Queereaders discussion
archives
>
When you are not so gay...
date
newest »
newest »
It's ironic that you posted this today. Just the other night I had a sex dream about a woman - my prom date from High School who I've reconnected with via Facebook. It totally threw me and I have no idea where that came from.I think that Kinsey had it right. (And someone correct me if I'm wrong - I don't feel like looking it up for verification.) He found that sexuality is on a continuum - with 1 being completely straight and 10 being completely gay and most people falling somewhere in between. I truly think that most people fall into that scale. I certainly see women that I think are beautiful and also see women that turn me on sexually. But I don't think I'd be able to "seal the deal" if push came to shove, though! And being a self-confessed flirt, I have no problem flirting with both boys AND girls!
I think it must happen to straight people though they'd be loathe to talk about it; especially straight men because God forbid anyone should think they were gay. I think women are much more open to same-sex experiences than men. I have a friend from High School who left her marriage to a man for a woman but then when that didn't work out is now with a man. I think women are much more able to see past the gender and stigma than most men are.
My coworker keeps a list our "Top 10" celebrities that we think are hot and would sleep with. He's kept lists for most everyone who's worked here since he's been here the last 12 years. I put Beyonce on mine because I would totally sleep with her if I had the chance and find her extremely sexy. To his credit, he put Elvis Presley on his of whom he's a really big fan.
I try not to worry about it- I think sexuality is more fluid than most people think it is.
Mod
I think Kinsey's scale was way over-simplified, but appropriate for its time. I Have his book somewhere, but don't remember the details of his study design or how he analyzed the raw data. Of interest would be comparing the results of different age groups. I have a feeling the younger a person, the more likely they would be near the middle of the scale, if honest, and the older, the more one gravitates towards one end or the other.
I also think there is a big difference between sexual identity and sexual behavior. The Kinsey scale was actually 0 to 6 plus a X for asexuals. But this was about self-reported behavior, not identity which is a newer concept. I'm a solid 6 when it comes to identity. But, even so I can imagine situations where I might act out sexually with a female and certainly have in dreams occasionally. In terms of behavior, I now tend more towards the X, mainly (I hope) because I am on medications which depress the libido. I also have a feeling that behavior is more fluid than identity.
To be frank, I have a problem with the concept of bisexual identity (not behavior). I realize this is not PC these days and my problem with it comes from my experience and generation, which is not a very good source to generalize from. I have just known too many guys that started out Bi who eventually considered themselves Gay. I don't think we'll really get to the truth of all this until there is a sensitive test for sexual identity or perhaps if we ever get to the point where heterosexuality is no longer considered superior to homosexuality.
What a coincidence, Kernos, I also have a problem with a conception of bisexual identity - the one you seem to have. Bisexuals do exist.To Lucas - I can completely understand where you're coming from, since I am bisexual.
I don't think "everyone is bisexual" by a long shot; probably the majority of people stick strongly to one end of the continuum of gender or another. But I think we can be attracted to many people, in many ways. It may even be a more abstract and non-physical romantic feeling.
Lots of straight women have same-sex attractions or fantasies and don't see it as a contradiction of heterosexuality. It's the typical "Oh, I'd do Angelina Jolie" thing. (Gay women have the same thing for Johnny Depp, actually.) It's a little more unusual for straight men. There's a much stronger stigma against mostly-hetero male same-sex behaviour than mostly-hetero female same-sex behaviour. But then again, lots of hetero guys are attracted to transvestites who are male-bodied, so it's possible that hetero male fluidity is just as common but expressed differently.
I love this discussion. A while ago I did some video editing training and mentioned to a gay classmate that our female instructor could 'turn a gay boy straight'.He did a double take because the same thing occurred to him, and he thought he was the only one with that thought. She was a hot woman with strong character.
Blame global warming.
What is most interesting to me about this discussion is this: why would any attraction freak us out? why do we become wedded to ideas of who we think we are? why is something new or different a possible threat? why do any categories or ideas of identity matter?Foucault said: "We are freer than we think."
Kate wrote: "What is most interesting to me about this discussion is this: why would any attraction freak us out? why do we become wedded to ideas of who we think we are? why is something new or different a ..."
In our faces! Haha!
You're completely right Kate, we are so stuck to labels that we forget we are free. What happens to straight people also may happen to us. "Oh my God, this is threatening my gayhood!"
From the our friends' comments, we can guess that most of us agree that none of us is 100% gay or straight most of the time.
