A Show of Gay Pride

[John V]

I would have sex with a female for the fuck of it. Not because I am sexually attracted to females (I am not - thus the whole "far more attraction to men").

"Far more attraction to men" indicates some attraction to women. So does willingness to have sex with women. You made willingness to have sex the non-arbitrary dividing point. That makes you bi. Yet, you consider yourself gay. That's a contradiction.

There is no contradiction. And I cannot have passionate loving relationships with females either. Sorry if this confuses you. You seem to want everyone to fit under one brush.

You fit right in to my paradigm.

[Psykhronic]

I do not consider myself gay. I am mostly-straight. I find females to be aesthetically attractive, but I do not get feelings of lust or sexuality towards them - I just would fuck one because I think it would be interesting since it's a different experience.

[The Grand Nudger]

Where would I fall in your paradigm John? Any more penis than my own penis is entirely too much penis. In fact, it's so much penis - that I refer to it as "all the penis". For example, when I'm in a public bathroom, "all the penis" make me entirely uneasy - my sphincter tightens. Even when I'm alone, the lingering presence of penis...it's just too much penis.

[Psykhronic]

Yes, just because you think I fit into your paradigm for some reason (granted, you have at least a bit of an argument) does not mean everyone does.

[John V]

I do not consider myself gay. I am mostly-straight. I find females to be aesthetically attractive, but I do not get feelings of lust or sexuality towards them - I just would fuck one because I think it would be interesting since it's a different experience.

Sorry, your geneder isn't apparent from your name. OK, you consider yourself straight. Same thing, just other end of the spectrum. You try to put qualifiers on your attraction, but you're the one who set the bright-line test at willingness to act on it.

[Psykhronic]

I said you need to have the willingness to act on it to be bisexual but that fact alone does not guarantee bisexuality. If you are not willing to act on ideas with the other sex, how can one be bisexual? Again, one does not HAVE to act on them. And even if you are willing to, that does not mean it's out of pure sexual attraction.

EDIT: I think I should clarify "willing to act", some people are closeted and will not act upon their sexual urges. I am talking about if all barriers are taken down will a person be willing to act on them.

[catfish]

Does a person need to have sex with a corpse to be a necrophiliac or is the desire alone enough to warrant the label?

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm still wondering where I (or my wife) fit in Johns paradigm. Seems to me that we both clearly establish the existence of people who are "exclusive" in their sexuality. Are we "not at all bi" on the "bi continuum"? You'll have to excuse my amusement. If the bi continuum were a runway, my wife and I seem to have pulled a vtol and hit escape velocity.

[Psykhronic]

I definitely think Rhythm's point needs addressing.

And does a person need to have sex with the opposite sex to be gay or is the desire alone enough to warrant the label? See, we can fill that sentence in with a lot of things. And the free dictionary says erotic attraction is enough for necrophilia. You can debate that still, of course.

[The Grand Nudger]

Welll, lol, worth addressing.....meh, it's pretty vanilla. For example, my wife doesn't even have supercharged heterosexual fantasies (nor do I) ala she skewered like a pig - and I tried the whole threesome thing once and was thoroughly unimpressed (course I still like to make my jokes...lol). So...worth addressing..meh, it's not all that exciting...lol.