You obviously did not even open the link. First line: "Individuals who identify as heterosexual but engage in same-sex sexual behavior fascinate both researchers and the media."

...and he edited his comment.

I did. It doesn’t matter what they call themselves. People have been hiding the truth about their feelings, deviations, etc since forever. I fail to see anything relevant here.

Categories are a human-defined thing, not something that is "out there". The point is to try to understand human behavior better, and that includes questioning pre-existing categories, and perhaps, defining new ones?

Quoting the abstract again: "Latent class analysis revealed six distinctive "types" of heterosexually identified students whose last hookup was with a same-sex partner.[...]"

Do we really need to use tax money on this kinda of stuff... Is it not clear that minorities would pretend to belong to the majority. Because it is more benificial?

It's relevant because we have to use terminology like MSM (men who have sex with men) in public health because otherwise we exclude people who do not identify as homosexual or bisexual. Often we don't care how someone self identifies. We do care about things they do.

Knowing why some men identify as heterosexual and refuse to identify as anything else -even though they have sex with men- can tell us about stigma and discrimination and can help us provide healthcare.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men_who_have_sex_with_men

If I eat a piece of chicken, can I not also be a vegetarian?

No, you can’t.

Ever?

Nope, you had your chance.

Shit, I really wanted to be a non-smoker too.

If you identify as vegetarian, then proceed to eat chicken. Then no you arent vegetarian.

If you've eaten chicken at some point in the past, then identify as vegetarian and stick to it. Then yes you are vegetarian.

If you've eaten chicken at some point in the past, then identify as vegetarian and stick to it, and then eat chicken after some point. Then you was a vegetarian but are no longer.

I didn't think it was that difficult.

If I have a total of $1 can I identify as a billionaire?

Sure, I can say that I am, but I would be wrong and delusional.

If I eat a piece of cake, can I also be on a diet?

A diet to gain wait maybe.

> If you have sex with a guy, you’re obviously not heterosexual.

So girls who have sex with guys are not heterosexual either?

No they are just called.... Promiscuous...

So if you are male and sleep with a female you are not homosexual? There have been a lot of gay men married and sleeping with their wives in history.

> If you have sex with a guy, you’re obviously not heterosexual

Please don't assume that all readers are male.

I wonder why this is being downvoted. Perhaps I am very simple and don't get complex nuances of the matter, but for me a heterosexual person is one who likes sexual relations with the opposite sex only. Having a consensual same-sex relation implies being either homosexual or bisexual.

The OP oversimplified a bit more: for starters, one could be a woman. To get the obvious answer out of the way.

Secondly, and more to your point, one could be curious as to what the experience is like without having any specific sexual feelings for the same gender. Sexuality means you enjoy the act, just performing is not enough. See also: gay-for-pay pornstars, closeted gay people in hetero relationships, non-consensual sex. An example from the study would be "performative" homosexual relationships, where someone might kiss someone of the same gender not for their own pleasure, but to entice a third person of the opposite gender.

So, to you, a sexual encounter being "consensual" and it being something each partner "likes" are synonymous?

In your world, if you have sex with someone but it ends up not being very good, you view yourself as having been raped?

I'm sorry, but conflating what someone "likes" with what is "consensual" is deeply problematic. I'd ask that you not do that.