Friend says he's heterosexual eventhough he's married to a man!!

[user1485442361]

That's it really. I've known him since he was 34 and I was 17. He's been with his Husband 20 years and they got married two years ago.

He was a bit of a player when he met his partner. He admits he's slept with a lot of women. He met his partner at work, knew he was gay and they developed a very very close friendship which cumulated in him falling in love with his friend and it just went from there. He absolutely adores his Husband and definitely fancies him. No doubt about that.

But while publicly he just says he's gay. He has always told me (his best friend) that he is in fact only attracted to women. He is in love and sexually attracted to his Husband and fell completely in love with him. But apart from his Husband, he has absolutely no attraction to men whatsoever. He is however, sexually attracted to women.

He would never even worry about sleep in a bed with a man because he knows he wouldn't be interested but with a woman he wouldn't put himself in any situation where he might cheat. His husband knows he's heterosexual and always jokes to me that he made him 'see the light'.

I just find it a bit hard to believe really. But I know I'm being a bit ignorant on this subject. Would I be unreasonable to think he can't be heterosexual and in love with a man?

Doctor yes why dies your friend need a label of lesbian?

An ex best friend of mine has been a lesbian for many years and has had a few female partners. However she's also had many male partners and has 2 kids. To me that makes her bisexual but she says not. Whatever....

Helena I think the bisexual hate for some men (unsure re women) is if they can have anal sex with a man then PIV sex with a woman in another relationship that somehow if condoms aren't used its unclean... I don't think that personally but have heard that and it's partly what put me and friends off dating etc bisexual men when younger.. Of course attitudes have changed a bit since the re safe sex but I know a few gay men who still don't use condoms...

By wanky I mean it just sounds wrong. I can't see how straight and married to a man aren't contradictory.

In my mind straight people have very close friendships but would never consider having a sexual relationship with a person of the same gender. Same goes for gay people but with opposite sex relationships. Anything else is just bisexual to me with a preference for a specific gender.

Realistically though someone's sexuality is their own business. I would find it weird though if someone used the terms you state here.

Plenty of women who have had prior relationships with men then do come out as lesbian as well as bisexual, and I don't think they are necessarily mistaken. For many women, acknowledging attraction to another woman, never mind pursuing it, just wasn't an option. Marrying men and having children is just what you do, and when you've done that and then find out what's possible, well... And some of those women will be bi, and remain open to relationships with both sexes, and some of those women will be lesbian, and never contemplate a relationship with a man again.

On the other hand, I do know a number of men who are in het marriages and consider themselves absolutely straight, but who have enthusiastic sex (sanctioned by their wives) with men outside of their marriages. This is why a lot of HIV+ education was pitched at "men who have sex with men" rather than just "gay and bisexual men". And I don't understand it at all, but there you go.

I have a male friend who is married to a woman but says he IDs as gay because he is 99% attracted to men. He just met her and something clicked. But if they broke up, he'd go back to men straight away.

I'm another one with a female friend who identifies as heterosexual but is married to a woman. Her wife identifies as a lesbian. My friend was already with her partner when I met her, so I was a bit surprised when I found out she is heterosexual (I said something about her being a lesbian, and she corrected me). But it isn't too hard to get your head around, and is really no one else's business, anyway.

Ok, so words don't have any meaning any more and we can all call ourselves whatever we feel like no matter how inaccurate, cos labels are optional.
Cool, I'm now a lesbian vegetarian japanese supermodel. No-one elses business, is it?

I can't see what's wrong with a label or more likely a word that just describes reality. If someone was a genius or an Olympic sporstman, they wouldn't mind being called that. What is wrong with being gay or bisexual?
I would say he used to be heterosexual, now he is bisexual as attracted to person(s) of both sexes. Things can change.

"Label" is just another word for "word". And words exist because humans want a common language in order to communicate with each other. If we all decide that we can each define a word or label whichever way we want, then we don't have a common understanding and therefore cannot communicate effectively.

So, if Navy can declare herself a "lesbian vegetarian japanese supermodel" when she is really a Caucasian omnivore with a penis (no offense meant, Navy!), then "communication" did not happen. For the sake of preserving the integrity of our common language, it is important for our words to have a common definition that is broadly accepted.

Obviously words/labels' meanings evolve with time but that is a reason to update their meanings, not an excuse to do away with need for words/labels.

Narky, I meant!

Exactly. Words/labels have meanings completely separate to our feelings about them. I don't ask a chimpanzee if it identifies as a chimpanzee, it either is one or isn't one, its not a gibbon even if it feels a bit gibbony.

