I expect that a bi person may make a choice for their "life partner", for lack of a better term.
Does the game say Antonio is still Bi/gay and into men even if the player chooses to be only friends with Isabel (i.e. abandon her Netori path)?
I am not in a place to disagree since the only bi person (that I know of) has a failed marriage, so maybe somebody who is bi may want to chime in, because on the one hand, yes, sex with only one gender is somewhat limited, but on the other hand heteros also have a lot of temptations running around. They may also still desire some people and have to restrain themselves. So it may depend on how important "variance in sex" is for you, or if you're just not closing down while looking for "the one".
Well, think of it in different terms.
Certainly not, I agree with all of your assumptions. But since a heterosexual person can ignore their attraction to other people of the opposite gender when settling down, and homosexuals can ignore other same gender temptations, bisexuals may be able to ignore them as well. Question is probably: are you bisexual because you "need" both genders as partners, or are you because you do not shy back from anybody just because of it?
Absolutely, once they settle down they behave in either a homosexual, or heterosexual way.
The point is that when a straight man gets married he still finds other women attractive. That doesn't stop him being married. Why does finding people other than your wife attractive change if it's just women or a mixture of women and men?
You're telling me what my own point is?
It's simply about what you find sexually attractive.
It's a bit like were talking past each other. They do not change their sexuality at all, that I think we all can agree on. But even heterosexual or homosexual "married" (catch all here for any permanent monogamous relationship) find other people attractive. And coming back to the usual point I do not see how Antonio not only finding women other than Isabella attractive but also men is preventing their marriage to be successful. If he can resist temptation from girls, he should also be able to resist temptation from boys. That does not mean that he will resist - as possibly shown by his visits to a certain table - but I see no reason why he couldn't.It's simply about what you find sexually attractive.
If you're sexually attracted to\aroused by both sexes, you're bisexual. That's it.
A bi man falling in love with & marrying a woman doesn't prevent him from also being sexually attracted to men.
Being monogamous may prevent him acting on that attraction, but it's not going to prevent the attraction from happening.
As you say, it's hard enough for people who are only attracted to one sex to be monogamous!
No-one said they did not?
What I specifically said, was that Antonio is fucking men, so their wedding is not going to be fixed by them "going off into the sunset".
That is specifically what you replied to and asked if it was "really the case?", when I first said it.
See, that is why I said "we seem to be talking past each other". Apparently both of us agree on all the stuff - but I feel (and certainly you too) that the essence of what I am trying to say is going into the void. So I am introducing this to explain why I don't see a difference between heterosexual or homosexual on the one side, bisexual on the other. Because I have not seen (or understood) any difference you pointed out except for the defining part "like both genders" and I don't see how "potentially likes partners other than their spouse of a different gender than their spouse" (italics are the difference to homo or hetero people) makes a difference here.
I think we both agree that he is bi and just understood the third sentence to refer to earlier discussions about whether he is bi or secretly gay does not change the issue at hand. But given he is bi, he is also into women. So his wife is not out of his "target zone". And I don't get how "he is (also) into men" changes anything from the more general phrasing of "he is (also) into other people than his wife".
I personally agree that there is no fixing a relationship where one party cheated, although many people think otherwise. But I do think that is the only explanation needed.
what would be the difference? You say
which to me seems to imply than monogamous relationships with non heterosexuals (or I guess non homosexuals) will not work, and I still fail to see why.
There is no difference.
Antonio is bi. He will always be bi. He will also always be someone who cheated/cheats on his wife.
The obvious difference is that he's heterosexual in your statement.
I don't understand how what I said causes you to infer that?
Because it seemed to me that you were specifically referring to the men (as opposed to the women, who are the same gender as the wife) he likes being the problem. If you weren't inferring that then we are in agreement and had a failure to communicate. Two pages worth of it.
I was.
Okay, but referring specifically to Antonio and what he did and probably didn't do. It sounded more general to me.
My post, which you originally replied to, stated the following:
Nothing in that is general. It is all completely specific to him and his relationship.
With the centre sentence I disagree - and that may or may not have been the source of the misunderstanding. He chose men because he is attracted to them, but the same could have happened if he were attracted to women and met them "on the side". So him being attracted to men to me isn't the central factor of why he cheated, only of how he did.
I agree, it's not why.
