• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

We are not gay, but we secretly kiss and sleep in the same bed. - Dear Mariella

CyberPanda

Banned
The dilemma I am a 30-year-old man and I had, until last year, identified as a straight man. One night, after an office dinner party, I went to my colleague’s flat. We were good mates then, but nothing more. We are both architects and I went to see some of his latest work. He offered me a drink and we ended up getting drunk. He is slightly older and also identifies as heterosexual. (He is really good looking but, mysteriously, has been single for many years.) We drank too much and kissed. We were embarrassed, but for the past year we have regularly met and kissed, but he doesn’t go beyond a certain point physically. I know I love him dearly. He loves me, too, he says, but as a brother/best friend, not as a partner. Recently, he has stopped kissing me on the lips, but we sleep in the same bed and cuddle. I am confused. Is he straight, is he gay/bisexual and, more importantly, should I have any hope of finding romantic love with him? It’s frustrating and confusing. I don’t want to beg him to do more if he doesn’t feel comfortable and at the same time it would hurt to walk away from this man (and hurt my career if I left my job).

Mariella replies
What a conundrum. Whether you two are gay or straight, bi or just having fun, you should probably stop kissing for long enough to have a conversation about what’s happening between you. I don’t often look to Meat Loaf for inspiration, but “you took the words right out of my mouth, it must have been while you were kissing me,” strikes a chord here. You really need to talk!

A surprise encounter appears to have evolved into a regular habit, but with so much secrecy, embarrassment and confusion it’s impossible to gauge what the relationship is all about. For two grown men to be playing out an affair like a pair of adolescent virgins would be fine if that’s what you were mutually set on. In your case, however, neither of you appears to have faced up to where it might lead. This tryst that dare not speak its name feels positively 19th century and your mysterious, good-looking, serially single and emotionally buttoned-up colleague positively Darcyesque.

There’s nothing we masochistic human beings relish more than the endorsement of our own shortcomings and your lover, if we can call him that, seems to be doing an excellent job of that for you. Are you the right sex, are you sexy, are you brothers-in-arms or just good for a placatory cuddle? There must be a veritable babel of questions bubbling around your brain.

A liaison with a fellow adult involving this degree of guesswork about sexual orientation is definitely not an example of mature romancing. For something more meaningful to develop between you, having some sense of your lover’s hopes and dreams, desires and romantic ambitions is the baseline – and you’re not standing anywhere close to it as far as I can tell. Instead you’re asking me questions about the sexual predilections of a man you’ve been sharing intimate moments with for the last year. You don’t need me to tell you that there’s something not quite right.

Entertain the possibility that your sexuality is more fluid than you thought

The place to start working that out isn’t by second guessing what your colleague is after, but by taking a long, searing search into your own motives and desires. A drunken kiss is easy to explain away, but a year of unrequited sleepovers rather less so. You’ve both entered this union defining yourselves as heterosexual, so are equally guilty of delusions. These are enlightened times and, as any liberal teenager will tell you, there are at least 30 variations on our gender proclivities – though I’m clearly lacking imagination as I’d be hard-pressed to name more than a handful.

My point is there is no pressing need to define your sexuality, but entertaining the possibility that it’s more fluid than you thought is a good starting point. Boxing yourself into the “straight man” category seems a stable door from which you’ve already bolted. Your lover isn’t the only one who doesn’t seem to know what he wants or who he is. Why are you so concerned with this man’s feelings and sexual preferences while in the dark about your own?

We are lucky to live in enlightened times, in a part of the world where the climate for self expression has never been more welcoming. It’s a shame to squander those advances by embarking on the sort of furtive relationship that societal censure and even the law made inevitable a century ago.

You’ve shared intimacies with a man and found that you enjoyed it. At best your current situation suggests you have stalled and at worst that this potential “lover” is stepping back from further emotional or physical exploration. My advice would be to look for a relationship where you can better be yourself, not one where you’re constantly trying to establish who it is you’re dating. This man may have opened a door for you, but I’m not sure the relationship has much further to travel. Your future happiness may rely on you walking past him and out into pastures new and unprecedented.


Clown world fellas. A permanent honk into the ages.
 
Dude, you bi. Nothing wrong with that. Wanting someone to couch what you find attractive in sophist drivel about spectrums and fluidity of sexuality does not change that. You find a human with male appearance, and male characteristics you are fully aware of, attractive enough to kiss and clearly desire sex with him.
 

Melon

Banned
HollowFixedEgret-size_restricted.gif
 

Elcid

Banned
They just need to accept themselves.
This is seriously one of the problems I see right now in society. People are so afraid of coming out and accepting who they are due to the stigma that they'd rather cling to falsehoods.
They're both gay, plain and simple. The sooner they accept that, the sooner they'll be living happier and more meaningful lives. Any time they waste with women, pretending to be bi, is a waste of time for the women they're with, and for themselves.
Every single "bi-sexual" guy I've met preferred being with men and inevitably ended up with men, their girlfriends were just a waste of time, and it's as simple as that.
 
i bet there's some purples lurking in here all amused like "fuck, if i fucked around like this it would be the end"

i can smell you
 

manfestival

Member
so suddenly it is not ok for them to be gay and it is empowering to say you are not gay while doing non hetero things? This whole thing is confusing

I mean it is technically bi so I guess it isn't gay and all
 

Weilthain

Banned
This is just one of them made up stories to get people riled up. Doesn’t work on me I’m too stupid.
 
Last edited:

Burnttips

Member
Identify as something your not. So we create new things to call ourselves. These guys want to be identified as straight. Should we all act like they are straight.
 

crowbrow

Banned
I really think trying to categorize people into sexual or identity boxes is making everything look much more confusing than it really is. I think it is simple: human sexuality and identity is fluid like almost everything in nature is subject to changes and nuances in different contexts (even genetic makeup). That's it, almost no one is gay or straight 100% of the time, the sooner we accept that the less time we will be wasting arguing such nonsense and spending a big portion of our lives in anxious agony trying to define ourselves.
 

Elcid

Banned
Also the modern man "if there's anything gay about kissing and cuddling another man, I'd like to hear about it!"
 

Papa

Banned
I really think trying to categorize people into sexual or identity boxes is making everything look much more confusing than it really is. I think it is simple: human sexuality and identity is fluid like almost everything in nature is subject to changes and nuances in different contexts (even genetic makeup). That's it, almost no one is gay or straight 100% of the time, the sooner we accept that the less time we will be wasting arguing such nonsense and spending a big portion of our lives in anxious agony trying to define ourselves.

Yeah nah
 

crowbrow

Banned
> Kinsey was bisexual[36] and, as a young man, would punish himself for having homoerotic feelings.[37][38][39] He and his wife agreed that both could have sex with other people as well as with each other. He himself had sex with other men, including his student Clyde Martin.[40]

Hmm no conflict of interest detected! 🤔
So bisexual people can't do research on sexuality? What if the research is done by a straight person, would they be biased too? :pie_thinking: He interviewed thousands of people in the 1940s where many of these topics were still much more taboo than now. And besides it all just makes much more sense biologically than assume that there are fixed and perfectly defined divisions in sexuality when few in nature works in so clearly defined terms. Nature is a continuum of behavior and genetic predispositions but everything is changing and fluid if you look into it from an objective perspective. Only us humans create fixed and well defined categories that persist through time to better understand things but nature doesn't care about our categories.
 
Last edited:

Papa

Banned
So bisexual people can't do research on sexuality? What if the research is done by a straight person, would they be biased too? :pie_thinking: He interviewed thousands of people in the 1940s where many of these topics were still much more taboo than now. And besides it all just makes much more sense biologically than assume that there are fixed and perfectly defined divisions in sexuality when few in nature works in so clearly defined terms. Nature is a continuum of behavior and genetic predispositions but everything is changing and fluid if you look into it from an objective perspective. Only us humans create fixed and well defined categories that persist through time to better understand things but nature doesn't care about our categories.

Interesting that you ignore the fact that he would punish himself to repress homosexual feelings and instead frame it as simply being bisexual.

Just because you say it makes sense for gender and sexuality to be fluid for the majority of people doesn’t make it so.
 

crowbrow

Banned
Interesting that you ignore the fact that he would punish himself to repress homosexual feelings and instead frame it as simply being bisexual.

Just because you say it makes sense for gender and sexuality to be fluid for the majority of people doesn’t make it so.
Well there is scientific evidence suggesting it is, I haven't yet to see any scientific studies proving sexuality in humans is mostly a fixed and static thing. Like I said, it makes sense because of how nature works. I'm not prepared to accept things out of ideological dogmas from the right or the left, I prefer things that make scientific sense.
 

Papa

Banned
Well there is scientific evidence suggesting it is, I haven't yet to see any scientific studies proving sexuality in humans is mostly a fixed and static thing. Like I said, it makes sense because of how nature works. I'm not prepared to accept things out of ideological dogmas from the right or the left, I prefer things that make scientific sense.

And I’ve never been prepared to accept changes to fundamental truths based on vague, unsubstantiated platitudes like “it makes sense because of how nature works”. You know how human nature works? Men and women have sex with each other and make baby humans to continue the species. That is why the majority of men and women are heterosexual. Obviously, homosexuals exist, but for you to suggest that fluid sexuality is the standard is absurd. Name-dropping Alfred Kinsey and throwing out empty allusions to “scientific evidence” that just so happens to confirm your bias is not sufficient to change my mind and I do not accept your assertion that most humans are sexually fluid.
 

Breakage

Member
Not surprised that a piece like this is in The Guardian. It's the go-to paper for Britain's so-called progressives.
 

crowbrow

Banned
And I’ve never been prepared to accept changes to fundamental truths based on vague, unsubstantiated platitudes like “it makes sense because of how nature works”. You know how human nature works? Men and women have sex with each other and make baby humans to continue the species. That is why the majority of men and women are heterosexual. Obviously, homosexuals exist, but for you to suggest that fluid sexuality is the standard is absurd. Name-dropping Alfred Kinsey and throwing out empty allusions to “scientific evidence” that just so happens to confirm your bias is not sufficient to change my mind and I do not accept your assertion that most humans are sexually fluid.
"Fundamental truths". I have no idea what that means. Also there's not only Kinsey as a scientific example to suggest sexuality's function is something more than merely reproductive. For that there has been tons of evidence on many different species already.
 

Papa

Banned
"Fundamental truths". I have no idea what that means. Also there's not only Kinsey as a scientific example to suggest sexuality's function is something more than merely reproductive. For that there has been tons of evidence on many different species already.

Don’t shift goalposts. This is about your assertion that most humans are sexually fluid (“almost no one is gay or straight 100% of the time”), not the social utility of sex, which is a tangential discussion. An appeal to the authority of science requires you to actually understand the science you’re appealing to, not just throw the word science out there and expect it to act as a shield to deflect criticism.
 
Top Bottom