This may or may not help...
The debate over whether or not enjoying sexual activity regardless of gender alters one's orientation will likely never be answered to anybody's appeasement. For the record, both OBM and his supporters as well as those who oppose him ALL make valid points. I prefer to take things on a case-by-case basis, and I think it's a bit presumptuous in any case to try to tell anybody for certain that their self-identification is in error. It may be, it may not... but how would anybody besides the person themselves really know? Who are we to judge others' emotions?
The debate, however, about whether tickling with persons of the same gender can be independent of sexual orientation should be very simple to understand... even for O Bleeding Me... and since I kind of like the way he tried to explain his logic, I'll steal his format.
Sexual activity is described and defined as anything that can be sexually stimulating to a person. A turn-on. If you have a thing for feet, then feet are a sexual focus. If not, they are nothing more than feet. If elbows turn you on, it's sexual. If not, it is not a sexual focus. If spanking turns you on, it is sexual. If not, then it is not a sexual activity. This, however, can be situational. A parent can spank their child and not become aroused by it. Non-sexual. The same parent can spank their spouse and be aroused by it. Sexual. A girl can tickle her sister or her best friend and not be turned on by it. Non-sexual. Same girl can tickle her boyfriend and become aroused at his reaction. Sexual.
This solves quite nicely the idea that parents can tickle their kids and not be guilty of pedophilia. True, there are some people out there for whom tickling is ALWAYS a sexual thing. Should these people be tickling their children? Absolutely not. But if doing so does not arouse them, then it is not ALWAYS a sexual thing anymore. This takes a lot of personal honesty and insight, but it does vary from person to person.
THEREFORE...
If a guy tickles or is tickled by another man and it does not arouse him sexually, it is not a sexual activity. If he goes home later to his wife or girlfriend and engages in the same behavior as a means of foreplay and finds it very sexually stimulating and arousing, then that is a sexual act. Moreover, the aformentioned guy has, thus far, NOT engaged in any homosexual behavior.
Arousing= sexual. Not arousing= not sexual. This, too, is very simple.
As always, I welcome any exceptions... the world is not black and white. People can be unsure of whether something is arousing at the time... but this is not what I am talking about.
I also welcome any comments. Again, the argument is still unsolved, IMHO, as to whether a guy can be tickled by another man and find it arousing, but not be gay, simply because the behavior an the sensation turns him on... but that, again is NOT what I am making a point on, so if anybody finds an error in my logic, please, do not base it on such arguments.
I have tried to clarify as best I can. Any questions? Any thoughts?