Is my straight friend actually straight?

[FrankieGuile]

do u want to hook up or do u want him to come out bc that is two different things. him coming out as gay doesnt mean he'll hook up with u. if u want to mess with a str8 guy understand the art of being a sneaky link. if that's not for u keep it pushing. also u have to stop forcing the gay labels on them. gay guys who pull str8 gays always gaslight them -" this doesnt make u gay to get ur cock sucked " n even if they end up fucking they are still 'str8.' Learn the game

A straight guy is not going to "mess" with a gay guy because...wait for it...he's straight! A "str8 gay" is a contradiction in terms. You are either heterosexual or you are homosexual and a sure sign of being homosexual is "if they end up fucking," as you say. He cannot be "still 'str8'" after such an act.

 

[Skagen Krauss]

This story about Dylan talks about a similar situation... Don't know if it is helpful but it helped me in understanding why some people struggle with it. It's fiction, so not comparable to you... But just a suggestion

Thank you. I was looking for some stories with straight guys either end up fucking or being together.

 

[FrankieGuile]

Thank you. I was looking for some stories with straight guys either end up fucking or being together.

It should be obvious that it's a contradiction in terms that "straight guys either end up fucking or being together," unless you're looking for science fiction or fantasy stories.

 

[bigboaster]

It should be obvious that it's a contradiction in terms that "straight guys either end up fucking or being together," unless you're looking for science fiction or fantasy stories.

The influence of fantasy is too strong for some. And some can't separate fantasy from reality. It is what it is. All this demonstrates is that even in 2024, some adult human males still don't understand the concept of sexual fluidity. Ouch!

 

[freeballerlondon]

The influence of fantasy is too strong for some. And some can't separate fantasy from reality. It is what it is. All this demonstrates is that even in 2024, some adult human males still don't understand the concept of sexual fluidity. Ouch!

Actually, that’s a bit of a misnomer. What people don’t understand is that someone’s sexual orientation/preferences may be at odds with their self-identification or self-presentation.
And I actually think that to this day, most people don’t understand that this disparity not only exists, but is actually very common. And especially in our ‘western’ culture, men in particular are absolutely not in touch with their own desires (in the broadest sense) at all

 

[FrankieGuile]

The influence of fantasy is too strong for some. And some can't separate fantasy from reality. It is what it is. All this demonstrates is that even in 2024, some adult human males still don't understand the concept of sexual fluidity. Ouch!

If fluidity means that heterosexuals are sometimes homosexuals and homosexuals are sometimes heterosexuals then fluidity is an illogical, absurd tautology.

 

[freeballerlondon]

If fluidity means that heterosexuals are sometimes homosexuals and homosexuals are sometimes heterosexuals then fluidity is an illogical, absurd tautology.

The concept of ‘sexual fluidity’ is ill-defined and not generally adopted by sexologists and psychologists. As I mentioned before, it’s something that has become popular because people have better access to public platforms now, and as far as I can tell, is predominantly popular amongst (post-)adolescent, activist queer people who, as social primates, seek connection and approval of their peers, while also maintaining their ‘uniqueness’.
Many people tend to confuse and conflate many different concepts, and without informing themselves, construct their own ‘version’ of the truth. Since our western society is cis-heterocentric, -dominant and heavily biased, it is difficult for someone to recognise their feelings and themselves, thus creating the illusion of ‘fluidity’.

I am aware that the previous will be perceived as ‘word salad’ to many, so let me give an (real) example.

We have given medical assistance to someone who originally identified as lesbian.
As time progressed, they more and more identified as a ‘butch’ lesbian, only to come out as transgender. They then changed their pronouns to ‘he’.
After counselling, they underwent hormone supplementation, and a mastectomy. When testosterone fully took effect, they changed their pronouns to ‘he/they’, and labelled themselves pansexual.

