Can you be a lesbian but still like sex with men?

[velourvoyageur]

Just wondering. Promise I'm not a troll.
I sometimes wonder if I'm just plain gay and not bi but I do like sex with men because (sorry) there's nothing else exactly like a dick. But I don't feel the same attraction to men as I do to women.

It's not that important, I mean the classification of attraction or whatever, don't mind if I or anyone else is gay, bi, straight, just curious as to whether anyone had any thoughts?

I don't really care why I am the way I am, or why anyone else is the way they are. I think it's ethics and morality that matters in relationships with other people and sexuality literally says nothing at all about this.

I agree the chemical science is a factor not the answer, and just a way of trying to get physiological answers to a puzzle. And many more parts and factors to take into account if we study the subject. Certainly one is nuture...what we are exposed to and our environment and events.

I was brought up in an all female family, grandmother, mother and aunt. I feel safe with woman, I feel comfortable. No wonder then that that is where I feel I belong. I have a fear, more a discomfort, of loud, shouty, aggressive, conceited, ungroomed males, for reasons I won't go into but that's a factor. In a very bad time in my life the kindness I got was from a female who picked it up. Of course I loved her for it. Nothing sexual though just a connection, a meeting of minds.

I married, I loved him but for various reasons he let me and my sons down badly. He wanted the single life, money and freedom, he was unwell too and panicking. He could have come back...he didn't. Who was there for me/us? A female who cared and helped....

I'm going on. It's because the subject isn't aired enough or remotely understood and we all have our stories...and our pain from being so misunderstood. By so many. Good to find others here who get it.

I know of someone who identifies as lesbian, but is married to a man and has children. She has never been attracted to any other man than her husband, but is faithful to him despite her attraction to other women. She wouldn't say she's bisexual either, she says she's a lesbian.

However I've always thought arguments about 'being born that way' kind of betray an acceptance that there is something inherently wrong with the sexuality of the person being judged - you don't need the excuse of it being 'not your fault' to be allowed to have your sexuality, whatever it is.

I agree.

I have thought this for years, but I rarely say it because IME people are very invested in the "born that way" story.

"You can't discriminate against them, because they were born that way."

So if they had chosen it, then it would be OK to deny them equal rights?

I think that's why the bisexuality fears - they could "choose" to be straight. Their homosexuality is not an undeniable biological fact, an unfortunate situation thrust upon them by nature. It's something they do as it pleases them - hence greedy, untrustworthy, phase, etc.

It makes so little sense to me that sexuality, which is so complex and not static, but involves so much learning and habit, could be pre-programmed by birth.

Which is not to say we actively choose who we are attracted to, obviously. But I think it is, in part, shaped by our choices and experiences and the people we know and the culture we grew up in.

I do tell partners. I try not to mention it in work or when socialising. Avoid the questions. Ever had people assume you like group sex/threesomes? I've been asked so many times. They seem to think I need both genders at the same time. So insulting.

It is easier to choose to be straight and I think many many people make that choice. Even given the prejudice against people who identify as bisexual, the idea of a continuum of sexuality is increasingly accepted. I don't think a continuum is quite the right analogy. I don't think sexuality is so linear. But it is an improvement on rigid categories of identity. I have seen groups of younger people (that my kids hang out with) who seem to have a more fluid understanding of sexuality...with mixed friendship groups and loving/tactile/platonic/sexual relationships amongst the groups and their members.

It is easier to choose to be straight and I think many many people make that choice.

Yes, for sure.

I wonder if I chose it.

Not as a free choice, but as a gradual limiting of options through learning how to be sexual with opposite sex partners?

I'm going on. It's because the subject isn't aired enough or remotely understood and we all have our stories...and our pain from being so misunderstood. By so many. Good to find others here who get it.

Yes, I feel exactly the same!

Yes, every straight man, who knew about it, at least mentioned threesomes and some obsessed over them. I have had one. I was single and quite young at the time, it was a good experience but it's not something I'd repeat and it was basically because I was attracted to the female partner in a couple who were after a threesome. Thing is if you've ever had a threesome and are bisexual that's it then - judgement.

Often knocked that on the head by getting all pretend excited and talking about inviting another man.

I'm by no means promiscuous. I've averaged less than 1 sexual partner a year since I became sexually active and most have been long term relationships of years in length. I've never had a one night stand.

But you know I'm not promiscuous because of how I'm attracted to people, I don't think there is anything wrong with being promiscuous provided you are respectful to partners and yourself and look after your sexual health. There are promiscuous people of all sexualities.

I found it funny being in San Francisco recently because it is socially acceptable for gay men to be non-monogamous and promiscuous (usually as a reaction to hetero-monogamous expectations of society) and everyone was very keen to point out that they don't believe in monogamy but everyone seemed to be in long term monogamous relationships!!!

I think all the labelling has got really, really toxic. I wish people could just be how they are.

I'm straighter than a straight thing, but suspect it's as much cultural as hormonal. Similar to an earlier poster, if I were to find, for example, Halle Berry in my bed I wouldn't be in a huge hurry to throw her out. (Realistically she'd probably take one look at me and leap out in a hurry, but eh, it's all highly theoretical.)

The breeding issue is a bit of a non-explanation really. I mean, most people in a steady couple will, in the normal course of things, have a lot more sex than is strictly necessary for procreation. For that matter a lot of single people have a lot of sex when they have absolutely no intention of procreating at that time. So really, if a lot of that sex is with people you can't conceive with, it's no different to sex with people you could theoretically conceive with but have chosen not to - it's a pastime, a bonding activity, a demonstration of affection, all sorts of stuff that doesn't need to involve babies. Out of the breeding season quite a lot of animals have a bit of the other and aren't too fussy who with, so enough of this "it's unnatural" bullshit.

