You could be bicurious or bisexual which isn’t necessarily gay or straight. I was gonna add pansexual in there but I’m not 100% sure on the meaning of it
in BL (which isn't an accurate representation of real life gay people), there's the trope of "a straight man falling for a guy but still being straight."
The BL logic is that X person is straight but Y person is just so irresistible that X turns gay ONLY for Y, like Y is an exception. This trope exists because it's a common gay fantasy to "turn" straight guys; I imagine there's a sense of taboo-ness and power that has also led this trope into the BL world.
But in real life, that isn't how it works—if you're a straight guy, you're not attracted to guys, period. Because that's the definition of straight!
But this series is 100% fiction so no one cares about the specifics lol. Plus, writers can do whatever the fuck they want in fiction lmao. It's all just fun and games.
Okay, you better sit down and be ready for my word vomit. Lol, I will repeat myself alot but that is because... because I am also venting lol. This will be a long response.
It all just depends on how you feel and want to identify. Sexuality is complex. Being straight typically means that you are only sexually attracted to the "opposite" gender of a person (gender is also complex but I am NOT going there today). Being straight COULD mean something different. Some people don't realize they are something other than heterosexual until later in life. In this case, two men who feel and/or identity as being straight have fallen in love. As long as they both identify as still being straight, they are straight men who happened to fall in love. They could identify as being gay, bisexual, pansexual, demisexual, or any sort of way and still be in love. Being a man who happened to fall in love with another man does not completely mean you are gay or bi. It just means love just happened.
In short, it doesn't matter if a man who identifies as straight falls in love with a man but he still calls himself straight. His identity is HIS business and no one else's. The only problem anyone should ever have is if someone is calling themselves straight because they are homophobic. Yes, people who are not straight could have homophobic tendencies towards themselves too - unfortunately, it is common. Someone who continues to identify as straight despite being in a relationship with a man is welcomed to - what I understand from someone who is standing with his self-identify is that he just so happened to fall in love with this special man but he would not be sexually attracted to any other man. Yes, people who are bisexual can lean more towards men or women but that (again) is THEIR business, not mine. Someone's identity is for them to decide and once others start to categorize or put titles and identities on them, that is when there is a problem.
If I were going to make an analogy to "how can a man like men but not be gay", I would say... if I liked and only wore sandals, I would be known as someone who only wore sandals. I refused to wear heels all my life. Then all of a sudden, I found one pair of heels I LOVE and I started wearing it everywhere. I stopped wearing sandals but I ONLY wore this one pair of heels. You ask me why and I say "because these are my favorite, I love them." If I never go back to wearing sandals, that doesn't means that sandals have lost their place in my preferences; I just have a new favorite, a new addition to my preferences. And if someone says to me "well, that means you just love all heels then". NO. I like these shoes, I don't like all heels. I know I won't and don't like those other shoes, I don't have to try them on. And I am not "a sandal AND heels lover", I just so happened to like this pair of heels. It shouldn't be up to others whether I still prefer sandals OR if I later start a collection of heels in my closet.
This analogy is complex and almost absurd but what matters is HIS feet. Why should others get a say about HIS shoes. AND I do not mean to equate people to shoes, I am just trying to make this complex concept into something simpler. But do you see how one's preferences is only determined by the wearer? Sexuality is not some general pie chart or venn diagram we can throw people into. A man can like 1 man and still say in the general scope, he is still a straight man because he feels that if things (heaven forbid) don't work out, he'd only be attracted to women. However, I urge you to be careful. If a man is saying he's straight because he's afraid to be called gay or he doesn't want to admit his gay or bisexual-ness, talk to him. He may not necessarily be bigoted but rather, he may be scared. In the real world, be careful with trying to get people to "admit" their gayness. You don't want to out someone before they are ready; furthermore, you do not want to categorize people into boxes for YOUR own sake, safety, and convenience.