Now this person is a *huge* forefighter/activist of ‘informed consent’: the practice of transgender people deciding themselves whether they receive medical aid in transitioning, without the opinion of a medical professional.
They are also adamant about ‘sexual fluidity’

I, however, see a youngster who was never comfortable enough to fully embrace themselves. They identified as lesbian, because relationships with women is what they saw other men have. They don’t aspire to undergo ‘bottom’ surgery, because it was their breasts and rounded physique that caused dysphoria. (As a side note: their partner self-identifies as gay; this is his first partner without a fully-grown penis)

TL;DR: from a medical p.o.v., I don’t subscribe to the notion of fluidity, and consider it a by-effect of lack of self-insight.

 

[FrankieGuile]

The concept of ‘sexual fluidity’ is ill-defined and not generally adopted by sexologists and psychologists. As I mentioned before, it’s something that has become popular because people have better access to public platforms now, and as far as I can tell, is predominantly popular amongst (post-)adolescent, activist queer people who, as social primates, seek connection and approval of their peers, while also maintaining their ‘uniqueness’.
Many people tend to confuse and conflate many different concepts, and without informing themselves, construct their own ‘version’ of the truth. Since our western society is cis-heterocentric, -dominant and heavily biased, it is difficult for someone to recognise their feelings and themselves, thus creating the illusion of ‘fluidity’.

I am aware that the previous will be perceived as ‘word salad’ to many, so let me give an (real) example.

We have given medical assistance to someone who originally identified as lesbian.
As time progressed, they more and more identified as a ‘butch’ lesbian, only to come out as transgender. They then changed their pronouns to ‘he’.
After counselling, they underwent hormone supplementation, and a mastectomy. When testosterone fully took effect, they changed their pronouns to ‘he/they’, and labelled themselves pansexual.

Now this person is a *huge* forefighter/activist of ‘informed consent’: the practice of transgender people deciding themselves whether they receive medical aid in transitioning, without the opinion of a medical professional.
They are also adamant about ‘sexual fluidity’

I, however, see a youngster who was never comfortable enough to fully embrace themselves. They identified as lesbian, because relationships with women is what they saw other men have. They don’t aspire to undergo ‘bottom’ surgery, because it was their breasts and rounded physique that caused dysphoria. (As a side note: their partner self-identifies as gay; this is his first partner without a fully-grown penis)

TL;DR: from a medical p.o.v., I don’t subscribe to the notion of fluidity, and consider it a by-effect of lack of self-insight.

I appreciate the earnest, cogent reply, even though you flirted with the tasty lettuce of verbosity worthy of the finest French chefs. I can't quite work out if you agree, but it sounds directionally aligned with my more grammatically economic post, so I'll take what I can get. So, to be clear, I'm not saying ducks cannot identify as cows. I'm merely saying a duck is still a waterfowl even though it has altered its avian vocal cords to moo.

 

[freeballerlondon]

I appreciate the earnest, cogent reply, even though you flirted with the tasty lettuce of verbosity worthy of the finest French chefs. I can't quite work out if you agree, but it sounds directionally aligned with my more grammatically economic post, so I'll take what I can get. So, to be clear, I'm not saying ducks cannot identify as cows. I'm merely saying a duck is still a waterfowl even though it has altered its avian vocal cords to moo.

My apologies. I do (agree)

 

[freeballerlondon]

My apologies. I do (agree)

Actually, while typing the reply I became somewhat aware that my answer might be a *tad* nebulous

Hence, the example at the bottom.
(For those who mis-interpret my words and think that I said that eg women who underwent transgender therapy in their past: I most definitely did NOT. I hate the prefix but ‘trans women are women’.
But not everyone who undergoes transgender therapy, is transgender. )

 

[bigboaster]

If fluidity means that heterosexuals are sometimes homosexuals and homosexuals are sometimes heterosexuals then fluidity is an illogical, absurd tautology.

Fluidity in this case simply refers to bisexuals. Do you think they are absurd too?