The most important is that people are attractive. And when we are able to appreciate their features, we should just enjoy the good feeling of admiring someone beautiful, instead of pondering about the reasons and whatever else.
In our faces! Haha!
You're completely right Kate, we are so stuck to labels that we forget we are free. What happens to straight people also may happen to us. "Oh my God, this is threatening my gayhood!"
From the our friends' comments, we can guess that most of us agree that none of us is 100% gay or straight most of the time.
The most important is that people are attractive. And when we are able to appreciate their features, we should just enjoy the good feeling of admiring someone beautiful, instead of pondering about the reasons and whatever else.
Mod
All this does not mean I don't find some women extremely attractive and appreciate their beauty, physical and non-physical. I do, and Chris and I will comment on it, just like we do guys.
But I must say, the thought of having sex with or marrying a female is a turn off. I'd probably need a CR, implant or Viagra patch to satisfy. Perhaps it's ingrained habits, like some say, but I think pheromones play a big part.
If I found myself in an Adam and Eve situation, I guess I could rise to the occasion and repopulate the world. *S*
Oh and I think I have been 100% Gay all the time, but spent a couple of decades playing straight trying to live up to others' expectations.
Kernos wrote: "I don't disagree Lucas, or others, but as time goes on things such freedom seems much less attractive. After being 'married' for 30+ years, the idea of turning straight or bi is horrifying to me. I..."
Good point Kernos. While it is still possible to feel "heterosexual attraction" occasionally, I must say I can't see myself having a heterosexual behavior. Being attracted to someone's appearance and even attitude is one thing, but acting upon it is completely different.
As for me, I've had a turbulent relationship with a girl for some months. There was no way to sustain that. As time went by, I felt more and more that there was something lacking. Guys do have something else that make them deeply attractive from my point of view. I can't really understand what it is, but I know that women don't have it.
Kernos wrote: "Oh and I think I have been 100% Gay all the time, but spent a couple of decades playing straight trying to live up to others' expectations.
I guess that most of us has certainly done something like this at least once in our lives. Too sad people still have to force themselves into this kind of situation.
Good point Kernos. While it is still possible to feel "heterosexual attraction" occasionally, I must say I can't see myself having a heterosexual behavior. Being attracted to someone's appearance and even attitude is one thing, but acting upon it is completely different.
As for me, I've had a turbulent relationship with a girl for some months. There was no way to sustain that. As time went by, I felt more and more that there was something lacking. Guys do have something else that make them deeply attractive from my point of view. I can't really understand what it is, but I know that women don't have it.
Kernos wrote: "Oh and I think I have been 100% Gay all the time, but spent a couple of decades playing straight trying to live up to others' expectations.
I guess that most of us has certainly done something like this at least once in our lives. Too sad people still have to force themselves into this kind of situation.
Yep, this is an interesting discussion so far. Just wanted to put my two cents worth in. Penny one: As I undertsnad it, Kinsey was specifically talking about sexual ATTRACTION. Not how one sees oneself. Therefore a Kinsey 6 is ONLY attracted to people of the same sex. It has no bearing on how butch or fem they see themselves.
Penny two: That said be sure and check out The Kinsey Sicks http://www.kinseysicks.com/ (See the right hand column) Their TSA Security Pat Down parody is a must see for anyone who's an a capella fan, or a Rocky Horror Fan, or anyone who just wants a good laugh
Kate wrote: "What is most interesting to me about this discussion is this: why would any attraction freak us out? why do we become wedded to ideas of who we think we are? why is something new or different a ..."In that same vein, I think that we're so accustomed to binaries in our society - black/white; gay/straight; male/female.
In working on his dissertation, my partner was really looking at gender and we had some really eye opening discussions about it and the whole binary of male/female really falls apart when you start dissecting it. What makes something specifically masculine or feminine? Or why aren't things like how you tie your shoes considered masculine or feminine? There's a lot of grey in this world!
And I completely agree that sexual attraction is completely separate from sexual identity. Trans people used to baffle me, especially, say, male to female trans people who would then be with women. I always wed attraction to identity thinking that any man who wanted to be a woman would, of course, want to be with a man sexually. It wasn't until I realized through some discussion with friends and my partner that the 2 are completely different matters.
While I doubt I'd understand him, I love the Foucault quote, Kate!
