How to Define Sexual Orientation – Behavior or Attraction?

It is often said that the statement “Straight men who have sex with men” is an oxymoron because any man who has sex with men is at least bisexual. I disagree.

It depends on how you want to define sexual orientation.

First of all we need to realize that most gay men have had sex with women, and many continue to do so. And all the talk about married gay men. Most lesbians have had sex with men, and many continue to do so. So none of these gay men (almost all of them) who have had sex with women are really gay? So none of these lesbians (almost all of them) who have had sex with men are really lesbians?

I do not define sexual orientation on behavior. Behavior is one thing and orientation is another. They tend to line up pretty well but not completely and not always.

Orientation is the largely biological tendency or setup of what at least men and many women are attracted to. A lot of lesbians appear to be biologically set up to be this way.

Behavior is who you have sex with, which usually lines up fairly well but sometimes not completely with orientation.

It’s well known that when women are not around, straight men (men who are attracted to women only and men not at all) will have sex with men.

Many lesbians who have little or no attraction to men nevertheless have sex with them, often quite a bit of sex. Note how many prostitutes are lesbians.

Many straight women will have sex with other women in all-female institutions if there are no men around.

The people engaging in this opportunistic homosexuality are often not bisexual; instead they are just deprived straights fulfilling their sexual needs with the same sex as the opposite sex is not available.

The only men who are bisexual are those are who attracted to both sexes.

We also get into how people identify, which is important. I know women who have sex with men and women but identify as straight, as they only have relationships with men. I know a woman who identifies as lesbian though she has sex with men too because she can only fall in love with a woman. This woman was a 25-75, which normally should mean lesbian-leaning bisexual, but she defined herself as lesbian.

Many men are 90-10’s or 80-20’s (very straight leaning bisexuals), but as they have no interest in and refuse to act on their male interest, they identify as straight, which is reasonable. Many women who define themselves as straight to me tell me that they have some lesbian interest but refuse or choose not to act on it.

The GLBTQWTF SJW’s have been wildly antiscientific about sexual orientation since forever. You almost never read anything truthful, factual, or scientific about sexual orientation in the popular press and increasing even in academic journals. That is because the debate has been taken over by GLBTQWTF SJW’s who have twisted all the science into propaganda and lies for their nonheterosexual orientations.

There are very few clinicians or scholars who are doing actual scientific work in sexual orientation nowadays because GLBTQWTF SJW’s are utterly hostile to even having science look at the question.

Joe Kort is a gay psychologist. He is one of the few humans in the US who is actually doing real work on sexual orientation. He has written a book called Straight Guise about straight men who have sex with men. He lists all the different reasons why they do this.

Kort defines them as straight because they are not attracted to men or men’s bodies.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

3 thoughts on “How to Define Sexual Orientation – Behavior or Attraction?”

  1. ‘Homosexual’ is a specific orientation, which means, ‘exclusively attracted to the same sex’. ‘Gay’ is a lifestyle, often, but not always, adopted by such individuals. There are many who do not qualify as homosexual who are in gay society, eg, ephebephiles, hebophiles, non-trans autogynephilic males, bisexuals and many others, including men who just have a taste for anal sex and prefer the male version.
    Across the Ancient world from Sumer to Rome, it was quite normal for men to penetrate other males, as long as they were slaves, who had no honour or status, by definition. They were objects, akin to furniture. Nobody thought it at all odd for a Roman man to keep a ‘puer delicatus’ or pretty slave-boy, for a concubine; indeed the Emperor Nero actually married one, Sporus. One Roman is said to have replied to his wife, when she castigated him for penetrating slave-boys anally when, after all, she had an anus too, ‘My dear, what you have is two vaginas.’ And off he went to get serviced by a puer delicatus. Perhaps it was tighter. As long as the nature of the relationship was such that the boy was penetrated, then it was all fine and dandy.
    This still goes on in much of the Islamic world, eg Afghanistan and Pakistan. The social injunction was and remains against adult men receiving penetration. In most cultures, this means ‘old enough to grow a beard’. So Afghan men can roger young boys silly and nobody says boo, because, well, they are young boys. You can’t touch women or adult males, but… Quite different from the Western view and many US military found the local habit of kidnapping cute boys for sex abhorrent. Their reactions, including attempts to rescue the boys, caused many problems with the locals, who regarded them as blatant interference in a time-honoured tradition – to which, by the way, many of the men had themselves been subject to, as boys.
    Somewhat similar to the notorious English public (boarding) school practices, in which boys were sexual recipients both for older boys and their educators.
    Hanging around any bus station in Pakistan is highly, highly educational. There are plenty of sex workers; they are pushy and insistent; and they are all male, aged from around 6 up to mid-teens. Such places are also extremely dangerous for Westerners, though. But it would be unfair to single out Pakistan, or even only Islamic nations for this; Westerners and US Americans in particular, should realise that their culture is not the global norm and their lofty outrage at pederasty, while suitably PC, is scoffed at elsewhere.
    ‘Platonic love’, BTW, signifying profound non-sexual love, applies ONLY, in the original sense, to ‘love between men’. Plato thought this was the only form of acceptable love, but found the notion of one of the partners accepting penetration horrific and he railed against it. Plato believed that men who were attracted to women were inherently themselves feminine – and thus unfit. He believed in manly manly love, but none of that back door stuff.
    This was also written about extensively (and practised) by the now largely forgotten Benedict Friedlaender, a German sexologist and contemporary of Magnus Hirschfeld.