How about rather than finding a culturally acceptably hot actor in your bed and not 'kicking her out' you found yourself attracted to a real life person who you found fascinating, intriguing, exciting, attractive, drawn to for some reason...?

I think that's kind of what Annie meant. She identifies as straight so imagine she's never meant a 'RL' woman who fulfills those criteria.

How about rather than finding a culturally acceptably hot actor in your bed and not 'kicking her out' you found yourself attracted to a real life person who you found fascinating, intriguing, exciting, attractive, drawn to for some reason...?

This wasn't addresses to me, but I'm going to answer anyway.

I'm helpful like that

Like Offred, I don't really get the fancying actors/celebrities thing. I need to know someone to fancy them.

If I found myself feeling those things about a woman (and I have, very occasionally), I wouldn't really know what to do with it.

I don't know how to flirt with a woman. I wouldn't know how to pick up on the signals if she was interested in me. It often takes me an embarrassingly long time to figure out that two "BFFs" are actually lovers.

The only way I can imagine something happening is over a really long time where a friendship developed and gradually sexual feelings could be explored.

But I would be so shy, and so nervous. All the sexual confidence I built up gradually over years would be gone.

IME bathtime it is all about confidence in yourself yes.

I don't find a difference between men and women. If there's a person I like it's exactly the same, I flirt, pick up signals, either get with them or don't.

I've had more than one BF who started off straight and turned out to actually be gay though so no guarantees with anyone really.

Often wondered if the gay guys were attracted to the fact I'm pretty open sexually and to sexuality and I was therefore a safe person to be with while they came out. One in particular was gayer than a gay thing - literally no interest in women. I dated him briefly at 15, I don't think he has even entertained being with a female since.

I think like attracts like. Whilst with my exH we used to talk honestly to try to save the marriage and I was struggling with my feelings for women. He admitted he was attracted to other males, but would never act on it. I don't think he has either.

I knew another couple exactly the same, although the man did act on it after they split up.

Let's say there's a scale of 1-10, where 1 is "only attracted to the opposite sex" and 10 is "only attracted to the same sex".

And let's say that the is an amount of this that is inbuilt - you have a place on the scale that you "naturally" fall.

In a world with a lot of discrimination against homosexuality, only people who rate an 8, 9, or 10 would "be gay".

Anyone in the 4,5,6,7 range would either hide their attraction to the same sex or suppress it, maybe not admitting it even to themselves. They would act as if they were a 1, 2, or 3.

So the people who "are gay" are the people who are "born that way" and have no choices. And in a world where it's thought to be "wrong", it's helpful to be able to say that it is NOT a choice.

But there are still lots of people who exist whose sexuality includes both the same and opposite sex.

I suspect that in future, once we are a generation or so removed from the time when homosexuality was illegal, there will be much more acceptance of sexual preferences that are in the middle.

It's helpful only in terms of 'fitting in' though. Which is often not very helpful at all in reality. To individuals or societies.

Often the 'born that way' thing involves, for example, gay men citing examples of playing with 'female' toys as a child etc... It's all related to sexism... I think, if people do choose, it is often because they want to identify with the chosen group, and they can want to identify with a group for a myriad of reasons, so you get people who are 10 sometimes 'choosing' to 'be' a 1 and vice versa.

My point was more that I don't think children are born with a set sexuality. They like the way fiddling with themselves feels, they then, throughout early childhood, childhood and adolescence, learn and refine a developed sexuality based on a huge number of things including what is socially acceptable and what feels meaningful to them, by the time they reach sexual maturity I think sexuality is then set and unable to be changed which is a slightly different thing to being born into it.

I can understand why making that point would be worrisome in an age where we still have religious groups lobbying for 'gay cures' and bans on sex education that includes homosexuality.

I do think though that the processes that shape sexuality are just too complex to be attributed to an innate characteristic that someone was born with, which is another reason it's bad to go with the 'born this way' thing.

There is nothing wrong with being gay or bisexual no matter how you got that way. You don't need to limit or label yourself, it's better to be true to yourself as freedom to express your sexuality is quite important for mental and emotional wellbeing IMO. That's what it is important to be arguing for not that it is essentially a valid argument that same sex attraction is wrong but no-one can change it so it should not be discriminated against.

Though I don't think people could really change the complex sexual socialisation process to manipulate and outcome anyway

That is essentially what has been tried (and failed) in the past.

I really think it's the (primarily) religious position that same sex attraction and essentially having sex at all is inherently wrong that deserves the intense scrutiny that is being applied to individuals sexual relationships... Just why exactly is it wrong? Many times I've thought that the group thinking around religious beliefs of many kinds is protected from scrutiny because it is group think where really if it were individuals alone saying and believing some of the things those individuals would likely be sectioned.

Religion, really polytheistic religions served a useful purpose before we had science but really? Nowadays? Not believing in evolution? Believing an omnipotent God created women from adam's rib? It seems a delusion in the face of science.

And really, fine if you as an individual believe that but if those views are to be applied widely in society they have to be subject to the same processes of scrutiny as everything else.

Shocking we have bishops in the lords.

Also shocking we still are quite uncomfortable with scrutinising religious beliefs in public life too - gay marriage should not have had such a fuss over it. It's sad that it did.

But going back to the op, anyone can call themselves whatever they like, people are free to define themselves entirely but technically if you have both same sex and opposite sex attraction then it's correct to say you are bisexual. That would make everyone from 2-9 on the scale bisexual, technically.

If the words weren't loaded no-one would have any problems using the technically correct term I guess.