In 2016... What the hell does "Gay" even mean?

[Boss]

I don't think anyone is claiming that labels are always completely accurate, or that one person can know the inner thoughts of another.

Do you have this issue with labels about other aspects of a person, or only sexuality?

I'm not big on labels in general because I think labels often denote stereotypes. If people wish to apply their own label, that's fine... I don't have an issue. I think my issue is with other people assuming things and applying labels... that seems bigoted and prejudiced to me.

If a friend said about a gay guy, "oh that guy is really cute!" I would say, "he's gay."

How do you know if someone is gay? Did they tell you they sexually desire same gender exclusively, or did you presume they are gay based on something you saw or something they did or said? And... can a guy not be really cute AND gay at the same time? What if he is not really gay but bisexual? How do you know what that person's sexual desires really are?

Because they are GAY. Duh.

So you don't want to answer my questions?

 

[ChrisL]

I don't think anyone is claiming that labels are always completely accurate, or that one person can know the inner thoughts of another.

Do you have this issue with labels about other aspects of a person, or only sexuality?

I'm not big on labels in general because I think labels often denote stereotypes. If people wish to apply their own label, that's fine... I don't have an issue. I think my issue is with other people assuming things and applying labels... that seems bigoted and prejudiced to me.

If a friend said about a gay guy, "oh that guy is really cute!" I would say, "he's gay."

How do you know if someone is gay? Did they tell you they sexually desire same gender exclusively, or did you presume they are gay based on something you saw or something they did or said? And... can a guy not be really cute AND gay at the same time? What if he is not really gay but bisexual? How do you know what that person's sexual desires really are?

Because they are GAY. Duh.

So you don't want to answer my questions?

Your questions are stupid.

 

[Boss]

You are annoying. Wicked annoying. Anyone ever tell you that before?

Look.. Chris... at the top of the page is a link "unwatch this thread" ...all you need to do is click that link and you are no longer following the thread. You can go on about your business and not be involved in this thread anymore. I'm not keeping you here against your will. If this conversation annoys you or you're not comfortable discussing it... leave!

Okay?

 

[Boss]

Your questions are stupid.

All I did was ask you how you know someone is gay... exclusively attracted sexually to same gender... and if he can be cute and gay at the same time? I don't see how that is stupid.

You're the one who said you need the label for convenience... convenience was described as, if someone says a guy is cute, you can say he is gay... So I am asking you a pertinent question about that and you're getting upset about it and call my question stupid. Did I hit a nerve, dear?

 

[ChrisL]

You are annoying. Wicked annoying. Anyone ever tell you that before?

Look.. Chris... at the top of the page is a link "unwatch this thread" ...all you need to do is click that link and you are no longer following the thread. You can go on about your business and not be involved in this thread anymore. I'm not keeping you here against your will. If this conversation annoys you or you're not comfortable discussing it... leave!

Okay?

Okay fine!

 

[Montrovant]

In your last example, the participants would still need to be attracted to the opposite gender. It is possible for people to have sex with someone they feel no attraction towards.

Okay... so this raises the question... how are you and I (society) aware of what someone else finds sexually appealing? How can WE make that determination? How can anyone, other than the individual? If we can't... aren't the labels superfluous?

Generally a person will self-identify. How can we make the determination that a person is a liberal? How can we make the determination that a person is a Christian? When it comes to someone's beliefs, we either take their word for it or we make a judgement based on their words and actions.

What makes the labels superfluous? Generally that word is used to mean extra, more than needed. If anything, these types of labels are an attempt to avoid superfluous explanation about a person.

Well, with a person's political views or religious views we can discern what we believe they are... but with their sexual desires, it's a different matter. Unless they express those desires, we don't know. And even if they express them, we still don't know if they are being honest.

I think 'superfluous' is appropriate because, what do we need the labels for? We don't even know for sure if they are accurate. What purpose do the labels serve? With religious or political labels, at least they serve to let us know how to converse or behave around a person.... you don't want to go hurling the f-bomb around a Christian or strike up a conversation about conservatism around a liberal... but with an ambiguous and possibly inaccurate label regarding sexual desire, what purpose does it serve socially? And again, I don't mean intimately... that falls under self-identification.

While some gay people will tell everyone they are gay, a lot of gay people never mention it. I have a lot of friends who I suspect are probably gay because of what I observe but I don't KNOW they are... they've not told me they are. It doesn't matter to me, I'm not going to treat them any differently or think differently about them. I've never asked them because it's none of my business.

