel a physical attraction to a male, and I do believe that most people are bisexual on some level at least physically, I'm the sort of person who can morph depending on my mood, how I perceive the world and the energy of those around me.

Um, I won't assert that you're not bisexual if you don't assert that I am. We are expected, after all, to conform to LGBT protocols.

[scott snedeker]

Within the context of Christianity, a moral life consists of monogamy/long term commitment or celibacy. It seems logical that either of these should eliminate conflicts regarding bisexuality. You can only be in a monogamous relationship with one man or one woman.



Um, I won't assert that you're not bisexual if you don't assert that I am. We are expected, after all, to conform to LGBT protocols.

Pardon but WTF!

LGBT protocols? What Protocols? Is there a chapter in Luke somewhere About Hair Dressing and Interior decorating and The Hanky Code?

Luke: 69

"And while sharing wine with a centurian at Brutus's cafe my dear disciples, Thou must wear the Red Hanky in thy left pocket lest thou wishest to be speared posteriorly against thy desire."

What about the "B" in LGBT?

And the term Monogamous * One Woman for one Man. Does that mean One of a couple must do Drag [or butch up] for the union to be holy in the eyes of God? [More sensitively] accurate terms [would be] Monoandrous and Monogynous. (I am Polyamorous BTW)

I also noticed that you Capitalized christian which is generally indicative of adoption of inerrancy, homophobia and many un-Christ like practices and attitudes.

Someone who is "christian" follows teachings of Christ.

Someone who is "[I]Christain" follows cherry-picked passages in Leviticus selected to dehumanize others as gratification that compensates for a personal sense of inadequacy.

Your terminology and tone reflects attitudes learned from influences that suggest learned self-judgement. These are self predatory and by admonishing others with them you unknowingly spread sanctimnious predation upon your own kind.

My purpose is in small part in pointing this out is to poke a little good natured fun at your expense, yes, and I beg your forgiveness.

But the Main reason is to raise awareness of Attitudes and influences of unconsciously internalized self loathing and self judgement with which Christians have tainted Christ's message of unconditional love.

Somehow "conditions" referenced by arrogant solipsistic homophobes from other levitical texts now become Christianity without any mention by Christ himself.

*edited as an attempt of the author to extract his foot from his mouth!! See his later post!

[tdogg]

Within the context of Christianity, a moral life consists of monogamy/long term commitment or celibacy. It seems logical that either of these should eliminate conflicts regarding bisexuality. You can only be in a monogamous relationship with one man or one woman.
Um, I won't assert that you're not bisexual if you don't assert that I am. We are expected, after all, to conform to LGBT protocols.

Um, huh? Not sure what you are trying to say here. I don't identify as bisexual, because while I may find the occasional male that I am physically attracted to, I have absolutely no attraction on a mental or emotional level, and therefore am unable to maintain a romantic relationship with a male.

My point was just that people are so quick to label others and stuff them into neat little boxes, in order to feel better about themselves. Why is that necessary? Why can't we just accept people for who and what they are, instead of trying to make them fit our perception of what they should be?

I have no idea why you feel christianity has any relevance in this thread.

[tdogg]

In regards to one of your comments, Eugene, I am a female, married to another female and our relationship is monogamous. So where do you get your opinion in regards to monogamous relationships? I am living proof that your assertion is wrong.

[scott snedeker]

My point was just that people are so quick to label others and stuff them into neat little boxes, in order to feel better about themselves. Why is that necessary? Why can't we just accept people for who and what they are, instead of trying to make them fit our perception of what they should be?

The answer I understand from Buddhist tradition is that all unskillfully said words come from ignorance, confusion ,pain and a lack of compassion for one's self. Gratification gained by dehumanizing others to compsensate for a lack of compassion for one's self or lack of self worth only reinforces the suffering by rewarding it.


I have no idea why you feel christianity has any relevance in this thread.

You forgot the Capital "C" dear

[Eugene]

Maybe I should become charismatic because I just know that I have the gift of prophecy after reading your responses.

In regards to one of your comments, Eugene, I am a female, married to another female and our relationship is monogamous. So where do you get your opinion in regards to monogamous relationships? I am living proof that your assertion is wrong.