 

[bigboaster]

The concept of ‘sexual fluidity’ is ill-defined and not generally adopted by sexologists and psychologists. As I mentioned before, it’s something that has become popular because people have better access to public platforms now, and as far as I can tell, is predominantly popular amongst (post-)adolescent, activist queer people who, as social primates, seek connection and approval of their peers, while also maintaining their ‘uniqueness’.
Many people tend to confuse and conflate many different concepts, and without informing themselves, construct their own ‘version’ of the truth. Since our western society is cis-heterocentric, -dominant and heavily biased, it is difficult for someone to recognise their feelings and themselves, thus creating the illusion of ‘fluidity’.

I am aware that the previous will be perceived as ‘word salad’ to many, so let me give an (real) example.


TL;DR: from a medical p.o.v., I don’t subscribe to the notion of fluidity, and consider it a by-effect of lack of self-insight.

I take a lot of issue with some of the things said here. So I do want to ask for clarification. Maybe word salad wasn't too far off?

1) How is sexual fluidity ill-defined? Seems pretty straight forward to me.
The idea that your sexuality isn't as fixed as one might think and can shift towards different expressions of gender/sex over time. Not only is this very clear, it's pretty demonstrable in everyday life.
Older men who live an ostensibly "straight" life before discovering their innate bisexuality later on, men/women who are otherwise straight but engage sexually with pre-OP trans individuals is a form sexual fluidity as well isn't it? Unless think straight men sucking penis and gay men licking vaginas are both perfectly inline with homosexuality?

2) Not adopted by sexologists? Based on what exactly? Any established sources or names you can point to that hold this position? Because in my experience the opposite is true, in recent years the concept of sexual fluidity is well studied. There are several many studies/articles affirming the subject but I will link one large study for now
Fixed or Fluid? Sexual Identity Fluidity in a Large National Panel Study of New Zealand Adults

3) Sexual fluidity is not just touted by young queer activists seeking connection and approval. I find this assertion quite condescending actually. Lisa Diamond, an adult grown psychologist more or less coined the term back in 2008 when she was researching the sexual fluid nature of women/young girls, which found that on average women are more sexually "fluid" than men

 

[freeballerlondon]

I take a lot of issue with some of the things said here. So I do want to ask for clarification. Maybe word salad wasn't too far off?

1) How is sexual fluidity ill-defined? Seems pretty straight forward to me.
The idea that your sexuality isn't as fixed as one might think and can shift towards different expressions of gender/sex over time. Not only is this very clear, it's pretty demonstrable in everyday life.
Older men who live an ostensibly "straight" life before discovering their innate bisexuality later on,

That is not proof of sexuality being fluid, but proof of a growing insight into one’s sexuality. Of course, if you define ‘sexuality’ as self-reported sexuality than this statement might be true, but I have never NOT encountered that people who came into their own, later in life, did not know, in hindsight and perhaps deeply repressed, that they were, for instance, bisexual or even gay. I emphasise: never.
No matter how deeply repressed one’s sexuality may be, that is still not proof of fluidity.

[…] men/women who are otherwise straight but engage sexually with pre-OP trans individuals is a form sexual fluidity as well isn't it?

Self-reported sexuality is commonly not fully aligned with actual sexuality. I prefer not using the terms ‘gay’, ‘straight’ because that introduces an oversimplification, but I personally believe that ‘true’ Kinsey 0’s are about as rare as Kinsey 6’s.
(I’m NOT willing to go into discussion what my underlying rationale is but my personal estimate is, if all confounders were removed - a little under 10%)

Unless think straight men sucking penis and gay men licking vaginas are both perfectly inline with homosexuality?

See above

2) Not adopted by sexologists? Based on what exactly? Any established sources or names you can point to that hold this position? Because in my experience the opposite is true, in recent years the concept of sexual fluidity is well studied.

‘Sexual fluidity’ is not a well-defined concept. There are certain groups that are interested in the subject, but when looking at the bulk of the articles, the actual proportion is small.

