I will try to tread lightly, as last time we participated in a conversation like this, it went off the rails pretty quickly. But there is a question I'd still like a response to: why do people insist on using binary terminology? Sure, one can argue that someone who is attracted to both sexes is "both gay and straight," but wouldn't bisexual be the more accurate term? The same people who say "that's 100% gay," are saying that people ARE NOT straight if they even once participate in a sexual scenario that involves two members of the same sex. I take no issue with that, if your definition of straight means that a person only participates in sexual activity with the opposite sex, but if someone who will consider some level of play with either a man or a woman isn't straight, then doesn't it stand to reason that he or she isn't strictly gay either? Why is there a tendency to call such a person "gay" and not "bi?" People say "it's gay, not that there's anything wrong with that," but to me, it sure seems like they think there's something wrong with it, if they dismissively slap a single word on any and all people who aren't exclusively on one extreme pole of a very diverse, sliding scale.
I'm not asking these questions to be dishonest about my own behavior. I am only sexually attracted to women, visually. I'm not closed to any and all situations that involve men, but so far I haven't seen or met a man that gives me the kind of primal, sexual response that a curvy, beautiful, feminine woman does. I have sucked a man at the direction of my wife, or the direction of the man himself being dominant to her. As a submissive, I did enjoy the act of submission, and even more I enjoyed that it gave my wife pleasure. I don't seek out male partners and would never, ever try to make a move on a guy who doesn't express consent and interest. In fact, the conversation is typically had between my wife and her bulls before they even hook up, since having me play fluffer/clean up is an interest but not a requirement for her. As someone who willingly sits on the sidelines when a bull is strictly straight, I don't *think* I've made anyone uncomfortable with her/us, but if someone has bailed because of knowing this about us, they're not a good fit for us anyway. This whole "you better tell us upfront" thing feels a little overly cautious and homophobic to me. We're honest, respectful of boundaries, and not pushy with anyone. So far she's been with at least as many bulls who didn't want any male-to-male contact as those who did, and we've tried to convince precisely zero of them to change their minds.
So my wife and I are not in the closet about anything. My same sex experiences likely mean that most people wouldn't consider me 100% straight, and that's fine, neither would I. I would say I'm bisexual at least to some degree. But to me, the intention and behavior is far more interesting and relevant than the label. For example, I find it interesting that some people (myself included) are sexually drawn to being taken outside their comfort zone. In the right circumstances, I've enjoyed quite a bit of pain. I don't find pain itself arousing, but I enjoy submitting to someone who gives a good, painful spanking or ballbusting and gets pleasure from consensually inflicting it. I also find it interesting that every dictionary definition I can find defines sexual orientation based on which sex(es) a person is ATTRACTED to, whether they act on it or not. I've had encounters with members of either sex that I didn't find attractive, but again, doing so was arousing because it meant submitting to someone and being taken outside my own comfort zone. I can't explain my own proclivities, but I am definitely fascinated by human sexuality. I'm also fascinated by the fact that nobody tries to call my wife, who's actually physically attracted to both men and women and has far more same sex tendencies than I have, "gay." Even the most puritanical and/or toxically macho people we've encountered seem to be willing to call her "bisexual," so why are we calling men who blur the lines "gay?" If you honestly don't think there's anything wrong with it, why is it more ok for women to experiment than men, and why will you use correct terminology to describe women but not men?
My point is, this isn't a Boolean world. Life is complicated and nuanced, and personally, I find that beautiful. I proudly enjoy living in the gray area, exploring all that life has to offer. I don't think my own preferences or the things I will or won't try make me better than anyone else, so I don't believe I'm in the closet or trying to hide anything. If people are not careful and thoughtful, I think clinging to labels can be detrimental, as it has a tendency to oversimplify and color our understanding at best, and cause division, insecurity, animosity and pain at worst. Obviously, we need labels and definitions at some level in order to communicate. To that extent, the closest word my wife and I have found to accurately describe ourselves sexually with a label is sapiosexual. I realize it's vague and won't be widely adopted by, well, people who AREN'T sapiosexual, so I accept being called bisexual. I have absolutely no shame in it and if it carries a negative connotation to you, that's your issue and not mine. But I do find it utterly baffling how many people want to say "that's 100% gay." If "gayness" can be expressed as a percentage, someone who engages in sexual activity with both same and opposite sex partners is neither 100% gay nor 100% straight. So why are so many people so insistent on calling someone gay based on a minority of their sexual experiences, and so apparently averse to using more accurate terminology like bisexual, flexible, non-binary, open-minded, etc.?