If "bisexual" is defined as an EQUAL sexual attraction to both male and female, I doubt that many true bisexual exist. On the other hand, I don't doubt there are some.There are many men who have sex exclusively with other men, but they resist being labeled "gay." Their profiles often describe themselves as masculine or straight-acting.
What I have found in my research on this topic is that many of the men who call themselves "bisexual" have not examined the idea that what society labels as gay is a stereotype. They have not accepted it is possible to be gay and masculine, i.e. gay and good. Self-labeling as "bisexual" is for them a safe harbor.
I was married to a woman for 18 years and thought of myself as totally heterosexual, but with a little quirk or two. Now that I have been out quite a while, I am totally comfortable with being gay because I have defined for myself what that means. I will not accept society's definition of it.
Life is filled with ambiguity and nuance, but some do not want to examine it except in terms of the binary roles Tom described. I think Kinsey's concept is valid if for no other reason than it moves us away from a choice between exclusively heterosexual or exclusively homosexual.
Loren wrote: "If "bisexual" is defined as an EQUAL sexual attraction to both male and female, I doubt that many true bisexual exist. On the other hand, I don't doubt there are some.
There are many men who ha..."
Loren, I couldn't agree more with what you said. I believe that enjoying men and women the same is quite impossible because... well... THEY ARE NOT THE SAME.
I think that when it comes to comparing two things, it's really difficult to consider them the same, if they have their peculiarities. This goes to sex, food, drinking, traveling. There is always a favorite when we are faced with two options.
Besides that, I also have to agree with the fact that many people avoid the "gay label" because of the negative stereotype. I think we all have been reluctant in accepting this "label" at least once in life. "What will others think of me?" "If being gays means being like THAT (put whatever misconception you like here), well, then I am not gay!"
But then... that's what prejudice and fear does. This distorted outlook towards homosexuality is what makes so many of us confused when we are younger (or maybe not even THAT young).
There are many men who ha..."
Loren, I couldn't agree more with what you said. I believe that enjoying men and women the same is quite impossible because... well... THEY ARE NOT THE SAME.
I think that when it comes to comparing two things, it's really difficult to consider them the same, if they have their peculiarities. This goes to sex, food, drinking, traveling. There is always a favorite when we are faced with two options.
Besides that, I also have to agree with the fact that many people avoid the "gay label" because of the negative stereotype. I think we all have been reluctant in accepting this "label" at least once in life. "What will others think of me?" "If being gays means being like THAT (put whatever misconception you like here), well, then I am not gay!"
But then... that's what prejudice and fear does. This distorted outlook towards homosexuality is what makes so many of us confused when we are younger (or maybe not even THAT young).
It is quite possible that Senator Craig was telling the truth when he said "I am not gay. I never have been gay." The difference between self-identity and behavior has been mentioned earlier. Although we behave in various ways throughout our lives, an identity continues to evolve across our lifetime.With Senator Craig, the issue was really one of hypocricy. One wonders how he would have answered if someone had asked him if he'd ever had a dick in his mouth.
Hi all. Forgive me for coming to the discussion late (I see the thread is a month old) but I've only just joined and I can't resist commenting because it is so relevant to my life. Bisexuals definitely exist. I've identified as such all my life because all my life I've had both physical and emotional attractions to both sexes. Is it or was it ever equal? No. I currently find myself in mid-life (48) having left my husband (the marriage was on it's last leg anyway) and very happily involved with a woman. Finally! I feel like I could easily spend the rest of my life with women. So I'm experiencing a shift but a shift that is consistent with who I have always been. Talk about turmoil and confusion.
@ Kernos - you are spot on right! The change is hell. And at 48 I find myself asking what is more important happiness and fulfillment or contented stability.
Behavior and identity are not the same thing as everyone has noted. I've always identified as bi but I failed miserably with women all my life and lived outwardly as straight. As a femme no one ever questioned my orientation. I can't say I'm a late blooming lesbian because my relationships with men have been genuine, the love I felt for them genuine.
Sexuality is apparently fluid, especially in women. Physiological research shows that men respond to porn as they identify. Gay men show arousal to gay porn, straight men to straight porn. However, the findings were much more ambiguous with women. A woman might identify as straight but show physiological response to F/F porn.
Here is a great book if anyone is interested. It is based on the authors longitudinal research but is written for those who aren't psychologists so is therefore very accessible.