Why can you discern a person's political or religious views but not their sexuality? How do you know someone is being honest about their political or religious views? You seem to be trying to make sexuality different in ways it is not.

We don't know for sure that political or religious labels are accurate, either. In fact, I would say that political labels, in particular, are probably more often inaccurate. Just look at the posters on this site and how often they toss out liberal or conservative based simply on a person who disagrees with them on a single issue.

You have, on multiple occasions, been given examples of what purpose the labels serve. I don't know why you seem to have dismissed those. To once again give another one, if you see someone who has been labelled gay, and you are of the opposite gender, you won't try to hit on them.

I don't refrain from swearing around someone because they are a Christian. I don't refrain from talking about any particular political subject because a person is liberal or conservative.

It's strange how you seem to be arguing against all labels at one point, then only against labels regarding sexuality at another. Here's an idea : Think about what purpose labels serve in general, then figure out if you can explain why those reasons apply to other things but not to sexuality. Because at this point, your distinction between labels based on sexuality and other things don't seem to make sense.

 

[Asclepias]

Truly gay people would be those who are exclusively sexually attracted to the same sex. Those who are attracted to both sexes would be bisexual, and those who are only attracted to the opposite sex are heterosexuals.

Well that's certainly ONE of the definitions that has been presented.

I'm pretty sure those are the proper definitions. I don't know why you would find it confusing. If a person is only attracted to the same sex, that would mean the person is gay. Right? If a person is only attracted to the same sex, then that means the person is straight. Right?

Now, some people might experiment with sexual relations with the same sex, but that does not necessarily mean the person is "gay" but just perhaps curious.

So you can be a homosexual without ever having engaged in a homosexual activity?

This has been explained to you multiple times.

 

[Asclepias]

In your last example, the participants would still need to be attracted to the opposite gender. It is possible for people to have sex with someone they feel no attraction towards.

Okay... so this raises the question... how are you and I (society) aware of what someone else finds sexually appealing? How can WE make that determination? How can anyone, other than the individual? If we can't... aren't the labels superfluous?

No dummy. They say they are gay or bi or straight.

 

[Asclepias]

What are you asking then?

I guess I am asking why we, as a society, need to label people? I mean, to distill it down to a single question, I guess that's what I am asking. I really wanted to just have an open discussion about this between mature adults without all the banal jawboning.

Because its a survival instinct for humans to label things. As a matter of fact you cant even think without labeling.

 

[Asclepias]

What are you asking then?

I guess I am asking why we, as a society, need to label people? I mean, to distill it down to a single question, I guess that's what I am asking. I really wanted to just have an open discussion about this between mature adults without all the banal jawboning.

For the same reasons you just used labels "we", "society" and "people".

 

[Weatherman2020]

I am serious here... what does it actually mean this day and age? Is a person "gay" because they are attracted to the same gender? Or do they have to act upon their attraction and have a homosexual relationship to qualify? If someone acknowledges that someone of the same gender is sexually appealing, does that make them gay? What if you are physically attracted to both genders? Are you gay by default? Do you have to engage in actual sexual relationships and how far can you go without being actually gay? What if you get turned on by making yourself intentionally attractive to same gender but you're not interested in having sexual relations? Like a gay tease? Is that gay? Does that make you a gay person? What if you enjoy the mystique of the closet gay lifestyle, slipping around and frequenting gay bars to have promiscuous sex with same gender but you are happily married to the opposite gender? Does that mean you're gay or straight? What if you are completely heterosexual but you enjoy entertaining people dressed as a transgender? Are you gay then? What if you are straight but attracted to same gender transsexuals? What if you don't have sex at all and you love all people of both genders and see them as equally appealing sexually? Is that gay? What if you have been straight your entire life, always knew you were straight, never had any desire to be with the same gender physically and you get drunk one night and have homosexual relations... are you made gay by that one-off? What if you're in high school and you don't really know what you are and you experiment with homosexual relations but decide you didn't like it... can you become "ungay" or are you forever gay?

Just curious... it seems we've painted ourselves into a rather bigoted corner.

Same reason they took the rainbow symbol from the time God destroyed civilization because of rampant sexual perversions - it's all about spinning lies and deception.

 

[Asclepias]

There are many different reasons why we would "label" people. One is for convenience sake.

What do you mean? Explain please.

What do YOU mean, what do I mean? There are many different reasons why we label people, one being for the sake of convenience.

