Okay, now before people get offended, it is absolutely not my intention to offend or invalidate anyone either. It's just something I've noticed. I've heard of self-identified lesbians who have sex with men and enjoy it, lesbians and gay men who can only engage in same-sex relationships and people who unable who are just willing to have sex with anyone. So for the lesbians who have sex with men; are they bisexual? Or do they just believe they only fit into the label lesbian because they will only date women? I always thought lesbians didn't think they could have sex with men - so are these women still lesbians? Or is sex and the ability to do it and enjoy it with whoever just a psychological affair? Is that is the case, then is sexual identity even real? In my opinion then there isn't really a "gay-gene", but more a blending of masculine and feminine genes within a person and that makes them more inclined to certain traits and interests, naturally. Do you know what I mean? Am I making sense? What do you think?
Some who has sex with men and enjoys it is not a lesbian, no matter what they like to call themselves.
I think for some people the situation is simply that they have not come out to themselves so they still try to be with the opposite sex, thinking that they have 'not found the right one yet'. And for other people 'having sex' is more important than having it with people they are attracted to: eg there are some men who would always choose a woman over a man, but who have so little success with women that they 'fall back' into being pleasured by a man. I think it is also about validation: some people need the validation which comes from being attractive to somebody, regardless if that attraction is reciprocated. But overall, it is about 'what feels right' to a person, I think. The question is why do you care if other women are 'still lesbians or not'. Who decides where is the 'cut off point' for a 'real lesbian'?
Well its up to each person how they define that... but imo it would be fair to tell a partner from a certain point on... some people say they are Kinsey 5 and still gay... Its a spectrum, not some fixed points. And labels should imo be a starting point, like a painter... they start out from somewhere but find their own style... it should not be a clearly defined box. hugs
I think sexuality is mostly phsycological, at least for me. I can "get it up" thinking about or looking at naked women even though mentally it disgusts me. I have no interest whatsoever in having sex with a woman though.
It's a complete, integrated part of who I am. Does that make it psychological, biological, ontological, or something else entirely? I don't know. I think I understand what you mean by psychological, but I still squirm a bit using that term to define it because some would twist that and misinterpret it to mean that it's something that we choose, or something that could be change with the proper psychological care (hence the disaster of conversion therapy, that did so much damage to so many people). the important thing is that we know who we are, and the labels are only useful in so far as they help us to reach that understanding. In themselves, they have no value.
It is not mental illness, if that is what you mean. Sexuality is often (but not always) fluid. Really, people use all these labels and, and expect people to conform to those labels. How about we like who we like and that's it?
Give me a proper definition of "psychological" and maybe we can discuss your question. If you mean "made up", then no. If you mean "determined by your brain" then I would say "probably so"...but why the dismissive "just"? By that definition, your taste for certain foods is psychological, your gender is psychological, your personality is psychological, your tendency to procrastinate is psychological, your in/ability to do math is psychological, your ability to learn, period, is psychological. Are these things also "just psychological"? Oh, and if you lame out and define psychological as "of or pertaining to the psyche", guess what? My next question is "give me a proper definition of 'psyche'". And to those who say there are lesbians who enjoy having sex with men, I ask the question "do definitions for words have meaning?" Sure, Jay, people can *identify* any way they want. I can identify as a tree if I want to...doesn't make me one. But if the word "lesbian" is defined (as I understand it) to mean "a woman who enjoys sex only with women" and the word "bisexual" is defined to mean "a person who enjoys sex with both men and women, then a woman who enjoys sex with both men and women and identifies as a lesbian is bisexual who identifies as a lesbian...not a lesbian. Just like I can be a person who identifies as a tree...not a tree. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that definitions have no meaning...in which case, we should just stop using words altogether, because there's no friggin' point.