There are several many studies/articles affirming the subject but I will link one large study for now
Fixed or Fluid? Sexual Identity Fluidity in a Large National Panel Study of New Zealand Adults

I am familiar with this article and apart from its methodological flaws, it’s also one in the category “water is wet”
“Here, we overcome these issues by assessing women’s and men’s self-defined sexual orientation/identity (abbreviated hereafter as “sexual identity”) in a large national longitudinal study (i.e., over eight annual waves).”
In other words, this paper demonstrates that some (actually fewer than I expected) people self-define their sexuality differently than they did earlier in life. Well, we already knew that, didn’t we?

3) Sexual fluidity is not just touted by young queer activists seeking connection and approval. I find this assertion quite condescending actually. Lisa Diamond, an adult grown psychologist more or less coined the term back in 2008 when she was researching the sexual fluid nature of women/young girls, which found that on average women are more sexually "fluid" than men

This is the problem with vague definitions. What Diamond means with ‘fluid’ is NOT what was mentioned elsewhere. Yes, sexuality is not binary, and most people are not one of either polar opposite. That is something we know. (But it is good that this article demonstrates that quite a few people are not absolutely ‘gay’ or ‘straight’.

3) Sexual fluidity is not just touted by young queer activists seeking connection and approval. I find this assertion quite condescending actually.

I’m aware that I sometimes get a little testy about this, but that is because it is just so *damned* frustrating that people nowadays categorically refuse to inform themselves properly, but instead just resort to social media.
For the record, I did not specify queer activists (that was an example to make the matter a bit more readable). But I do encounter this behaviour more commonly amongst youngsters (and seeking connection and approval is something that is engrained in our animal species).
“I’m sexually fluid!”. No sweetie, you’re just a Kinsey 2 (4, whatever). Nothing special about it.

 

[bigboaster]

That is not proof of sexuality being fluid, but proof of a growing insight into one’s sexuality. Of course, if you define ‘sexuality’ as self-reported sexuality than this statement might be true, but I have never NOT encountered that people who came into their own, later in life, did not know, in hindsight and perhaps deeply repressed, that they were, for instance, bisexual or even gay. I emphasise: never.
No matter how deeply repressed one’s sexuality may be, that is still not proof of fluidity.


Self-reported sexuality is commonly not fully aligned with actual sexuality. I prefer not using the terms ‘gay’, ‘straight’ because that introduces an oversimplification, but I personally believe that ‘true’ Kinsey 0’s are about as rare as Kinsey 6’s.
(I’m NOT willing to go into discussion what my underlying rationale is but my personal estimate is, if all confounders were removed - a little under 10%)


See above

‘Sexual fluidity’ is not a well-defined concept. There are certain groups that are interested in the subject, but when looking at the bulk of the articles, the actual proportion is small.

I am familiar with this article and apart from its methodological flaws, it’s also one in the category “water is wet”
“Here, we overcome these issues by assessing women’s and men’s self-defined sexual orientation/identity (abbreviated hereafter as “sexual identity”) in a large national longitudinal study (i.e., over eight annual waves).”
In other words, this paper demonstrates that some (actually fewer than I expected) people self-define their sexuality differently than they did earlier in life. Well, we already knew that, didn’t we?

This is the problem with vague definitions. What Diamond means with ‘fluid’ is NOT what was mentioned elsewhere. Yes, sexuality is not binary, and most people are not one of either polar opposite. That is something we know. (But it is good that this article demonstrates that quite a few people are not absolutely ‘gay’ or ‘straight’.


I’m aware that I sometimes get a little testy about this, but that is because it is just so *damned* frustrating that people nowadays categorically refuse to inform themselves properly, but instead just resort to social media.
For the record, I did not specify queer activists (that was an example to make the matter a bit more readable). But I do encounter this behaviour more commonly amongst youngsters (and seeking connection and approval is something that is engrained in our animal species).
“I’m sexually fluid!”. No sweetie, you’re just a Kinsey 2 (4, whatever). Nothing special about it.