There is my TedTalk. I'm sorry to take an hour of your time bwahaha. Nice to meet you, have a nice day.
your analogy is flawed because you can't compare sexuality to liking heels vs sandals. sexuality is a biological drive; it's why you can't "become gay" or "become straight"—you can *realize* you're gay or straight, but you're born with your sexuality and it can't change.
but with shoes, it's all about what you "like" and that can always change. maybe you grow out of a sandals phase and start liking heels. maybe you get used to wearing heels after that first pair and grow to like other heels. but you can't "grow out" of being gay, nor can you go from straight to gay (again, you can realize you're gay after previously thinking you're straight, but that's different).
you're right in that a person can decide to personally identify as straight and still be a guy that dates guys—because people can technically identify as ANYTHING and you can't exactly stop them since it's just words—but that person would just be wrong. by definition, if a cis man is only attracted to women, he is straight (it gets more complicated for non-cis individuals). but I'm assuming tomoharu is cis, so by definition, he is not straight. maybe he's heteroflexible (mostly straight but open to men) but that's a subset of bisexuality/pansexuality.
being bi/pan doesn't mean your attraction is split 50/50 between men and women—you can be 10/90, like tomoharu probably is. and for a guy, it doesn't mean that you're attracted to ALL men (and women), just like how being a straight girl doesn't mean you're attracted to ALL women. all being a bi/pan/gay men means is that you HAVE THE ABILITY to be attracted to people of the same sex and/or nonbinary people, because straight men physically and emotionally cannot feel romantic & sexual attraction for other men.
hope that clears things up!! also please don't take my instances of all-caps as yelling, I'm just trying to place emphasis but there's no bold or italic function, so sorry :( i just want to have a civil conversation haha
Loooool, yes. I LOVE civil conversations.
And yes, I know my analogy is flawed. I think you've really pointed out some points that I didn't bring to the table. I do not think sexuality is as flat as my analogy portrays it but I do think that sexuality is something that can change and fluctuate. Not change drastically but we are all changing people and our sexuality can follow suit.
I think sexuality on paper is much more simple and easy to understand. Looking at definitions and the general statistics is great but I think we also need to account people's experiences. Sexuality is quite flexible. Sexuality is something that we can identify but each person's sexuality is slightly skewed to their own life. Definitions and studies are rigorous but we must not forget the human condition. Definitions and strict terms are definitely helpful but they are also limiting.
Straight men are believed to physically and emotionally NOT be able to feel sexual or romantic attraction to other men but what happens to the straight men who DO feel an attraction? Is it wrong to put that person into a category they do not feel they fit within? What happens to this man's own idea about his sexuality if we decide to put him in a category for the sake of "political correctness" or "technicalities"? Maybe he IS wrong, but what if he isn't? Are we simply denying his own feelings? Technicalities are definitely helpful but personal experience and identity are also important.
I AM NOT discounting anything you've said, nor am I disagreeing. I just think we need some space within the confounds of sexuality for those who may not fit within the defined terms of sexuality. Maybe people are confused, are transitioning from one term to another, do not have the language for how they truly want to identify, or maybe they are just PLAIN WRONG in the way they self-identify. But I feel that statistics and defined terms can limit the human experience. As humans, we like to have categories and we like to identify people. Language for the LGBTQ+ is important because they have been silenced in most of history. However, some people just don't fit the confounds of our currently defined language, and that's okay.
I am not a sexuality expert so of course, I might be completely wrong. But I think humans are more complex than a dictionary so we should allow some space for people who identify outside the norm. They may not be "right" but why is it important to know if they are right or wrong? One of my close friend's pronouns are they/them/theirs. They present feminine on most days and they identify as asexual and aromantic; however, they also has a partner (they call him their boyfriend). If we go by definitions, my dear friend is "wrong". But they aren't. They are still asexual and aromantic.
Language helps us understand where we stand in the world, but language is also always changing. Humans are always changing. Sexuality can be strict and rigid - in many cases, we like it that way. But sexuality is liberating when people can simply express their love for others without having others put in their 2 cents.
Lol, I love how our arguments are so different but still important to have a conversation about. In no means am I saying you are rigid. But you are taking a textbook, detailed, and sharp look at our language and sexuality while I feel like I am taking a very "liberal arts" stab at the conversation - I love this. I may be wrong and that's okay - this is all part of the conversation. I am a straight cisgendered woman so I have lots of privilege, one being my privileged of being ignorant. So I might definitely be wrong but I think having conversations like this is really helping in my learning process as an ally. Thank you for teaching me and really adding to this conversation! Also, I love how this civil conversation about sexuality is simply because we all read a chapter in a BL manga (๑•ㅂ•)و✧
Someone explain to me how can you date a guy and not be gay (╯°Д °)╯╧╧