Thank you for all of your responses. I did not mean that it is a mental illness ( because to me a mental illness is a mental trait you've overdeveloped and as a result hinders your ability to function in life positively. ) As for people who are in denial and are still "looking" for the "right" person - I don't understand what you mean by that, because aren't all relationships about looking for the right person? If you're a gay man do you just give into the first man that shows interest in you? I feel that the right person is more about how open you are willing to be with someone - and that's do to you. ( sorry to sound accusatory - don't mean to!!) I don't know then if it's because I am bisexual/non-labeled that I feel this way, or if it's from experience. I just feel that you know, for me my sexuality is determined by my own personal blockages if that makes sense? Like I feel like I could potentially do ANYTHING I want with anyone, but there's some things I don't do because I have a block to that - not because I can't, but because I can't get past a block. For example, I could have a threesome or and orgy with a group of people, but I don't because it makes me feel uncomfortable on some level, but that is something I could overcome if I really wanted too, I feel. I'm just not ready yet/the opportunity with the right people hasn't arose. Same with being with women, I have been with women in the past but I didn't get to far with them because it also made me uncomfortable and again I feel like that's something I could overcome with the right person, at the right time. And with men, I have trust issues, which I feel the more open I am with someone and build on a relationship I will overcome too. Soooo.. for me a lot of me experience is down to my own blockages. Some things make me more comfortable, some don't - but the reason they don't is because of my own issues. I don't know if everyone feels the same but that's how I feel. Maybe you can't relate, maybe you can. For me, using a label IS pointless because I find them too limiting, I don't think that's being in denial about my feelings. I think it's giving me strength to realise I can like anyone, I can go at life at my own pace and I by facing my fears/issues head-on I can grow. I find that labelling will stunt me, because then I will become that, and become attached to that identity. As for people who label themselves one thing, and do exactly what it says on the tin perse, like a lesbian women who "can't" have sex with a man or a gay man who "can't" have sex with a woman, or a straight woman who "can't" have sex with a girl, I can't understand that because to me - it's just sex - it means nothing and I find that the aversion to it is something within you that makes you think that way..... I am sorry if I am being ignorant and invalidating anyone, I really don't mean too... but can you understand where I am coming from? I guess I'm saying I believe sexuality is more fluid and it has stages and it matures and it ebbs and flows and that's what makes sense to me. And putting labels on is like putting a dam in the river and going against a force of nature.
I strongly disagree. I think the nature of sexuality in the brain is much like handedness. Some people are right-handed ~90%; some people are left-handed ~10%; and some people are ambidextrous/ambisinistrous ~1%. Although handedness (like sexuality) is described by a continuous spectrum, we divide it into a discrete number of labels. Sexuality/handedness can take on an infinite number of values on a continuous scale, yet definitions of sexuality/handedness labels force us to sort these values into 3 categories. As such, the manner in which we sort ourselves into categories comes down to a yes or no question. In the case of handedness, the relevant question is whether a person feels that he is adept and comfortable with using a particular hand. If a person is comfortable using his left hand but not the right hand for most tasks, then he is left-handed. A left-handed person can still use both of his hands and might do highly complex things with his right hand, such as type on a keyboard or play an instrument, but that does not mean the person is ambidextrous. A left-hander could force himself to write with his right hand and might become pretty good at it with practice, but it still won't make that person ambidextrous. In the case of sexuality, many people take the relevant question to be whether a person has any amount of sexual attraction to the opposite or same sex. Note that this is in contrast to how we define handedness. I don't think this question is meaningful, because I think it describes everyone. To begin with, I don't believe that there is such a person who is completely 100% homosexual any more than I believe there is a left-hander who is completely 100% inept at using his right hand. To me, the relevant question is whether a person's sexual attraction towards a particular sex is great enough that they would feel comfortable enough to act on it regularly (as one would do in a relationship). So, for example, if there is a woman who has had sex with men a few times in the past (and enjoyed it to some extent) but mainly pursues other women and feels that she ultimately needs to be with a woman in order to be happy, then I would describe that woman as being a lesbian. This way of matching the definition of sexuality with handedness is also functionally more meaningful. If you ask me, as a gay man, the question of whether I would ever be in a relationship with a bisexual man, I would like to answer 'yes'. However, my answer is 'it depends'. I would like to think that the term 'bisexual' means that the person is capable of pursuing a relationship with me regardless of my sex and that the person does not strongly favor being with the opposite sex. And it would mean that if bisexual were defined in the same way that ambidextrous is defined.
I want to say something. It's fine to be able to be sexually involved with both genders, but everyone has preferences and some people simply can't have sex with both genders. For some sex is not just sex but an emotional thing, and for others, even if sex is casual for them, a different gender repulses them because of the different mechanics involved. I can't speak for other sexualities, but as a lesbian I can not have sex with men, it disgusts me for various reasons. Main reason: Penises, phallac objects and penetration of any kind disgusts me. I also will never sleep with any cis women who wants to wear a strap-on, but luckily this is optional for most lesbians while with men It's expected. Think about it; penetration can hurt pretty bad if done wrong (and many men don't give a shit about foreplay), it feels submissive and degrading (to me, maybe not to others; tried it once by myself with a toy and hated it, bet a man feels even worse), It has a HIGH risk of STD's including HIV (Lesbians rarely ever spread STD's), It can get you pregnant and ruin your life if you're not ready and can't get an abortion (and no protection doesn't always work), Semen literally makes me puke, and I would be so pissed if it touched me. Plus, so many men are sexist and have such disgusting double standards in relationships that it turns me off entirely. I'd be considered 'wrong' for not wanting PiV sex, but how many men will let women fuck them with strap-ons? I'd be expected to drink semen after a blowjob, but how many men would like it if I shoved their head in my crotch while I was menstruating and told them it was mandatory to drink all my bloody juices? The unhealthy attitude surrounding straight sex pisses me off and makes me not understand how ANYONE could sleep with a man if they were sober; No offense to anyone but I've noticed this in my life and prefer the healthy attitudes lesbians have and how much more equal it is. Not to mention men are physically ugly as hell and I lose all arousal just looking at one. Think about it this way: There are women out there that are 100% okay with having sex with their brother. Should you have sex with your siblings and if you can't, can I shame you for having a mental block? Some people enjoy consuming their partner's urine, if you're grossed out, can I shame you and tell you that you have psychological issues and it probably doesn't taste as bad as you think it does?
I do not think that the OP was trying to offend anyone, nor were they suggesting that sexual deviance is a mental illness.
This is a brilliant post, thank you. This is basically all we need to know. It reminds me of how I've felt when I was first realising I am gay, rather than bi. Following your example I was discovering that I am right handed, after trying to write with my left hand for years, it just felt more natural and uncomplicated for the first time. When we start going down the lines of "somebody who is able to *enjoy* sex with the opposite sex cannot be gay", we essentially loose all meaning because who defines what "enjoyment" means? For one person it will mean "complete enjoyment", for another it will mean "absence of disgust". Are they the same? Of course not.
Loved your post and your analogy! I'm not sure we have strong disagreement, really. I think the word "enjoys" has the same continuous spectrum of meanings as sexuality does. But we condense our usage of the word into the binary...so "enjoy" might mean something like "over 0.67 on a scale to 0 to 1". Then what do we mean when we say "I enjoy sex with women"? It means that modally, my experience is above .67 with women. I could easily envision a lesbian having a .6 experience with a man, and comparing it with all the other .2 experiences she's had with men, considering herself as having enjoyed it. I could also see her having a .7 (or higher) experience with a man...but this level of satisfaction not being frequent enough to warrant her doing it often or at all. Such a person would be stretching the truth to say "I enjoy sex with men"...it would be much more accurate to say "I have enjoyed sex with a man, but don't usually". Similarly, she might have a .2 experience with a woman once (or once in a while), but if it's usually more like .8-.95, then "I enjoy sex with women" is certainly consistent with this. To clarify, I was not trying to say that no lesbian has ever enjoyed sex with a man. Just that saying (and having it be true that) "I enjoy sex with both men and women" (meaning, I modally enjoy both) meets the definition of bisexual, and not of lesbian.
