A celibate person would have no use for a sexual definition. Not a mistake religious celibates were often eunuchs.
A woman who has longings for other women (or even one woman) but never acts upon it (i.e. meets whatever criteria society sets for the definition to apply to her) should be seen as straight , imo, though perhaps with a curiosity or lingering doubts. We have no knowledge whether its attraction on the basal level or mere 'what if' curiosity.
For instance, when I first started driving I learned the stick. It was hard and I only had 2 weeks to do it (if I wanted to keep my job and lifestyle). While driving I often had the realization the yellow lines weren't barriers and I was tempted to crash my car head-on into another 'for the sake of seeing its effects'. Was I sociopsychopathic or really a danger if I didn't act?
Bad example, even in my head. What about (and I'm not trying to inflame anyone. I just read the 'The Dude' thread and above) a pedophile? What about a man with an attraction to, let's say 13yr old girls. Historically girls got married that young to guys as old and older than 30. Today females mature faster than back then. Is this man a pedophile if he finds them titillating, but doesn't act?
Or the man who wants to cheat on his wife with another but doesn't and chronically longs for it, is that cheating? Not in my eyes at least, although he's certainly flirting with the line a bit.
I see the appeal of the arguement, but ultimately we need a clear line drawn somewhere, and I think behavior is that line.