Well I'm glad you clarified here. That's kind of what I was hoping for. Because I figured you would be a lot more reasonable about this topic. You didn't seem like the type to fall easily into reductive conclusions to me.

Most of what you said here is not really arguable and it's well reasoned. I'm the first person to admit this field in general is often plagued with vaguery and potential language and semantic confusion. Soft sciences tend to be that way I guess. Especially any topic involving self reporting as its main Base.

To your last point. Fair enough. Some of these people can be quite overzealous at times and certainly play fast and loose with words on occasion.

 

[freeballerlondon]

Well I'm glad you clarified here. That's kind of what I was hoping for. Because I figured you would be a lot more reasonable about this topic. You didn't seem like the type to fall easily into reductive conclusions to me.

Actually, I’m surprised you never picked up on my own sexual orientation. Because I am, very much, a Kinsey 6

Most of what you said here is not really arguable and it's well reasoned. I'm the first person to admit this field in general is often plagued with vaguery and potential language and semantic confusion. Soft sciences tend to be that way I guess. Especially any topic involving self reporting as its main Base.

To your last point. Fair enough. Some of these people can be quite overzealous at times and certainly play fast and loose with words on occasion.

That is very sweet of you.

I was actually considering writing a little personal addendum:

Your profile states that you self-identify as pansexual. Now we’re not getting into the debate about terminology (I would say bisexual because pansexual combines multiple factors), but many people would consider that ‘sexually fluid’, even more so if you had been in a relationship with one type of person and a completely different one, thereafte - which is of course complete nonsense.

If there is no clear preference for a particular ‘type’ of person, then bedding one on one occasion, and another on another occasion, is not ‘fluid’. The EXPRESSION of your sexuality may look fluid to the outside world - although they just see the one facet of a multi-faceted sexuality.

 

[FrankieGuile]

Fluidity in this case simply refers to bisexuals. Do you think they are absurd too?

What I think is absurd is the notion that a person can be homosexual one day, then heterosexual another day and then homosexual a different day. What I think is absurd is not embracing what you are.

 

[FrankieGuile]

That is not proof of sexuality being fluid, but proof of a growing insight into one’s sexuality. Of course, if you define ‘sexuality’ as self-reported sexuality than this statement might be true, but I have never NOT encountered that people who came into their own, later in life, did not know, in hindsight and perhaps deeply repressed, that they were, for instance, bisexual or even gay. I emphasise: never.
No matter how deeply repressed one’s sexuality may be, that is still not proof of fluidity.


Self-reported sexuality is commonly not fully aligned with actual sexuality. I prefer not using the terms ‘gay’, ‘straight’ because that introduces an oversimplification, but I personally believe that ‘true’ Kinsey 0’s are about as rare as Kinsey 6’s.
(I’m NOT willing to go into discussion what my underlying rationale is but my personal estimate is, if all confounders were removed - a little under 10%)


See above

‘Sexual fluidity’ is not a well-defined concept. There are certain groups that are interested in the subject, but when looking at the bulk of the articles, the actual proportion is small.

I am familiar with this article and apart from its methodological flaws, it’s also one in the category “water is wet”
“Here, we overcome these issues by assessing women’s and men’s self-defined sexual orientation/identity (abbreviated hereafter as “sexual identity”) in a large national longitudinal study (i.e., over eight annual waves).”
In other words, this paper demonstrates that some (actually fewer than I expected) people self-define their sexuality differently than they did earlier in life. Well, we already knew that, didn’t we?

This is the problem with vague definitions. What Diamond means with ‘fluid’ is NOT what was mentioned elsewhere. Yes, sexuality is not binary, and most people are not one of either polar opposite. That is something we know. (But it is good that this article demonstrates that quite a few people are not absolutely ‘gay’ or ‘straight’.