Sexual Fluidity: Understanding Women's Love and Desire
I am currently reading Sexual fluidityand I agree with Gabby and Dr. Diamond that sexuality is a much more fluid concept for women than for men. In my research with men, Finally Out: Letting Go of Living Straight, a Psychiatrist's Own Storyalmost all have moved more in the direction of exclusive homosexuality than have moved in a more heterosexual direction.Most research on homosexuality has focused on a dichotomy, either gay or straight, and the gay recruits were those who self-identified. In one important study, nearly 10% of men who defined themselves as heterosexual were having sex exclusively with men.
Our sexuality is far more complex that gay or straight, and appears to be different for women than for men.
Mod
It is unknown, but most likely multi-determined. It certainly appears it cannot be just either innate or cultural alone.
Though I don't agree with all her views, I like what Camille Paglia has to say about bisexuality:"I think the only way true tolerance will come is for people to be convinced that bisexual responsiveness is a perfectly achievable ideal. That's what I'm trying to do. I'm trying to convince people that, "So you had sex with another man, oh, big deal." You don't want a situation where [taunting voice], "Oh you had sex with another man? You're really gay! And the fact that you're with a woman now, oh, you're secretly homophobic. You're suppressing you're real instincts." That kind of talk coming from gay activism is shallow, stupid, and self-defeating.
I've been very disappointed with the direction of gay thinking after Stonewall. I would have thought that gay writers would take a much more liberal posture, a kind of "let's try this, let's try that." To me what has happened is very symptomatic of a fanatical mind-set. There's the idea that [mocking tone] "Oh, you can't change homosexuality, it's innate, how dare you [suggest otherwise]! You're homophobic." Please! If there are gay men who want to develop their ability to respond to women, why not let them? What we should be arguing is the fluidity of sexual response, not its harnessing in these false, opposed categories."
http://home.wanadoo.nl/ipce/library_t...
Gabby wrote: "Hi all. Forgive me for coming to the discussion late (I see the thread is a month old) but I've only just joined and I can't resist commenting because it is so relevant to my life. Bisexuals defi..."
Hi Gabby, welcome!
I am 48 and have also identified as bisexual most of my life. The majority of my physical and emotional relationships have been with men, though it is the good ones with women that felt most right and satisfying. I have been married to my husband for 15 years. We are very compatible in a lot of ways and I've always considered him my best friend, but other areas of our relationship are less than satisfying.
I have the book you mentioned and will be reading it soon. Maybe I'll nominate it for a group read.
I also like this quote from Simone de Beauvoir:"In itself, homosexuality is as limiting as heterosexuality: the ideal should be to be capable of loving a woman or a man; either, a human being, without feeling fear, restraint, or obligation."
Has anyone read this book?
Nope but I'm putting it on my "to read" list! Thanks for posting it, Nancy.
No, but I read some Simone de Beauvoir in the late '70s...
thanks for posting nancy. i haven't read that. i've been wanting to read more of her.
i've read this thread off and on, and it felt to me like walking into a kind of twilight zone episode. i can't imagine this kind of response if someone wrote "i've always identified as straight but i kissed a boy and i'm worried i am gay or bi."
this kind of right wing intolerance and saying that bi's don't exist and/or are only gays/lesbians in disguise is exactly the kind of thing i'd hope an open minded community would not take part in. this reminds me of statements made to gays/lesbians along the lines of "you just haven't met the right woman/man yet".
we don't need to be like the oppressors and oppress members of our own community. it makes me so angry and sad.
i really like the quotes you posted, nancy. thanks.
Mod
However, I think it important to recognize that claiming one is Bi, and I am speaking of males as I have little understanding of females, claiming oneself Bi can be as much of a closet as playing straight.
Tom wrote: "It's ironic that you posted this today. Just the other night I had a sex dream about a woman - my prom date from High School who I've reconnected with via Facebook. It totally threw me and I have n..."Kinsey's scale was based on 7 stages:
Exclusviely Homosexual
Ho/s with a little He/s
Ho/s with more than a little He/s
Bisexual
Etc.
Of course it is still somewhat arbitrary. It's primary value was to suggest that sexuality isn't divided into only two classes.
In my experience men move very little and usually only in the direction of becoming more homosexual.
Women seem to have more fluidity in their sexuality and some would say that it is because their sexuality is more based on the person than the gender of the person.
Men's choices typically aren't relationship-based, and most of the men I have studied, move only in the direction of being more homosexual, IF they move at all.
Ali wrote: "What a coincidence, Kernos, I also have a problem with a conception of bisexual identity - the one you seem to have. Bisexuals do exist.To Lucas - I can completely understand where you're coming..."