I mean, explain what you mean by convenience? Why do you need a convenient label to apply to someone regarding their personal sexual preferences? What difference does it make to you? Why is it important to distinguish them with a label? How do you even know if your label is completely accurate? Maybe you're assuming something that isn't actually true based on a presumption or hearsay? Maybe you are assuming based on a stereotype? How are you certain about it? You said yourself, "gay" is when someone is sexually attracted exclusively to the same gender.... how do you know this for sure if you're not that individual?

Youre asking rhetorical questions. You apply labels so you dont have to explain all the specifics. Labels are understood to hold generally accepted specfics plus or minus what others may add or detract. When you say a guy is gay the specific is that he finds only other men sexually attractive. Telling someone you are bi is the same as saying you find both men and women sexually attractive.

 

[Boss]

Why can you discern a person's political or religious views but not their sexuality? How do you know someone is being honest about their political or religious views? You seem to be trying to make sexuality different in ways it is not.

What you are doing is conflating "self-identification" and "applying labels" which are not the same thing. Sexuality is different from religious and political views because it is intimate. I'm sorry if you don't get that. I tried to explain but I guess I didn't do a good job. The simple fact of the matter is, you don't know about a person's sexuality unless you are intimate with them or they tell you.

You have, on multiple occasions, been given examples of what purpose the labels serve. I don't know why you seem to have dismissed those. To once again give another one, if you see someone who has been labelled gay, and you are of the opposite gender, you won't try to hit on them.

Oh I know I've been given the example by ChrisL that it serves as a convenience for gossip... like, if someone says "that guy's really cute" and she says "He's gay!" And now here, where you give the example of how the label helps you determine whether to be sociable to someone. Assclap finds it beneficial to be able to apply the label to people in order to insult them or get under their skin. I'm sure there are dozens of other reasons to apply the label... like when you're renting a house or hiring an employee. So yep... lots and lots of reasons to apply labels to people. Great point!

 

[Montrovant]

Why can you discern a person's political or religious views but not their sexuality? How do you know someone is being honest about their political or religious views? You seem to be trying to make sexuality different in ways it is not.

What you are doing is conflating "self-identification" and "applying labels" which are not the same thing. Sexuality is different from religious and political views because it is intimate. I'm sorry if you don't get that. I tried to explain but I guess I didn't do a good job. The simple fact of the matter is, you don't know about a person's sexuality unless you are intimate with them or they tell you.

You have, on multiple occasions, been given examples of what purpose the labels serve. I don't know why you seem to have dismissed those. To once again give another one, if you see someone who has been labelled gay, and you are of the opposite gender, you won't try to hit on them.

Oh I know I've been given the example by ChrisL that it serves as a convenience for gossip... like, if someone says "that guy's really cute" and she says "He's gay!" And now here, where you give the example of how the label helps you determine whether to be sociable to someone. Assclap finds it beneficial to be able to apply the label to people in order to insult them or get under their skin. I'm sure there are dozens of other reasons to apply the label... like when you're renting a house or hiring an employee. So yep... lots and lots of reasons to apply labels to people. Great point!

Apparently you have no idea what the difference is between hitting on someone and being sociable to someone.

There are indications of sexuality just as there are indications of religious and political views. In every case, you can either use those indications, or a person can tell you about their sexuality/religion/politics, and also in every case, there is no real way to know if they are being honest with you. So what?

You are clearly determined to equate labels for a person's sexuality with discrimination and bigotry, yet seem to be perfectly fine with labels for other things. Again, why only with sexuality? Why must those labels be about bigotry? It's easier to say someone is gay than they only are attracted to the same gender. Saying a person is straight is not any kind of automatic insult.

People use labels and stereotypes of all kinds for various reasons. Are they sometimes used as an insult, or a reason not to interact with a person? Of course! That is true of pretty much any label, any stereotype, any descriptives used for a person. Again I wonder why you are so focused on the categories of sexual attraction and seem to consider them so very different from others? Sexuality is often an intimate thing, so what? Why does that somehow mean that words used to describe sexuality are automatically bigoted or insulting?

Yes, gay has been used as an insult a lot. So have quite a few other labels for sexual attraction. That doesn't mean those labels are inherently insulting, particularly if many of the people who fit in the labels are comfortable with the terms themselves. I said this before, but I have seen the terms liberal and conservative used as insults on this site many, many times. They seem to be considered insulting terms by quite a few posters here. Should we do away with them as well?