  2. As a straight guy I am strongly repulsed by the thought of being sexually intimate with another man. If I were stranded on a desert island with only men as companions I am pretty sure I would not want to have sex with them.
    I heard an interview with a guy who spent decades locked in solitary confinement at Louisiana’s Angola State Penitentiary. He said the lack of human contact was so psychologically punishing that he’d provoke fights with the guards just to feel the closeness of another human being even at the cost of it adding years to his sentence.
    In his opinion (after serving his time) being forced to have sex with another man would have been a less brutal punishment than years alone with no human contact whatsoever. He came out of there with his mind intact but lots of guys who do years in solitary do not.
    Humans are wired for social contact and I get where this guy is coming from. But that still doesn’t explain why a straight guy who is instinctively repulsed by the idea of having sex with another man would choose to do so in a situation where he is not deprived of human companionship.

    1. @Eric, I think most heterosexual men would agree. I alsothink a lot depends on how words are used. Any man who willingly has sex with a woman is NOT homosexual. Period. That is because ‘homosexual’ means ‘someone exclusively attracted to same sex from childhood’. A man who willingly has sex with both men and women is bisexual, irrespective of how he describes himself.
      Homosexual males are attracted to masculinity, because they have an inversion of sexuality. The problem is that ‘gay’ is actually a lifestyle which comprises homosexual men but also bisexuals, ephebephiles and hebophiles (attracted to teenage boys, basically) non-trans autogynephiles whos4e fetish for ‘being a woman’ is being penetrated, super-masculine narcissistic homosexuals and even others. And these are all real things, not airhead genders.
      Now it is an observable fact that, where men are not allowed to access women, they often turn their erotic desire towards boys, because they are not masculine and are available. This occurs across the Muslim world; look up ‘Dancing Boys of Afghanistan’. (Islam only forbids sex between men ‘old enough to grow beards’ and has no lower age limit on sexual availability.) But Islam is by no means unique in this; in fact, in world terms, it’s commonplace. The men who do this are not homosexual; they are repulsed by masculinity. In fact they are the toughest, most aggressive and masculine men of all. They penetrate boys because of their reduced masculinity and, simply, their availability.
      Interestingly, the boys so served themselves normally grow up as heterosexual men and will marry; but they will themselves use boys in adulthood. And the older men who used them as boys were themselves used by the previous generation.
      The myth of ‘prison sex’ is that it occurs between two big alpha males. It does not. What happens is that weaker, submissive males offer themselves for, or are simply coerced into, sex with an alpha male. The trade-off, of course, is protection. It might be preferable to choose your own bugger than to be buggered by every randy man in the place. Typically, men who enter into these arrangements in prison are completely hetero outside it. (it’s actually called ‘situational homosexuality’)
      How the alpha males get over their own natural revulsion for masculinity seems to be dealt with in behavioural, rather than visual terms. This is prison, so everyone has short hair and wears fatigues. But the catamite males (the ‘girls’) act in a noticeably feminine and submissive manner towards their partners and — prehaps surprisingly — this appears to be respected by the other men. If you saw ‘Con Air’ there was a nicely observed male homosexual character in that; the only thing that was missing was her relationship to a specific alpha male. But note: the other characters did not intimidate or threaten her; instead they gave her female privilege.
      Another great cultural example is in the film ‘Mad Max2 — The Road Warrior’ where there is a clearly stated homosexual relationship between two of the villains, one a massive, aggressive character and the other clearly submissive.
      My girlfriend knows of cases where homosexual males who find themselves in prison, usually for minor crimes, and end up in this situation, have feminising hormones smuggled in. They actively seek protecting male partners. But something similar happens with men who are not homosexual outside the prison context.
      It seems to have something to do with the men/not men dichotomy. Men have to compete with other men, often violently, but homosexuals don’t have to, because, they’re ‘not-men’. So it makes a viable survival strategy even for males who are not normally homosexual.
      The con trick of the New Gay Man is in trying to pretend that homosexual sex is about two massive hairy men doing each other. That’s only in porn. In fact, male homosexual relationships involve two males, one or both of whom are playing female sexual and interpersonal roles. (If both are, then the relationship is essentially lesbian.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *