Post Reply
Page 1 of 6  •  1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Switch to Forum Live View What is gay?
6 years ago  ::  Oct 21, 2007 - 12:51AM #1
lucyd11
lucyd11
Posts: 3
I am not attracted to women in the same way as men. I can fall in love with men. I can't fall in love with women, but I am attracted to their bodies. So this attraction is a superficial thing. What does that make me? Gay?
(BTW, I am a girl.)
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Oct 22, 2007 - 8:05AM #2
BetteTheRedde
BetteTheRedde
Posts: 2,325

lucyd11 wrote:

I am not attracted to women in the same way as men. I can fall in love with men. I can't fall in love with women, but I am attracted to their bodies. So this attraction is a superficial thing. What does that make me? Gay?
(BTW, I am a girl.)



Bisexual, in all likelihood. Where on the scale from 1-5 (0 and 6 being exclusively heterosexual and homosexual respectively) depends on your analysis of the following:

Rating Description[LIST]
[*] 0 Exclusively heterosexual
[*]1 Predominantly heterosexual, only incidentally homosexual
[*]2 Predominantly heterosexual, but more than incidentally homosexual
[*]3 Equally heterosexual and homosexual (we have a poster, TotalTop, who falls in this category)
[*]4 Predominantly homosexual, but more than incidentally heterosexual
[*]5 Predominantly homosexual, only incidentally heterosexual
[*]6 Exclusively homosexual
[*]X Asexual[/LIST]

"Sometimes they are referred to as the 'radical Right.' But the fact is that there is nothing radical about them. They offer no novel solutions to the problems that plague them; indeed, they offer no solutions at all. They are immensely discontented with things as they are and furiously impatient with almost everyone in public office who can in any way be held responsible for their frustrations. But it cannot be said that they hold any clearly stated objectives or have any specific program either in common or individuals. They are fundamentally and temperamentally 'aginners.' And perhaps the commonest characteristic among them is anger. They can fairly be called, if nothing else, the Rampageous Right."

Alan Barth, New York Times, November 26, 1961
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Oct 22, 2007 - 9:48AM #3
LittleBuddha73
LittleBuddha73
Posts: 1,399
Are you attracted to their bodies in such a way that you simply find beauty in them, or wish, perhaps, that you had certain aspects of their bodies? Or are you attracted in such a way that you want to "experience" them? I generally believe that who I fall in love with is more of a determining factor, but who I sleep with may pull me toward the other end of the scale (if the two aren't the same). Either way, I would say why label it - just enjoy being who you are.
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Oct 22, 2007 - 7:30PM #4
lucyd11
lucyd11
Posts: 3
Thank you for saying that last thing LittleBuddha73, you're right.
What I mean is that I want to experience them, but I can't fall in love with them. It's like the difference between lust and love, I guess, so it wouldn't be correct to say I'm bisexual...
In any case, thanks for the responses.
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Oct 23, 2007 - 9:54AM #5
LittleBuddha73
LittleBuddha73
Posts: 1,399
Some people define sexuality by who you are attracted to physically or sleep with. Some define it by who you fall in love with. I tend to think it's a mix of both, but more the latter.
I think the Kinsey Scale is one of the better tools to help understand the fluidity of sexuality, but if you notice, it does lean toward defining sexuality by sexual feelings and actions. i.e. there are times when I have found men extremely attractive but have no desire to act on that because that "connection" piece is not there. So I consider myself a strong 5.9!
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Nov 06, 2007 - 11:03AM #6
alezandar
alezandar
Posts: 28

lucyd11 wrote:

I am not attracted to women in the same way as men. I can fall
in love with men. I can't fall in love with women, but I am attracted to their bodies. So
this attraction is a superficial thing. What does that make me? Gay?
(BTW, I am a girl.)




Bisexuality for me was more like a crossover towards my sexuality. I loved both men
and women for a couple of years before later realizing I was gay! I must admit thou
when I was bisexual it wasn't easy! it was a very tormentous time, because more
often than once I felt consumed in a state of pure confusion! but as I became more
selective,confident, matured, and open minded soon realized my attraction scale
was leading more towards guys then girls!

But like Littlebuddha73 said: "Either way, I would say why label it - just enjoy being who
you are" I definitely agree with that, because ultimately it is your choice, and no one can
make that decision but you!!


Leandro

Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Nov 19, 2007 - 10:45AM #7
chris_lg
chris_lg
Posts: 358
The Kinsey scale focuses more on sexual behavior and not so much on emotional attachments, so it doesn't paint the complete picture. What could? I'm a bisexual woman married to a bisexual man and the experience of being bisexual is quite different for both of us. I, like you, find it easier to fall in love with men. (Now one man) But have been sexually attracted to women on many occasions over the years. My husband has loved both men and women emotionally and physically in the past. We married late in life and are quite content to settle down with each other now. What you call yourself is far less important than accepting yourself being happy with who you are. Remember sometimes people connect with another person and not with a gender. If you're too attached to a label, you may miss out on something wonderful.
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Nov 19, 2007 - 10:47AM #8
chris_lg
chris_lg
Posts: 358
Hi Bette! Fancy meeting you here!
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Nov 19, 2007 - 12:23PM #9
BetteTheRedde
BetteTheRedde
Posts: 2,325

chris_lg wrote:

Hi Bette! Fancy meeting you here!



Of my three kids, two identify as bi. So it's sort of a natural spot, for me to be here. The 'other' board?  I'm either in a feminazi mood (infrequent) or I miss Itsa. ;-)

"Sometimes they are referred to as the 'radical Right.' But the fact is that there is nothing radical about them. They offer no novel solutions to the problems that plague them; indeed, they offer no solutions at all. They are immensely discontented with things as they are and furiously impatient with almost everyone in public office who can in any way be held responsible for their frustrations. But it cannot be said that they hold any clearly stated objectives or have any specific program either in common or individuals. They are fundamentally and temperamentally 'aginners.' And perhaps the commonest characteristic among them is anger. They can fairly be called, if nothing else, the Rampageous Right."

Alan Barth, New York Times, November 26, 1961
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Nov 19, 2007 - 8:38PM #10
chris_lg
chris_lg
Posts: 358
I'm spending less time there too. Looking for a new home.
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 1 of 6  •  1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Post Reply
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook