I don't think I'm a lesbian, but I'm in a lesbian relationship. I care about my partner, she's like a part of me that was always missing until I found her.

Sexually, it just doesn't work unless I'm imagining that I'm having sex with a man though. I've been secretly chatting with guys online and reading yaoi to scratch that itch, and I'm starting to feel really bad. I haven't actually cheated yet, but I feel like my partner deserves better than I can give or be for her.

Is there a way to actually make myself a lesbian? I know that is probably something that's a bad idea, but I'm willing to become a lesbian for real for her if I can somehow.

>>33316355 (OP)
What is it about her that you can't handle? Is it the fact she is just soft?

Just ask if you can try a man just once. It should scratch the itch. Then you just go back to fingering and stuff.

What is in that relationship that keeps you in? Do you feel a same kind of affection that you feel with a man? (don't know if you've tried that but anyway)

Know that you can't change your sexuality. No matter how hard you try. If you're straight you're straight. If that is what you are - then you should just let her go. Or at least break the illusion of romance she (probably) has to you.

It's hard to tell about your relationship to this woman but that's something you should be clear about.

>>33316381
Idk, like in terms of arousal women just don't do anything for me. I'm not attracted. I'm only in this partnership because there's an emotional connection I haven't been able to find with anyone else, but I haven't enjoyed any of the sex without imagining it was with a man.
>>33316531
I get what you're saying, but isn't the fact that I'm emotionally invested in keeping the relationship a sign that it's important to me and that I am a lesbian after all?

>>33318548
if you "felt an emotional connection" with me but didn't want to have sex with me at all guess what that would make us? Friends. You aren't a lesbian. You can't have a relationship or romantic love without sexual attraction.

>>33316355 (OP)
Lesbian sexuality isn't real: it boils down to loneliness, vain rebellion, coping, or abuse. In your case, it seems like you just needed a friend. You shouldn't try to rebel against your own ontology for the sake of a relationship: you just need to adjust the bounds of the relationship.

>>33316355 (OP)
Why is breaking up something you haven't mentioned? You're being selfish.

>>33318551
>Lesbian sexuality isn't real
>t. not a lesbian

>>33318548
>I get what you're saying, but isn't the fact that I'm emotionally invested in keeping the relationship a sign that it's important to me and that I am a lesbian after all?
I can see how you think this. Modern relationships have become overly-intellectualized because of t h e d i s c o u r s e , and because of angry queers trying to nitpick and legislate everyone's preferences to "make it fair".
But it's just not true. You can't have a real relationship without sexual attraction. It doesn't work. You need that irrational core of primal physical attraction for it to be anything more than friendship. You are only hurting her and yourself more the longer you go along with this.

This isn't something you can reason away. Romantic partnership can ONLY be built on mutual, physical, pre-rational attraction. Anything else is doomed to tragedy and failure of some kind.

>>33318572
>because of t h e d i s c o u r s e
What is "the discourse" and why can't you just type it normally?
>angry queers trying to nitpick and legislate everyone's preferences to "make it fair".
No one has any idea what you're talking about
>You can't have a real relationship without sexual attraction
Sexless marriages do and have always existed.
I don't even entirely disagree with you, I just find everything you wrote to be annoying, confusing, and nonsensical

>>33318603
>nooo don't be slightly unflattering aaaaaaaa
Okay then, wake up at 40 and realize you've destroyed both your lives.
Never forget that you chose this.

>>33318611
I'm not OP and I still have no idea what you're talking about

>>33318613
No you understand perfectly, that's why you're so outraged.
You're performing confusion to discredit me in the eyes of onlookers. I know how the game is played.

>>33318617
I am just confused because you talk nonsense and assume everyone understands it