ObiWanSpicoli writes: So if I like to spend the day with my dog, no "heavy petting" involved, I guess I'm into beastiality?

Relevance to anything I wrote?

F42 writes: Riiiight... because, your sexual conduct has NOTHING to do with your sexuality.

What the hell are you talking about? Did I ever say that one's sexual conduct has NOTHING to do with one's sexuality?

Not. A. Single. Time.

I said that one's sexual conduct does not define one's sexuality. One's sexuality certainly shapes one's sexual conduct. That is, those principally attracted to persons of the opposite sex will tend to have sex with persons of the opposite sex. Those principally attracted to persons of the same sex will tend to have sex with persons of the same sex.

But having sex outside of one's principal sexual attractions does not change one's innate sexuality. A gay man's having sex with a woman does not make him straight, does it? Then why would you expect that a straight man's having sex with a man would make him gay?

F42 writes: I expect that he was faking straight up until that point.

That seems merely to be an assumption. What are you basing it on? Other than a prejudice against homosexuals, I can't think of a good reason for your point of view.

that the gay man was having sex with women to create the illusion of straightness

I'm talking about a perfectly open, self-identifying homosexual choosing to have sex with a woman. It happens. And the act of vaginal intercourse doesn't make that homosexual straight.

F42 writes: that the gay man was having sex with women to create the illusion of straightness

Repeating the assumption does not explain its basis. So, I'll ask again: what is the basis for your assumption?

You missed the fact that I was talking about the same guy

That's not particularly relevant to the question I asked in the my latest post. I asked about a self-identifying, perfectly open homosexual who has sex with a woman. I asked if that act makes him straight. Why didn't you simply respond to the scenario I placed before you?

I say: He's not straight, he's in the closet.

And until you provide some basis for that judgment, it's merely a worthless assertion.

you have a prejudice against free thinkers dude.

How do you figure?

Stop trying to fit me into one of your predefined category of pundits

If you read carefully, you'll find I did nothing of the kind. I offered the prejudice rationale only while your explanation of basis was outstanding. I made no conclusive judgment.

But the prejudice rationale remains, in the continuing absence of your statement of basis, the only thing I can think of that would explain your point of view. But don't read more into the word prejudice that I intend. I'm not talking about the kind of hostility that would drive one to violence or to want to deprive homosexuals of their civil rights. Prejudice in the sense that I'm using it means a belief (however subtle) that homosexuality is somehow wrong or embarrassing or ignominious.

It's this subtle prejudice that compels Farkers to declare their heterosexuality in any thread that deals with gay issues. Non-prejudiced, personally secure people don't need to make unsolicited announcements about their sexual attractions.

TulipsandRoses writes: if a guy has gay sex [he] has some kind of tendency to being attracted to the same sex.

I simply disagree -- especially in the context of sex for pay. That one has gay sex is not, in itself, a conclusive measure of one's sexual attractions.

Nothing wrong with that.

Agreed. But the argument that a man must be gay if he has gay sex is predicated on the idea that there is something wrong with homosexuality.

And no matter how you but it your sexual conduct reflects your sexual preferences

As I wrote earlier: One's sexuality certainly shapes one's sexual conduct. That is, those principally attracted to persons of the opposite sex will tend to have sex with persons of the opposite sex. Those principally attracted to persons of the same sex will tend to have sex with persons of the same sex.

I'm not willing to go further than that -- because I don't think there's a reliable basis for anything stronger.

MickCollins writes: You are making an assumption.

That's true. I really didn't have enough information to make that judgment.

From what we know of the situation, they are gayer than the Bravo channel.

From what we know of the situation, we have no idea whether they are gay or straight.