I do believe that bisexuality exists, although at one time I wasn't sure. Bisexuality by definition however is nearly equal attraction to both sexes.
I would suggest that those who are very interested in this read a book called Sexual Fluidity: Understanding Women's Love and Desire by Lisa Diamond. Another interesting book on this subject is Dear John, I Love Jane: Women Write About Leaving Men for Women
Bottom line: We don't know all of what accounts for sexual attraction and it is most certainly different for men than it is for women.
Lucas wrote: "Kernos wrote: "I don't disagree Lucas, or others, but as time goes on things such freedom seems much less attractive. After being 'married' for 30+ years, the idea of turning straight or bi is horr..."I agree with Kernos and Lucas. I "functioned" in a heterosexual marriage for 18 years and loved/still love my wife. However after experiencing a sexual relationship with a man I love, I realized that the depth of my sexual experience with my wife was somewhat shallow. After I discovered sexuality with a man, something exploded inside of me and I experienced sexual feelings I had not previously known. I decided I could not continue to sacrifice that intimacy. I too, find women attractive, but I do not find myself sexually responsive to that attractiveness.
Loren wrote: Men's choices typically aren't relationship-based...And this is the problem women typically have with men. :D
Sorry, I just couldn't help myself. It was intended to be funny but it holds some truth.
Well, I didn't intend it as a joke Gabby, but now I can see the humor! Obviously what I meant is that for women, their sexual "orientation" does seem more to follow their attraction to a relationship with the sexual orientation more secondary.Men are quite capable of establishing and maintaining long term relationships -- it's been demonstrated over and over (I'm 24 years with my partner) -- but often they experience a sexual attraction first and then are drawn to develop the more emotionally intimate aspects of a relationship.
Doug, my husband, says men can decide the date of their anniversary based on the second night they slept together. The first night they're a trick. The second night, the relationship has begun.
I think it potentially it is all related to the levels of oxytocin in our systems. Oxytocin is the hormone secreted most notably during breast feeding and creates the bonding of mother and child. Men have oxytocin too, but much lower levels; it is probably still responsible for the bonding in men.
Loren, I know you weren't kidding. I just couldn't resist. I do however think that for some women (I won't even say many) that the depth of emotional bond they seek is perhaps deeper than men are prone to. I agree completely about the oxytocin. I also believe that I read somewhere that the pheromonal stew that results in the feeling of being "in love" has a shelf life of about 2 years (during which time many couples get married). After that it wears off and you’re left without the help of the chemistry.
Coupla things, in case they're useful to this discussion.1. Kinsey's scale was focused not on orientation but on behavior. So when we claim nowadays to "be" a Kinsey 6 or a Kinsey 2 or whatever, we're actually misusing the scale a little bit. The questions he asked in relation to the scale had to do with the last--if I remember correctly, which I may not--two years of somebody's experience. So it was like, in the last two years, if you'd had only same-sex experiences, then you were counted as a 6, but the number wasn't a definition; it was only a description. So the ACTUAL Kinsey scale allows for a lot more fluidity than the Kinsey scale as we tend to use it does. Your behavior could be described with different Kinsey numbers throughout your life. Somebody who'd been monogamously married to an opposite-sex partner for years could be assigned a 1, then have started having same-sex experiences and be assigned a 3, then have only same-sex experiences and be assigned a 6, then start dating a member of the opposite sex and be assigned a 4, etc., etc., etc.
2. What the research shows--if I understand it correctly, which I may not--is that, in men, psychological bisexual arousal is more common than physical bisexual arousal. That is, for a man who's usually attracted to men, attraction to a woman is more likely to develop through an emotional connection than through a physical one. That isn't to say that that attraction isn't physical once it develops--just that its root is more psychological than hormonal.
Mod
A successful female will have the most offspring who survive to reproduce. Prolonged relationships with a successful (powerful) male enhances the probability her offspring will survive. The number of offspring is limited.
Being human today is of course much more complex than simple biology, at least to individuals and cultures and probably even to the species, given we can destroy ourselves.
I've had some great news. My book, "Finally Out" will be reviewed by the Journal of Marriage and Family Therapists AND BY Journal of Gay and Lesbian Mental Health. That is great news.At any rate, some of what you may be referring to, Gabby, is dopamine, "the pleasure molecule." Dopamine builds up in ANTICIPATION of a pleasurable event, not in response to the event. Thus during the honeymoon phase of a relationship, there is a great deal of anticipation. After the newness of a relationship wears off.
