@JohnAllenson:
You're all arguing over different definitions of what gay and straight are without acknowledging that there are different definitions.
Functional: if you can have sex with a man you are gay. If you can have sex with a woman you are straight. If you can have sex with both you are bisexual.
Attraction: If someone has sex with a man ony for a pay check but persues sex with women he's not gay. (One of my favorite performers from Sean Cody came out as bisexual and had an uncomfortable scene with a guy who was only there for the money and refused to try to have any fun.)
Identity: People get to name themselves. I've known Gay guys in monogamous heterosexual relationships. Straight guys in same-sex relationships. People who don't ever have sex who identify with gay or straight or bisexual. And people who do have sex who identify as Asexual.
Myself, I notice that guys can have sex with people or objects that they are not attracted to. I'm not going to call a guy who sticks a dildo up his butt a dildo-sexual no matter who many times he does it on camera.
Yep, this is really good.
I think what most people are saying when they call themselves straight was more about 'straight in attraction', as in they leaned more towards women. Changing times does make some men willing to try sex with other men without labeling themselves as gay or bisexual– which is where MSM as a term is based on, I think.
This is both interesting and frustrating at the same time because it implies that being gay is a matter of culture / behavior / attitude, or at worst the old idea that being gay means you have to be a drag queen swishy femme, and I think this is the same root to so many femmephobia in gay community these days.
Not to mention the difference in romantic attraction and sexual attraction.
So I cannot help but wonder if the amount of the so-called gay4pay or straight guys doing gay sex would decrease if the labels gay / bisexual / pansexual / demisexual / queer are not as stigmatized as they still are these days.