Ask one of Jehovah's Witnesses

[vorlon13]

Randy: Yes, I have you on ignore and just take the occasional peek. Fair enough, I shall stop discussing you and your posts. I apologize if I have been rude or caused upset, that wasn't my intention. I found some of them to be interesting talking points but on reflection I shouldn't have been discussing them while having you on ignore. Sorry about that.

---

Hey I had a psychotomy! I mean an epiphany. I've always thought of sexuality as being a "sliding scale", but I realized today that's too simplistic. That would make it seem like someone right in the middle is less attracted to men and to women than the corresponding straight ends. So I was thinking it should be two sliding scales, going from 0 to 100, one for attraction to men and one for women. And the two are independent, they don't have to add up to 100 or anything. So for example maybe I'm 95 women, 8 men, say. Is that a decent kind of model? Someone who's bisexual might be 90 women 85 men, or 70 women, 98 men, or whatever else. Would any of our bisexuals be willing to comment on whether that makes sense or if I'm talking balls?

I have found this helpful:

sexuality can be represented in an individual by 3 facets; what  a  person actually does tp start with.  If you're a man, and always have sex with a woman, always with another man, or various ratios is one part of it, you can do the math.

Another part is how one views themselves.  Regardless of your man woman sexual activity ratio, you can view yourself any way you want.  (I've encountered men with remarkable discrepancies in how they view themselves vs. what they are actually doing.) (really)

And lastly, emotionally, if the individual is capable of loving another person, what, if any, are the gender constraints on the object of affection?



I've encountered men that were only having sex with other men, that nevertheless had a sincere belief they were hetero.  (Yes, Dick B, I am talking about YOU!!)  I encountered a very nice married man many years ago, truly deeply in love with his wife, whom was the only person he ever had sex with, and he viewed himself 100% hetero.  Yet he fell in love with me.  That was quite a jolt for all 3 of us.

I've encountered men of all persuasions that in my judgment are 100% incapable of falling in love with anyone regardless of gender.  In regards to myself, I can't rule it out, but it would be profoundly unlikely for me to fall in love with a woman.  No offense ladies, but you simply do not 'register' on my radar.  I probably come off as  misogynistic, but I feel that for most people that are actually that way, they take an active approach to being that way, I'm just instantly distracted by men, if any are around, when women are present.  I feel it's different in my case, I don't hate women, they would have to 'register' for me to have strong feelings in that regard. I am 100% indifferent. I don't see that as misogynism.

It can make for funny situations;  a few times women have attempted to employ 'feminine wiles' to get me to do something.  They are extremely lucky if I even notice.  A local woman here, I realize, wants me to ask her out.  I picked up, eventually, on her interest, but totally misconstrued what she wanted and I tried to set her up with a (hetero) friend of mine.  It wasn't what she wanted at all.  Not to make light of her feelings, but it took me a while to work all that out and I found it humorous just how totally clueless I am at 'reading' women.  A guy says hi to me and I'm on full tactical alert, a woman throws herself at my feet and I'll assume she lost her contact lens.

To summarize:

sexuality is the 'sum' of 3 factors:

*what you're actually doing
*how you're looking at it
*what you're potentially capable of emotionally

I'm 100% gay on all 3 (no surprise there) but I sure have been surprised by men I have encountered that cannot claim 3 100%s on the hetero scales.