This becomes important in relationships of older people because the dopamine response takes longer to reach. Love making is enhanced by recognizing that slow and steady will enhance sexual experience for an older couple.
Incidentally, I address all of this in my book, which I hope everyone will read.
From the Kinsey Institute:Males do not represent two discrete populations, heterosexual and homosexual. The world is not to be divided into sheep and goats. It is a fundamental of taxonomy that nature rarely deals with discrete categories... The living world is a continuum in each and every one of its aspects, (p 639).
While emphasizing the continuity of the gradations between exclusively heterosexual and exclusively homosexual histories, it has seemed desirable to develop some sort of classification which could be based on the relative amounts of heterosexual and homosexual experience or response in each history... An individual may be assigned a position on this scale, for each period in his life.... A seven-point scale comes nearer to showing the many gradations that actually exist.
Loren's comment: So the scale is both experience and response. Many would say that arousal/response is a much clearer definition of sexual orientation than behavior. (I would agree with that.)
Loren, I'd agree with you about arousal/response being a clearer definition of sexual orientation than behavior.If the OP's question is about what he perceives as a shift in arousal/response, though, I guess the important thing is that the Kinsey scale is flexible--that if somebody gay finds him/herself feeling attracted to somebody of the opposite sex, an identity crisis doesn't necessarily follow--the rigidity of sexual attraction is something we've imposed on the Kinsey scale, not actually part of the scale.
I have found the scale useful in my research. Of course any scale such as this is arbitrary but it is far less arbitrary than saying you must be either gay or straight, and if you can't force a person into either then it must be "bi."
I book I can recommend is Gay New York: Gender, Urban Culture, and the Making of the Gay Male World, 1890-1940
The meaning of sexual identity and sexual behaviour changed drastically during the 20th Century. Many of the men who identified as Pansies or Fairies would now define themselves of transexual or transgendered. The men who had sex with them didn't consider themselves as anything other than straight.
Kinsey looked only at sexual behaviour in his studies, since he considered the cultural baggage around identity to be unmeasurable scientifically. It's a pity that his survey hadn't been replicated ever 10 or 20 years since then so that we have a measure about whether or not things have changed.
I agree with the idea of sexuality being somewhat fluid over one's lifetime. But fluidity is threatening to many people - including myself - because we haven't constructed rituals and stories and identities to encompass it. Easier and safer to just fall into one tribe or the other and be done with it.
Nancy wrote: "I also like this quote from Simone de Beauvoir:"In itself, homosexuality is as limiting as heterosexuality: the ideal should be to be capable of loving a woman or a man; either, a human being, wi..."
This really rubs me the wrong way. What about those of us who simply aren't "capable of loving a woman or a man"? Sounds like just another way of saying there's something wrong with you for being gay.
After having read [book:Sexual Fluidity: Understanding Women's Love and Desire|2139150 I have come to look at this subject in a differently, specifically that women's sexuality may be far more "fluid" than men's. Most men that I have interviewed have moved more toward the same-sex end of the spectrum.
Loren wrote: "Bisexuality by definition however is nearly equal attraction to both sexes."Ummm- what? By whose definition, Loren? Yours? That's just not true at all.
Thanks for resurrecting this topic, Jan.
Queereaders
Books mentioned in this topic
Gay New York: Gender, Urban Culture, and the Making of the Gay Male World 1890-1940 (other topics)Dear John, I Love Jane: Women Write About Leaving Men for Women (other topics)
Sexual Fluidity: Understanding Women’s Love and Desire (other topics)
Identity without Selfhood: Simone de Beauvoir and Bisexuality (other topics)
Sexual Fluidity: Understanding Women's Love and Desire (other topics)
More...
When I went to a Buddhist Temple, I met a girl who I suppose to be on her late teens, or at least on her early twenties. Well... somehow I felt really attracted to her. She doesn't meet the standard "hot Brazilian girl" type. She is rather delicate and sweet... she even looked somewhat fragile.
I could even say that she has the kind of attitude and features that would make me attracted to a guy. But then... well... she is a girl. O.o
I don't think this makes me bisexual or indicates that I am somehow attracted to the opposite sex. But it feels odd, at least.
Has anything like this happened to you?
Do you think it means that we are primarily attracted to people instead of just one gender or another?
Do you believe this happens to straight people, also? They being attracted to same-sex people occasionally?