Oh, one last thing. What makes you describe ChrisL's example as gossip? If she knows a person is gay and tells her friend, how is that gossip? This appears to be another example of you trying to fit what people are saying into your predetermined idea of what labels about sexuality are used for.

 

[Asclepias]

Why can you discern a person's political or religious views but not their sexuality? How do you know someone is being honest about their political or religious views? You seem to be trying to make sexuality different in ways it is not.

What you are doing is conflating "self-identification" and "applying labels" which are not the same thing. Sexuality is different from religious and political views because it is intimate. I'm sorry if you don't get that. I tried to explain but I guess I didn't do a good job. The simple fact of the matter is, you don't know about a person's sexuality unless you are intimate with them or they tell you.

You have, on multiple occasions, been given examples of what purpose the labels serve. I don't know why you seem to have dismissed those. To once again give another one, if you see someone who has been labelled gay, and you are of the opposite gender, you won't try to hit on them.

Oh I know I've been given the example by ChrisL that it serves as a convenience for gossip... like, if someone says "that guy's really cute" and she says "He's gay!" And now here, where you give the example of how the label helps you determine whether to be sociable to someone. Assclap finds it beneficial to be able to apply the label to people in order to insult them or get under their skin. I'm sure there are dozens of other reasons to apply the label... like when you're renting a house or hiring an employee. So yep... lots and lots of reasons to apply labels to people. Great point!

Apparently you have no idea what the difference is between hitting on someone and being sociable to someone.

There are indications of sexuality just as there are indications of religious and political views. In every case, you can either use those indications, or a person can tell you about their sexuality/religion/politics, and also in every case, there is no real way to know if they are being honest with you. So what?

You are clearly determined to equate labels for a person's sexuality with discrimination and bigotry, yet seem to be perfectly fine with labels for other things. Again, why only with sexuality? Why must those labels be about bigotry? It's easier to say someone is gay than they only are attracted to the same gender. Saying a person is straight is not any kind of automatic insult.

People use labels and stereotypes of all kinds for various reasons. Are they sometimes used as an insult, or a reason not to interact with a person? Of course! That is true of pretty much any label, any stereotype, any descriptives used for a person. Again I wonder why you are so focused on the categories of sexual attraction and seem to consider them so very different from others? Sexuality is often an intimate thing, so what? Why does that somehow mean that words used to describe sexuality are automatically bigoted or insulting?

Yes, gay has been used as an insult a lot. So have quite a few other labels for sexual attraction. That doesn't mean those labels are inherently insulting, particularly if many of the people who fit in the labels are comfortable with the terms themselves. I said this before, but I have seen the terms liberal and conservative used as insults on this site many, many times. They seem to be considered insulting terms by quite a few posters here. Should we do away with them as well?

Oh, one last thing. What makes you describe ChrisL's example as gossip? If she knows a person is gay and tells her friend, how is that gossip? This appears to be another example of you trying to fit what people are saying into your predetermined idea of what labels about sexuality are used for.

I think he is focused on the sexual aspect because he found out that he was gay or bi. This, for some reason is an insult to him. He doesnt want people to know so he is trying to do away with sexual labels all in one fell swoop.

 

[Boss]

Apparently you have no idea what the difference is between hitting on someone and being sociable to someone.

There are indications of sexuality just as there are indications of religious and political views. In every case, you can either use those indications, or a person can tell you about their sexuality/religion/politics, and also in every case, there is no real way to know if they are being honest with you. So what?

Actually, there are not any indications as to what any given individual finds sexually arousing unless they tell you in intimacy. You can judge them based on stereotypes or hearsay... gossip... like your friend telling you they are gay. With political and religious views they are telling you socially and that's how you can tell. But most people you meet aren't going to say.. Hi, I am sexually aroused by same gender, happy to meet you! Generally, you have to find this out by conversing with them and getting to know them better. If you are attracted sexually to them and you "hit on them" but they don't reciprocate, they might be gay... but what difference would it make if they aren't interested in you sexually?

What you are really saying is, you need this label to apply to people so that you can discriminate against them.

You are clearly determined to equate labels for a person's sexuality with discrimination and bigotry, yet seem to be perfectly fine with labels for other things. Again, why only with sexuality?

Well, no... I think I said in a previous post that I am not a big fan of labels in general. They typically mean you are applying some stereotype to people and I think individuals should be judged on the basis of individual merit and not a stereotype, that's all. You seem to think we can't get by without labels so that we can figure out who we should discriminate against.