I am neither a lesbian, nor vegetarian, nor Japanese, and I can't just decide that I am. I have sex with men, so I'm not a lesbian, I eat meat so I'm not a vegetarian, and I've never even been to Japan. I can't self identify against the actual facts of the matter.

It's quite an unusual situation isn't it op? I have many gay friends and relatives, some of whom have had heterosexual relationships before being with their current partner, but not one of them insists they are heterosexual despite loving and being married to someone of their own sex.

I can understand your difficulty in getting your head round it.

I think there's a difference between what you are and what you do - a difference between embodying a certain label and performing it.

I "identify" as lesbian. I haven't slept with a woman for several years (nor a man).

A female friend of mine doesn't identify one way or another, and has been in a sexual relationship with a woman for ten years.

Are we both lesbians? Does it matter?

I'm interested re OP saying her friend would never be with another man other than his husband because he isn't attracted to men.

How does he or indeed how do any of us know that of ourselves? Just because I've never been attracted to another woman doesn't mean I might meet a woman one day who I totally fall for. I don't know how the OPs friend can say he will never find any other man attractive because he is straight, aside from finding his husband attractive.

If we all decide that we can each define a word or label whichever way we want, then we don't have a common understanding and therefore cannot communicate effectively.

But the question is why sexualty has to be labelled. In fact why do you need to communicate sexuality at all. Why do you need to know or label someone else's sexuality.

It's not the same as vegetarianism where I may need to know how to cater for you. You don't actually need to cater for someone else's sexuality just the person they are and the person they are with.

The only time is if you are proposing yourself as a partner in which case do you fancy me kinda works as well as any label.

Which means that actually if they identify themselves differently than how you would why does it matter?

He sounds bisexual to me. But whatever. People define these words different ways. But he also sounds defensive. If he fancies his partner and he's not planning to shag anyone else then maybe it doesn't matter what he calls himself. Or maybe it does matter, because by calling himself heterosexual he's implying he's not really sexually attracted to his own husband. So it's a bit of a put-down.

He is only attracted to his Husband. No other men.

He says. He might surprise himself, especially if he assumes he is "safe" from feeling attracted to other men and is only taking care around women. I would take it all with a huge pinch of salt.

Oh, and if I was his husband I might be worried.

I think there's a difference between what you are and what you do - a difference between embodying a certain label and performing it

Yes, but if you are embodying a certain label AND performing it, you cannot claim to be the exact opposite of that label! Thats the point here.

You can't be married to a man, be having sex with a man (if you are a man) and claim to be 100% heterosexual.

"In fact why do you need to communicate sexuality at all. Why do you need to know or label someone else's sexuality."

Really? So when you are dating, you are never curious about your potential partner's sexual history, especially if you've heard that it involves partners on both sides? It may not occur to you to be interested in that, but trust me, it's interesting to many of us. And so, for us, we would need a common set of words/labels with broadly accepted definitions to both think about it and to talk to him about it.

"You fancy me" doesn't work for me. It's not about him fancying me, it's about me fancying him. And the strength of his sexual preference either way is of consideration to me. It may not matter to you, but trust me, it does to many of us. Again, it's about having the tools for effective communication.

"In fact why do you need to communicate sexuality at all. Why do you need to know or label someone else's sexuality

It's useful to know when people are outright lying, or in denial. And other reasons.

I would never say I would never fall in love with a man. In fact once I did have very very strong feelings for a man and would have dated him if he'd asked me out., But I'm not bisexual. I am attracted to women exclusively.

To be interested in a man I would have to have spent years with them and see outside their gender completely.

There's a difference between general orientation and current behaviour. If we want to label ourselves, then both are arguably important, yet current behaviour often seen as less important compared to general/historical orientation, when it comes to how a person self-identifies. So your friend's orientation is heterosexual. He's never been someone who saw himself as attracted to men. His current behaviour is homosexual, but he would seem to derive his identity not from that, but from his general/historical protestation. And I get that. Personally, my orientation is bisexual but, married to a man, my behaviour is heterosexual. Yet it would feel weird to call myself straight as that's not my sense of myself over time. So I think I would still call myself bisexual, even if I didn't sleep with another woman again ever.

*Orientation, not protestation!

But it's not really lying.

That's how he feels about himself. That's his perspective.

However your perspective is a rigid interpretation of labels.

You may be right technically, but that doesn't really mean he's lying. He's just using the labels to describe how he feels about himself.

I think he is being a bit silly.

Words are there to communicate.

I don't see how his describing himself as heterosexual could do anything other than confuse others (I thought he was married to a man) or potentially upset his husband.

But I'd shrug it off because it really shouldn't be something that comes up very often, so it would only irritate me that he was being silly very infrequently.

Nailed it, Trills. It's his own personal eccentricity OP.