Well, sorry, I should have made 2 posts. My first paragraph was a response to the original poster. My 2nd paragraph was a response to you, and it was meant to be tongue-in-cheek.

Seeing as how I hate wasting posts, let it be known that I'm responding to multiple people here.

I have no idea why you feel christianity has any relevance in this thread.

Well, because it's Soulforce forums. This is supposedly a place for religious gay people. I came to these forums after reading Mel White. I don't think my ideas about monogamy and homosexuality and Christianity differ too terribly from his. My opinions about bisexuality are my own, however.

LGBT protocols? What Protocols?

What about the "B" in LGBT?

You hit on my point exactly, though I don't think you get it yet. I am "G" and political correctness within the "LGBT community" requires that I be sensitive about "B". So given that I am required to recognize "B", I feel it only fair to speak up when my "G" is demeaned with the comment that everyone is bisexual.

Your terminology and tone reflects attitudes learned from influences that suggest learned self-judgement. These are self predatory and by admonishing others with them you unknowingly spread sanctimnious predation upon your own kind.


Oh, please. Policing my free speech with LGBT correctness is as futile as policing my free speech with fundamentalist dogma.

I made a simple statement about Christianity and monogamy. It is true, regardless of theological persuasion. If you aren't a Christian, then you can discount it, but I won't apologize for it.

[scott snedeker]

"And Monogamous means One Woman for one Man. Does that mean One of a couple must do Drag for the union to be holy in the eyes of God? The accurate terms are Monoandrous and Monogynous."



In regards to one of your comments, Eugene,[ Ash?] I am a female, married to another female and our relationship is monogamous. So where do you get your opinion in regards to monogamous relationships? I am living proof that your assertion is wrong.


Uhh......... I think you meant to direct this at mee:(

I apologize if my post came across as trivializing to the validity of your marriage. That was definitely not my intent!!:(

I was attempting to raise the level of sensitivity to the implied messages and tone from the language.

It is not inapplicable to call your marriage mongamous, but the term has historical overtones of archaic heterosexism and nihilism toward same gender committed relationships.

This is why I introduced what I believe to be more accurate nomenclature.

Of course I feel that I am starting to sound contrarian now with two posts in the same thread appearing to promote opposite attitudes toward labelling.:lol:

I guess I could defend my self with: "But if you insist on labelling at least get it right!"

Nawww! My mouth still tastes like foot!:lol:

[scott snedeker]

Within the context of Christianity, a moral life consists of monogamy/long term commitment or celibacy. It seems logical that either of these should eliminate conflicts regarding bisexuality. You can only be in a monogamous relationship with one man or one woman.


Ahh! so the challenge is at hand ahrr ahrr!

Quote the new testament where Monogamy between the same gender is the only holy way for love of this type. I think you would have trouble even finding one for opposite sex couples. Remeber No fair using the old testament!:eek:


Um, I won't assert that you're not bisexual if you don't assert that I am. We are expected, after all, to conform to LGBT protocols

Try using a smiley if your line is a joke or it's no joke sweetie! It did not come across as tongue and cheek, but I see now how this was your intent.

Generally if you communicate something that has a negative impact when a humorous one or positive one was intended it is good etiquette to apologize and explain rather than chide everyone for the lack of clarity... I did it myself in this very thread!:(


It's good that you Identify as Gay. No one here can take that from you. :cool:

I have been asked if I am gay by folks who meet me. I answer with:

"Gay? nawwww! ............ That would be wayyy too mainstream and tame! I'm a Radical Faerie!:lol:

[tymejumper]

Um, huh? Not sure what you are trying to say here. I don't identify as bisexual, because while I may find the occasional male that I am physically attracted to, I have absolutely no attraction on a mental or emotional level, and therefore am unable to maintain a romantic relationship with a male.


Exactly, I could not have said it better myself. I still like to look at men and am able to say "boy is he hot!" my relationships with males seem to just disinigrate into a friendship mode.

[tdogg]

"And Monogamous means One Woman for one Man. Does that mean One of a couple must do Drag for the union to be holy in the eyes of God? The accurate terms are Monoandrous and Monogynous."

Uhh......... I think you meant to direct this at mee:(


Hi Scotty, It was actually directed at Eugene's comment; however, I see that I was mistaken in what he was saying. He meant "one man OR one woman" but I've been dealing with way too many anti-gay protest signs and read it as AND. My bad, and my apologies to Eugene.