Again I wonder why you are so focused on the categories of sexual attraction and seem to consider them so very different from others?

Because it is personal and intimate. You have no way of knowing this unless someone tells you they are gay or you are being intimate with them. Assuming someone is gay because someone told you they were... or because they LOOK gay... or ACT gay... is discrimination. Plain and simple. So why do we need this label again?

Yes, gay has been used as an insult a lot.

Yep.. and it is very often used to discriminate and stereotype people that you don't have any idea about other than speculation or gossip. It is just an easy and socially acceptable way to discriminate against people. There is no other pertinent function it serves.

I said this before, but I have seen the terms liberal and conservative used as insults on this site many, many times. They seem to be considered insulting terms by quite a few posters here. Should we do away with them as well?

Liberal and conservative are political labels applied on the basis of stated political views. No, I don't think we should assume someone is liberal or conservative unless they say they are or express viewpoints which clearly indicate they are. I don't think we should use those labels as weapons but I am guilty of this as are you and most everyone here. I am mature enough to admit I have faults and that's one of them. I often stereotype people based on their stated political views and I know that it's not right. But again, an openly stated political view is far different from an intimate and private sexual desire. I don't understand why you're not seeing the difference there. Seems pretty fucking obvious to me.

Oh, one last thing. What makes you describe ChrisL's example as gossip? If she knows a person is gay and tells her friend, how is that gossip?

Well, I asked her how she knows the person is gay and she said my question was stupid and refused to answer. Has she been intimate with them and they told her they were only attracted to same gender? In that case, maybe it's not gossip, but I got the impression that's not the case... she assumed they were gay because someone said they were gay or she observed something that she thought made them gay. And what does it have to do with them being "really cute?" She never said. Again, the way she presented it, seemed like it was a convenient way to stereotype and discriminate on the basis of hearsay or gossip.

 

[Boss]

I think he is focused on the sexual aspect because he found out that he was gay or bi. This, for some reason is an insult to him. He doesnt want people to know so he is trying to do away with sexual labels all in one fell swoop.

No, it's really more about people like you who are homophobic bigots. You like to use sexuality to insult people because it makes you more secure in your masculinity.

As for "trying to do away with sexual labels" ....how the fuck do you think I can do that? I don't control what society does any more than you do. I'm just stating my viewpoint on the subject and trying to have a civil conversation with other mature adults about it. This is how man becomes enlightened, by sharing ideas and opinions with one another. Of course, closed-minded bigots don't comprehend how this works, so it's no surprise you formulate crazy notions like this.

I nailed your ass as a bigot and you can't handle that so you're now pissed off and responding by trying to attack me with the label of "gay or bi" because I exposed your bigotry. Numerous people here have weighed in and they disagree with your continued attempts to denigrate me by calling me names. I've decided to pretty much ignore you because bigots aren't worth my time.

 

[Montrovant]

Actually, there are not any indications as to what any given individual finds sexually arousing unless they tell you in intimacy.

Really? So if you see that a person dates individuals of the same gender, that isn't an indication they might be gay, or at least bisexual?

Generally, you have to find this out by conversing with them and getting to know them better.

Or someone you know will know they are gay and tell you, or you will see them dating people of the same gender. There are other, less accurate, more stereotyping indicators as well, obviously. Maybe you think the only way to know if a person is gay is if they tell you or you are intimate with them, but it simply is not true.

What you are really saying is, you need this label to apply to people so that you can discriminate against them.

I am not saying this at all. I'm not even hinting at it. You are so certain that your notion of sexual labels only being about bigotry is true, you are applying it to things even if they don't fit that narrative.

Well, no... I think I said in a previous post that I am not a big fan of labels in general. They typically mean you are applying some stereotype to people and I think individuals should be judged on the basis of individual merit and not a stereotype, that's all. You seem to think we can't get by without labels so that we can figure out who we should discriminate against.

Not being a fan of labels is different from indicating labels are only useful for discrimination. And again, I have neither said nor hinted that I think labels are only useful for discrimination, that's you.

Because it is personal and intimate. You have no way of knowing this unless someone tells you they are gay or you are being intimate with them. Assuming someone is gay because someone told you they were... or because they LOOK gay... or ACT gay... is discrimination. Plain and simple. So why do we need this label again?

You can keep repeating this, but it isn't true. I have more than once been told that a person was gay, not because someone assumed it, but because they knew. So obviously there is at least one other way to know a person is gay. And, as with religion and politics, there are indicators that can be used to guess, should a person feel the need. As homosexuality is more accepted by society, people feel less need to hide their sexual preference. That will lead to conversations which indicate their sexuality without needing to just blurt out, "I am gay".

