Homosexuality does not exist.

[Ashton18]

Some argue that sexuality is not a fixed trait but rather a product of societal influences and personal experiences. In this view, "homosexuality" as a distinct category is an artificial construct, and people’s attractions can shift over time. This perspective suggests that labeling people as strictly "gay" or "straight" oversimplifies human sexuality, which is more flexible than rigid categories allow. However, in recent years there has been an influx of gay men stating they are able to be attracted to women in all aspects.
Some people hold onto a label for various reasons—personal identity, community, or past experiences—even if their attractions evolve. A man who has identified as gay for most of his life might still use that label out of habit, even if he develops feelings for a woman.

That said, if someone consistently experiences attraction to both men and women, it would suggest that they’re not strictly gay but perhaps bisexual or fluid. At the end of the day, sexuality is personal, and people define their identities in ways that feel right to them.

So for me I have come to the conclusion that homosexuality does not exist.

 

[Target91]

Existe uma variedade na sexualidade a onde temos em uma ponta pessoas como eu, 100% gays e na outra extremidade pessoas 100% héteros, entre uma ponta e outra existem variantes da sexualidade.

 

[mattto]

I think very many have bigger and smaller degree of bisexuality. Some are scared to admit they'd be curious about trying same sex. Some guys that for some reason tried, maybe after a few drinks or smoking grass, let a guy touch, maybe masturbated and sucked realized it felt good and not "the end of the world" and didn't do them gay. Some may dare touch mutually and another only let a guy service his cock. I think more guys are at least a very little bit curious to touch an other guys cock, but not dare. Well, that's my thought as being a bi-guy myself.

 

[halcyondays]

According to lab studies going back to the late 1980s only about 10% of adults test 100% straight or 100% gay based on visual stimulation only. In other words they have zero sexual physiological response to one sex or the other.

The other 90% of the adult population in these tests have some sexual physiological response to both sexes based on visual stimulation only.

I agree with you that the strict definitions of straight and gay oversimplify human sexuality.

I disagree with you that homosexuality doesn't exist. According to the science a small percentage of the population is solely same sex attracted. An equally small percentage is solely opposite sex attracted--heterosexual.

The rest, 90%, have at least some sexual physiological response to both sexes. That is the vast majority of us.

 

[Sturdywords]

I am 56. Since I was a teenager I have been sexually attracted to men and have never experienced any sexual attraction to women whatsoever. I have fucked hundreds of men over the past four decades. If I am not homosexual, wtf am I?

 

[MisterB]

I am 56. Since I was a teenager I have been sexually attracted to men and have never experienced any sexual attraction to women whatsoever. I have fucked hundreds of men over the past four decades. If I am not homosexual, wtf am I?

You just haven't met the right woman...

 

[Acratopotes]

It's interesting to hear about many people having at least some physiological response to both sexes.

The Kinsey scale, which makes the point that attraction varies in degrees between complete heterosexuality at one end and complete homosexuality at the other, is not new: I think it dates from Kinsey's "Sexual Behavior in the Human Male" published in 1948. According to the Wikipedia article, Kinsey also believed sexual attraction was fluid, an idea that was picked up subsequently by Fritz Klein who based much of his book "The Bisexual Option" largely around that idea.

But, we also have the "born this way" argument which seems to be pulling slightly in the other direction. That seems to be an important argument for some people because then, when someone is not straight it becomes unreasonable to blame either the person concerned, or their parents and others who shape their early years experiences, and it reinforces the fact that conversion therapy is ineffective and it is dishonest to call it therapy at all. It tackles those who would make rules about how others should express their sexuality not with a "mind your own business and don't make unnecessary rules for others" but with "I can't help it, so you have to allow me to continue". But does that make it reasonable to say to someone who is bisexual that they should choose to express the straight part of that and repress the gay part? To me, the "mind your own business and don't make unnecessary rules for others" version is the right approach.

The reality is that human sexuality has some complexity to it and, while some labels can be useful, we must realize they are only ever an approximate description and should never be prescriptive. There is also a tendency to assume that other people are the same as us. So, those with some same-sex attraction find it hard to believe that others would be so disinterested in members of their own sex that they wouldn't even peek in the showers and assume that those who go to some trouble to avoid being naked with members of their own sex must actually have that attraction and be fearful of it.

We also have men who identify as gay but who clearly got aroused enough with a woman to be able to father children and maybe even maintain a relationship for a few years, though in the longer term it tends not to work out, as well as the men who, having married a woman, had a great sex life and raised a family together, find that as she ages and loses interest in sex, they can supplement that by getting together with other men, whether to just watch porn and jack off together, swap BJs or whatever.

The only reasonable conclusion for me is: Use a label if it helps you but don't obsess over it. Let other people lives their own lives without undue interference.

 

[coordinatedchaos]

There's nothing wrong with labels. It's some BS Californian-inspired nonsense to be edgy. If labels are evil, then let's ban nouns. Being straight, bi or gay, or pan, are just approximate things to describe human experience, and they broadly work. Some only are attracted to the opposite sex. Some are attracted to the same sex only. Others are attracted to both sexes. It is what it is. That said, and this might be unpopular to some, but then the idea that a man can be straight and then enjoy fucking men is cringe. It's just cope by men who cannot accept they're bi or just to be obstinate edgelords. To enjoy sex with another man, as in finding his body hot, getting a hard-on, and being capable of and enjoying penetration, shows a level of attraction there.

Sexuality to me is a spectrum. Most people fit somewhere on it from being straight, gay, or bi/pan.

I'd also say that by and large, people are born gay, or it's some epigenetic factor. Or maybe a neurological effect of formative experiences. there is no evidence that people actively choose their sexual orientation in their youth, as some believe. I don't agree that sexual orientation or being gay is entirely a social construct. Some men and women look naturally more feminine and masculine and are gay or lesbian. Is tat a coincidence? Or a matter of genetics? were they somehow washed with more hormones than normal in utero? Who is to say? It's possible for a person to change their bone structure to look more masculine or feminine, without very invasive cosmetic surgery.

 

[Troy71]

Oh brother.

 

[coordinatedchaos]

Some argue that sexuality is not a fixed trait but rather a product of societal influences and personal experiences. In this view, "homosexuality" as a distinct category is an artificial construct, and people’s attractions can shift over time. This perspective suggests that labeling people as strictly "gay" or "straight" oversimplifies human sexuality, which is more flexible than rigid categories allow. However, in recent years there has been an influx of gay men stating they are able to be attracted to women in all aspects.
Some people hold onto a label for various reasons—personal identity, community, or past experiences—even if their attractions evolve. A man who has identified as gay for most of his life might still use that label out of habit, even if he develops feelings for a woman.

That said, if someone consistently experiences attraction to both men and women, it would suggest that they’re not strictly gay but perhaps bisexual or fluid. At the end of the day, sexuality is personal, and people define their identities in ways that feel right to them.

So for me I have come to the conclusion that homosexuality does not exist.

Some people are strictly straight or gay though. That doesn’t mean the term gay is never applicable

 

[Troy71]

Oh brother.

Isn’t it under attack enough every day without denying it doesn’t exist. Jeez

 

[coordinatedchaos]

The premise isn’t sound here. Sexuality is fluid, but then this doesn't mean homosexuality doesn't exist. There are gay people of either sex who never had or never would have sex with the opposite sex. That's still a valid preference. The OP has taken a limited sample and then projected it to a mass.

 

[coordinatedchaos]

And yes, this "men who have sex with men" stuff who "aren't gay" is a myth IMHO. It may be an unpopular opinion, but it is what it is.