grimballer wrote:BubbaTee wrote:JackFinn wrote:I've seen quite a few polls re-apply in 10 years and show wildly different results. There are those who are ashamed to admit, those who are afraid, and those in denial. Also the varying degrees of bi-sexuality and attraction to transgenders that blur the definition.
If you wanna get down to it, everyone's bi, unless they live in a nudist colony or are psychic.
You can be attracted to a person you walk past on the street, but unless they're naked there's no way to actually know what sex they are. All you see is feminine traits, not proof of female genitalia/genetics (or masculine or androgynous, depending on each person's preferences). Yet the attraction is still there, despite the lack of knowledge of the other person's sex.
this doesnt make sense
if u think u saw a lady n it turns out to be a dude with a wig, that dont mean u gay.
wtf?
Let's first define "gay". I say it's being sexually attracted to another person of the same sex.
So if you're sexually attracted to what you think is a female, but it turns out to actually be a male - what is that, if not "being sexually attracted to another person of the same sex"?
It's not like your previous attraction is retroactively erased from history. It happened, it existed.
It's not like the other person was a female before, and then magically changed into a male in a split-second. The other person was always male.
Granted, that "person of the same sex" may have attributes more commonly associated with the opposite sex - that's what I contend you're actually attracted to.
But since you have no knowledge of the other person's actual sex at the time your attraction is established, how can you then claim that the other person's sex forms the very foundation of your attraction?
That does not make sense.
If I say "I only like Coke, I don't like Pepsi" and then you give me Pepsi in a Coke bottle and I like it, it's nothing more than self-delusion for me to then continue claiming I don't like Pepsi.