But again, an openly stated political view is far different from an intimate and private sexual desire.

Why must a sexual desire be private? Simply talking about a spouse is a pretty good indication of someone's sexual desires as far as gender is concerned. If a man talks about his boyfriend, you can reasonably assume that the man is either gay or bisexual. Do you think people never talk about their sex lives, dating lives, or spouses/partners in public conversation?

Well, I asked her how she knows the person is gay and she said my question was stupid and refused to answer. Has she been intimate with them and they told her they were only attracted to same gender? In that case, maybe it's not gossip, but I got the impression that's not the case... she assumed they were gay because someone said they were gay or she observed something that she thought made them gay. And what does it have to do with them being "really cute?" She never said. Again, the way she presented it, seemed like it was a convenient way to stereotype and discriminate on the basis of hearsay or gossip.

Or perhaps someone who knew the person told her they were gay. Or she knows the gay man herself and, as I've already pointed out, she found out about their sexual orientation in any of a number of ways. This once again appears to be you dismissing what someone says because it doesn't fit into your narrative that using the label gay must be for discrimination.

A person's politics can be intimate and private if they don't like to openly talk about it, and a person's sexuality can be open and public if they want it to be. Why you think a person's sexual orientation must be a private thing, why you think the only way to know a person's sexual orientation is for them to state it to you or to be intimate with them, why you think labels for sexual orientation must be used in a discriminatory way but other labels must not, I don't know.

 

[Montrovant]

Here's a question Boss : If a homosexual man uses gay to describe another man he believes to be homosexual, is he doing it because he wants to discriminate against homosexual men?

 

[Boss]

Really? So if you see that a person dates individuals of the same gender, that isn't an indication they might be gay, or at least bisexual?

Well... earlier, you defined "gay" as someone who is exclusively sexually attracted to the same gender. Now, you want to include people who might be bisexual... or people who might be asexual and just like to have a good time with whomever. Unless you become intimate with them, there is no way for you to really know what turns them on.... maybe they're "faking it?" Maybe they're still trying to figure out their sexuality? Or maybe what you perceive as a date really wasn't a date? I've "gone out with the boys" to pick up women... if you were my next door neighbor, would you assume I am gay because you saw me dressed up and getting in the car with another guy?

Or someone you know will know they are gay and tell you, or you will see them dating people of the same gender. There are other, less accurate, more stereotyping indicators as well, obviously. Maybe you think the only way to know if a person is gay is if they tell you or you are intimate with them, but it simply is not true.

Well, we just covered how you could be mistaken about "dating" and your other assertion is hearsay or gossip... you're going by what a third party tells you about someone. Then, if that's not bad enough, you go on to justify stereotyping people and applying a label based on your stereotypes. Do you honestly not see anything wrong with that?

I will say it again... the ONLY WAY you can KNOW if someone is truly exclusively attracted to same gender is if they intimate this to you themselves. Otherwise, you are assuming.

You can keep repeating this, but it isn't true. I have more than once been told that a person was gay, not because someone assumed it, but because they knew. So obviously there is at least one other way to know a person is gay.

But the fact that someone told you that someone else was sexually attracted exclusively to same gender is HEARSAY! GOSSIP! IT'S COMING FROM A THIRD PARTY! What part of this are you failing to comprehend?

Why must a sexual desire be private?

What the fuck man? Because it IS... that's why! No one knows what turns you on except YOU! Jeesh! You can fucking be married to someone for 50 years and your partner doesn't know what ACTUALLY turns you on! That's something that resides in your own mind. You might not care for anyone to know you get turned on by midgets in drag! That might be information you wish to remain private and not divulge to anyone else.

Or perhaps someone who knew the person told her they were gay. Or she knows the gay man herself and, as I've already pointed out, she found out about their sexual orientation in any of a number of ways.

But you're STILL missing the point that the information is coming from a third party who is NOT the individual in question and they may have no idea what they're talking about. Maybe they heard it from someone else who heard it from someone else? Can you not comprehend this or something? What the fuck is wrong with you? You can't understand that personal private information is not something you can assume based on what other people tell you?

Was it you who was talking earlier about hitting on a female Marine and after being rejected you found out that "most all of them are lesbians?" How the fuck do you know that? Based on some goddamn stereotype? Is THAT how you judge EVERYONE?