Eugene, I should have also clarified in my statement that I feel most people who consider themselves heterosexual are likely bisexual (you can usually pin down someone on who they are attracted to of the same sex, although of course they would never go there, but if they did, it would be "?".

I don't see Soulforce as a "christian" site, but rather created for the purpose of fulfilling its objective: ending religious oppression of GLBT people. It's a wonderful thing that so many of us have different upbringings, spiritual beliefs and we are quite diverse. This is one my favorite things about SF. We even have at least one radical faerie (and perhaps another one or two that don't realize it yet)! :love::love:

[Alecto]

Eugene: Soulforce is open to everyone. A main part of their current actions is indeed channeled through churches. Currently, many of them are specifically Christian/christian (I learned to capitolize major world religions. I don't always remember to, but I thought that was a grammar thing, and haven't seen semantic differentiations till now). This has actually been addressed in other threads in the past (a lot of us would really like to see more outreach to other faith communities), but it's not recent and I don't expect you to have seen it necessarily. That said, Soulforce IS open to everyone, and it might be prudent to not assume in the future that any specific forum member is christian. I'm not here to debate the Bible with you, but calling anything a "simple statement" that is "true regardless" of anything is going to smack of the same fundamentalist nonsense that gets levelled at most of us here all too frequently. This is not going to resolve any conflicts, but will evoke defensive responses.

Looks like the very simple misunderstanding about what you were saying about monogamy has been addressed. I think it's very much worth noting, though, that your statement is still not necessarily accurate. For one, if one is not yet in a long-term relationship, a question of sexual identity can be kind of big time important. Further, even with someone who IS in a long term committed relationship...I have a married-to-a-man female friend who is bisexual. She figured this out well after she had been married for kind of a long time, and she and her husband still very much love each other and are kind of one of the healthiest couples I know. But for some people, it's not JUST about who they're dating right now, or who even who they're committed to. Something about sexual orientation in our society has made it important to people's self-identity. So, yes, assuming someone does prefer monogamy, you're absolutely right. They're gonna be with one man OR one woman (OR one genderqueer / androgyne / other-gender person) at a time, hopefull reaching a point of lifetime committment. That doesn't make all this stuff, and confusion, and desire to know more about ourselves go away though.

Lastly, I don't want to put words in your mouth, but it sounds like you were offended by the concept that someone stated "almost everyone's a little bi". I agree with you here. I've shared my identity, and the whole point of it was that it doesn't really make me "a little bit bi". I'm not interested in dating or persuing a relationship with a woman. There might be a few more people who are bi than "admit to it", because oftentimes bisexuals do face stigma from both the gay communities and the straight community, but I think it's a stretch to say that a majority of people are, and I think it's offensive for any one of us to be projecting unwanted labels onto others. I think (and hope) that tdogg didn't really notice she was doing that, but I'll let her answer.

Everyone: I think I'm seeing a lot more agreement than disagreement, and I think even the disagreement I see really can be just talked about, but a lot of language choice and defensiveness seem to have gotten in the way.

[scott snedeker]

Wery well said Alecto. We are touchy sometimes aren't we?

[u-dog]

I think we have hijacked Antiochian's thread. Perhaps we should return to trying to reflect helpfully on is original question?

[wmanion]

Speaking for myself, I find a big difference in attraction and sexual attraction. I also went through the stages of thinking I was bi, but only because I was in denial for so many years about my sexuality. I have always been sexually attracted to men but tried to conform myself to religious teachings and married thinking it would take away the feelings...it didn't. With that being said, I can still find many women very attractive and can appreciate their beauty, but I am not in the least sexually attracted to them. I can also find a lot of guys attractive, yet not be sexually attracted to them. There are also those who I do not find attractive but then when I get to know them, I find their personalities very attractive and I can be drawn to them. I find that those who have that certain personality that I am drawn to, usually become very good friends whether they are male or female. Sometimes, I can even become sexually attracted to men who have the type of personality that I am drawn to, but there is a definite difference in finding someone attractive and finding someone sexually attractive. Just because I find certain women attractive doesn't make me bisexual, I just can appreciate the beauty of all individuals.

Bill