I’m aware that I sometimes get a little testy about this, but that is because it is just so *damned* frustrating that people nowadays categorically refuse to inform themselves properly, but instead just resort to social media.
For the record, I did not specify queer activists (that was an example to make the matter a bit more readable). But I do encounter this behaviour more commonly amongst youngsters (and seeking connection and approval is something that is engrained in our animal species).
“I’m sexually fluid!”. No sweetie, you’re just a Kinsey 2 (4, whatever). Nothing special about it.

The concept of fluidity breaks down for me because it is one-directional. That "growing insight into one's sexuality" you observed is only accepted if one is heterosexual and then becomes homosexual (or substitute "straight" to "gay" or "bi," if you wish). It is not only accepted, but advocated as progress for which one gains approval. If one is homosexual and then swears off same-sex sexual intimacy forever in favor of a heterosexual identity, then such an act is considered regressive, a threat, and fodder for denigration. I guess the sexual identity river only flows from the highlands of heterosexuality to the valley of homosexuality and into a lake of hypocrisy.

 

[freeballerlondon]

The concept of fluidity breaks down for me because it is one-directional. That "growing insight into one's sexuality" you observed is only accepted if one is heterosexual and then becomes homosexual (or substitute "straight" to "gay" or "bi," if you wish). It is not only accepted, but advocated as progress for which one gains approval. If one is homosexual and then swears off same-sex sexual intimacy forever in favor of a heterosexual identity, then such an act is considered regressive, a threat, and fodder for denigration. I guess the sexual identity river only flows from the highlands of heterosexuality to the valley of homosexuality and into a lake of hypocrisy.

I don’t know where this diatribe comes from, but I actually know people who initially self-identified as gay, and later in life self-identified as straight**. Granted, it is less common than the other way around, but that is because, and I quote myself:

[…] Since our western society is cis-heterocentric, -dominant and heavily biased, it is difficult for someone to recognise their feelings and themselves,[…]

Simply put, a lot of people start life at a disadvantage because society teaches them that interhuman relationships are between two individuals of opposite genders. (And ‘obviously’ adhering to traditional gender expression )

But your entire entry is quite superfluous, because I think that it is fairly obvious that I have serious misgivings about the concept of ‘fluidity’

**it’s fairly obvious that these people were probably never gay, nor straight, to begin with. (although there’s one who I’d classify as Kinsey 6 notwithstanding the fact that he is married to a woman and has sex with her)

 

[FrankieGuile]

I don’t know where this diatribe comes from, but I actually know people who initially self-identified as gay, and later in life self-identified as straight**. Granted, it is less common than the other way around, but that is because, and I quote myself:


Simply put, a lot of people start life at a disadvantage because society teaches them that interhuman relationships are between two individuals of opposite genders. (And ‘obviously’ adhering to traditional gender expression )

But your entire entry is quite superfluous, because I think that it is fairly obvious that I have serious misgivings about the concept of ‘fluidity’

**it’s fairly obvious that these people were probably never gay, nor straight, to begin with. (although there’s one who I’d classify as Kinsey 6 notwithstanding the fact that he is married to a woman and has sex with her)

A diatribe is a bitter, sharply abusive denunciation, attack, or criticism. My post does not fit that definition. However, it did rattle your sensibilities and, perhaps, because it provoked a rational thought and challenged the accepted narrative. In any event, it was a reasoned, logical post, no doubt breaking with orthodoxy.

 

[freeballerlondon]

A diatribe is a bitter, sharply abusive denunciation, attack, or criticism. My post does not fit that definition.

That is *a* definition.

However, it did rattle your sensibilities and, perhaps, because it provoked a rational thought

You either don’t understand what I wrote, or didn’t read it.

and challenged the accepted narrative.

That remains to be seen, since there is no ‘accepted narrative’ regarding this subject. As @bigboaster and I were discussing.

In any event, it was a reasoned, logical post, no doubt breaking with orthodoxy.

Erm …