Is no one "straight"?

Is no one straight?

  • All "straight" people actually are bisexual, they're just unwilling to admit it.

    Votes: 2 3.1%
  • More "straight" people are bi than are willing to admit it, but there are some people who are straig

    Votes: 17 26.2%
  • All people are bisexual, whether they think they're gay or straight.

    Votes: 4 6.2%
  • There are straight people, gay people, and bi people.

    Votes: 44 67.7%

  • Total voters
    65
Re: Re: Re: Re: YO PEOPLES NEED TO EMBARASS MYSELF!

Joe Wordsworth said:
So, just so we're on the same page. You're clear and convincing reasons for your derogatory comments are:

That, with respect to conversations about governmental models, I wasn't advocating gay rights.

That talking about people objectively (as objects) is less-than-human.

That I've never specifically argued on the side of gay rights.

And that I joked with Belegnon with a witty comment about pain


...you realize, of course, that by these standards just about EVERYONE here is a mother fucker, right?


Oh, Joe....at least your good-looking....
 
gyrl said:
How would you classify a female who is attracted to men, but enjoys fantasies about women, although making these fantasies into reality isn't appealing? I saw on a tv show once that women enjoy looking at other nude women in porn not so much because they are attracted to them, but because they like to imagine themselves in that woman's position/situation (no pun intended). ???

A hundred and fifty years ago, Krafft-Ebbing called it "idealized sexual inversion." He acknowledged that people may be excited by ideas that they realize, consciously or unconsciously, would not actually work well in reality.

Considering how very odd the "science" of sexuality was at the point, he does makes some decent points from time to time.

Shanglan
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: YO PEOPLES NEED TO EMBARASS MYSELF!

Joe Wordsworth said:
So, just so we're on the same page. You're clear and convincing reasons for your derogatory comments are:

That, with respect to conversations about governmental models, I wasn't advocating gay rights.

That talking about people objectively (as objects) is less-than-human.

That I've never specifically argued on the side of gay rights.

And that I joked with Belegnon with a witty comment about pain


...you realize, of course, that by these standards just about EVERYONE here is a mother fucker, right?

No.

That you have treated gays poorly, belittling them when you disagree with them about their rights. See Lucky incident/making gays prove why the are worthy of equal rights incident.

Yes.

That talking about people solely as objects, ignoring and belittiling all human emotional attachment to any argument for being quote "illogical and irrelevant" is indeed an act of treating something as less-than-human. You do it to everyone. I stated so earlier, which is why I apologized for it. Twice. Is this getting through?

Yes.

You have never argued on the side of gay rights. It is greatly irrelevant to much of my point. It was merely used as an indicator of why I screwed up and assumed greater crimes than you commited. See preceding apology which by your ungratefulness and assholity I increasingly wonder if I should have bothered to give.

No.

You snapped at Bel. There is a great tonal difference between joking and snapping. You snapped at him albeit wittily. Again, this is far removed from my initial apology, but apparently arguing about my apology brings you greater joy than accepting it. If you will throw this in my face, because of something I said that was true in an apology taking back what was untrue, well you're an asshole. Sorry.



No, you see my apology wasn't sharpening a knife of vendetta or seeking to demonstrate your assholic nature (your last two posts serve that purpose far better than I could do).

It was an apology because I believed something about your past behavior that was untrue. I looked it up and saw it was untrue. I said "fuck me with a chainsaw, what an error I have made. Gosh I am an asshole" to myself. I posted an apology stating my apology, my path to achieving said apology, and finally the reason why I had believed such a falsehood. All of it ended with me asking forgiveness for the slights I did make.

That is all I did. You pissed on that. You apparently believed I still had falsehoods to clear. I demonstrated that I didn't. You piss on me again stating that I am somehow a) calling you a mother-fucker and b) am calling you such because of the true reasons that led to my error.

So, I'd like to say I'm sorry I slandered you and I thank you for making me check my slander less I carry that misbelief and falsehood on. Perhaps you will not piss on this one or perhaps you will. But third time is a charm and there will not be a fourth.
 
gyrl: I saw on a tv show once that women enjoy looking at other nude women in porn not so much because they are attracted to them, but because they like to imagine themselves in that woman's position/situation
--Definitely the case with me. :)

sweet: I will keep you warm- and I'll cover you too
--Promises, promises. Like I can believe you.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: YO PEOPLES NEED TO EMBARASS MYSELF!

Originally posted by Lucifer_Carroll
That you have treated gays poorly, belittling them when you disagree with them about their rights. See Lucky incident/making gays prove why the are worthy of equal rights incident.

That was hardly belittling her. That was being open and honest with her about both who is invested and the irrelevance of assertions about investment in the conversation. It had nothing to do with making anyone prove she has rights, though I do maintain that if we're to talk about gay marriage being a right it will be on homosexuals that want to marry to prove it--that's just how the law works, though, nothing personal.

That talking about people solely as objects, ignoring and belittiling all human emotional attachment to any argument for being quote "illogical and irrelevant" is indeed an act of treating something as less-than-human. You do it to everyone. I stated so earlier, which is why I apologized for it. Twice. Is this getting through?

So... ALL science is a practice of inhumanity and belittling human beings? Because, if we're saying that speaking objectively about people is that end, then it is remarkable just how many things are inhuman--so many, that I wonder if your designation has any real meaning at all.

You have never argued on the side of gay rights.

Oh, but I have.

You snapped at Bel. There is a great tonal difference between joking and snapping. You snapped at him albeit wittily. Again, this is far removed from my initial apology, but apparently arguing about my apology brings you greater joy than accepting it. If you will throw this in my face, because of something I said that was true in an apology taking back what was untrue, well you're an asshole. Sorry.

How did I snap when I thought it was funny? I made a groovy reference to "HoL" with that comment, having to do with the agony-meter.

It was a joke, Luc. You can come down off your high horse any time now.

It was an apology because I believed something about your past behavior that was untrue. I looked it up and saw it was untrue. I said "fuck me with a chainsaw, what an error I have made. Gosh I am an asshole" to myself. I posted an apology stating my apology, my path to achieving said apology, and finally the reason why I had believed such a falsehood. All of it ended with me asking forgiveness for the slights I did make.

Look back at your apology. I'll repost it if you just can't spare the time... it is thoroughly laced with inappopriate shit, more slinging, more insults. That ain't an apology. You want to make yourself into some kind of martyr because I didn't accept some of the things you said as appopriate, fine. But let's not pretend they don't exist.

That is all I did. You pissed on that. You apparently believed I still had falsehoods to clear. I demonstrated that I didn't. You piss on me again stating that I am somehow a) calling you a mother-fucker and b) am calling you such because of the true reasons that led to my error.

So, I'd like to say I'm sorry I slandered you and I thank you for making me check my slander less I carry that misbelief and falsehood on. Perhaps you will not piss on this one or perhaps you will. But third time is a charm and there will not be a fourth.

You said that I have some deep seeding violence for homosexuals... this is untrue. I made that perfectly clear. Your apology was, in fact, littered with snide little comments like "Oh, I'm sorry I said X, despite you having an obvious implication towards hatred or homophobia".

That just isn't an apology anywhere you go.

If necessary, start from square one. You posted some derogatory shit. If you're sorry, that's fine. This constant editorializing and trying to make connections that don't rationally pan out about how you were wrong BUT isn't helping if your intention really was to be sorry.

. . .. ... .....

And, yeah, in some sense I would be much less strict about all this (you can call it being an asshole, but its just being VERY strict about what is being said and showing why)... but at the end of the day, we're talking about you coming up on the board, picking some thread, obviously failing to read my opinion already posted because of either laziness or thriftiness, and then proceeded to call me a homophobe and a hate-monger in front of everybody because you don't have the goddamn sense to check your facts.

If I'd jumped on here and started calling someone a racist nigger-hater or something because I didn't bother thinking about what they've said and the bounds under which they'd said it, I'd fully expect them to pull my shit out from under me and straight up demand an apology.

And I'd give it... without editorializing, with out weak-ass rationalizations like "Oh, but you know... you said, once that Rosa Parks wasn't that crucial to the Civil Rights movements, so you have some hatred, you know" or "You made a joke about black men having big dicks, so you're a racist, but I'm sorry".

Doesn't cut it.

Accusing someone of being some kind of hate-monger is some serious shit to be slinging. Backpeddling is pathetic. This isn't some kind of joke.
 
Last edited:
I have no idea- but I do know that there is a word for marrying outside of your race- and it used to be illegal. No-one ever uses that word anymore.

Oh, I'm familiar with that word--miscegenation, right? Probably only used by the most diehard of racists, who are now old enough to be dead. I thought we were discussing attraction to people of different races as paraphilia.


How would you classify a female who is attracted to men, but enjoys fantasies about women, although making these fantasies into reality isn't appealing?

I used to wonder about my own sexual orientation because I could get off on fantasies about other women--and will probably get around to doing a story, when I've finished my present series or am stuck in it and want to do something different--when in real life, the few times women have hit on me, I've felt the same befuddlement and what-did-I-do-to-bring-that-on that I guess most hetero people would feel. Later I came to the conclusion that I simply have a good imagination.
 
Kassiana said:
Sorry, I don't.

I don't trust women in general, actually. I find men to be less dishonest than are women.

LOL- never *ever* trust anyone who says "trust me."
 
Square 1: I'm sorry.

Insert any reason you'd like. I can even be sorry for personally ordering the Holocaust.

There's a lot I wish to say to you but this isn't the time or the place. And my initial apology as inadequate as you felt it was was in genuine earnest. I was and am sorry I made such a gross inaccurate slander.


P.S. Because I can see the furor brewing on your particularly <blank> mind, the sarcasm of para 2 is born far more out of the realization that a series of concilatory apologies will constantly prove to be inadequate until every trace of earnest and honesty is crushed out of it like a vice and my desire to prevent that than any other reason.
 
I asked several posters on this thread for permission to quote them in a story. That story -- "Topping Love" -- is now up. Link in sig. Hope you enjoy. :D
 
Kassiana said:
I don't believe so. I am not in the least bisexual myself, but I see and hear people saying things like "everyone's bi" sometimes.

Do you believe, despite my knowledge of myself and what turns me on, that I must be bisexual? Or do you accept that yes, there are some people who are not at all turned on by the same sex?

For myself, I KNOW there are some people who aren't turned on by the same sex. I'm one of them. :D

I believe that everyone falls on a line somewhere between straight and gay. You can fall at one end or the other, or somewhere toward one end or the other, or in the middle.
 
Back
Top