On the basis of fools rush in where Angels fear to tread, If Craiglist is rife with straight men seeking gay sex, are these men not, by default, gay or, at least, bi-sexual?
Sorry if this is a naive question from someone who is not gay but I do not see how these guys can continue to classify themselves as straight.
Seriously guys, no offence intended. Let the scorn begin !

Ok. Cool with that.
I thought about it for a bit after posting and I did wonder if it could be guys wanting a thrill in the same way as other people throw themselves out of perfectly good aeroplanes with a sheet strapped to their backs.
Are they doing it for the rush or are they just gay/bi-sexual but not out?
I am aware I am wandering in a minefield by the way !

It's also a matter of self identity.

The labeling of people as heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual beings is a relatively new practice.

My designation of those craigslist seekers was somewhat tongue in cheek though. I'm sure that some of them are either in denial about their preference or in a transitional state. Some will even admit as much. Many of the straight-identifying men seek out smooth, young, feminine types--even crossdressers, transsexuals, or transgender women. They feel safer within themselves expressing their sexuality with man who displays typically female traits. Others are merely so horny that they'll fuck anything to get off.

The men I tend to attract are often those who love men who are men, and, though they are fundamentally enlightened enough to understand and admit what they like, they struggle with the social implications of exposing their sexual orientation. They also tend to steer clear of stereotypical gay men (as lovers), as it can be both embarrassing to them in public and a frightening reflection of how they fear they appear to others. I am safe because they see in me how they want to appear to others; though, they mostly do anyhow.

Well, thanks for the frank response. I am aware our current labelling of people as heterosexual or homosexual is relatively new and these were unknown concepts in ancient society. I am currently reading a book by an American author called Melissa Mohr called 'Holy Shit'. It is a book about slang and swearing and breaks this down into two types; the type driven by what would once have been called blasphemy, ( the Holy) and that driven by reference to bodily parts and functions ( the shit obviously). The first chapter is all about the early Greek and Roman society's and how, particularly, the Romans, had some pretty course language, in Latin of course. This chapter introduced the Roman concept of the 'Viri', the chosen ones, freeborn Roman citizens who exercised strong self control and tried to dominate others, particularly through penetration. Seen as the future leaders of Roman society the Viri would have sex with women, young, lower status men and young boys and this was perfectly acceptable and normal behaviour. Even wife's of Viri accepted that their husbands would occasionally want to have sex with other men and boys and it was an accepted and normal part of Roman society. Men who did not fulfil these social criteria were called 'homines', a neutral word without the glory of Vir, or, especially in the case of slaves 'pueri', literally 'boys'. Young boys/men who had been singled out as future Viri were off limits for this kind of sexual 'interest' from older Viri. When clothed, they wore the toga praetexta, a white toga with a purple border to signify their status. While at the baths, and naked, they wore a necklace called a bulla around their necks, which had one or two small carved penis' called fascini on a leather thong to signify that they were off limits.
The emperor Claudius came in for a lot of ridicule amongst the Roman ruling classes as he was well known for having an extreme lust for women and was not interested in pursuing sexual relations with men, and this singled him out as being very 'odd'.
Viri is the root of our current word 'Virile'
So far, a fascinating book and would heartily recommend.
Out of interest, the Romans had 3 words for Penis. One was Penis, and was used much like we use it today for more clinical description. They used the word 'Mentula' much as we would use the word Cock or Prick and this was fairly offensive. They had one more, which was highly obscene and of which, we do not seem to have an exact equivalent today. This word was 'Verpa', and described an erect cock, either circumcised or with the foreskin retracted on the 'uncut' version.
Seems a shame it has fallen out of use. Let's reintroduce Verpa to the vocabulary !

Urban_Tribesman said:

 who exercised strong self control and tried to dominate others, particularly through penetration.

The Alpha male before we began attempting to seperate ourselves from the lower animals.  The alpha types still exist and so does the phrase "Fuck you", which probably came from the cavemen days, if not non-verbally, from the monkeys before us.  I tend to want to snap alpha types necks.  One of these days we will evolve to something worthy of the phrase superior beings.

Yeah, whatever.

Aaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrgggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Not really.

Aaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrgggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!