|
|
marc
|
 |
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
Defines Bisexual as such.....
BISEXUAL 1. (n., adj.) Real meaning "a being having both sexes' genitals"2. Equally attracted sexually and emotionally, to both men and women. A person of either sex who can perform both homosexually and heterosexually.
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
 |
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13818
|
|
|
It's made of brass??????????????
Well ring my bell!
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
 |
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... in its definition.
It is true that as a biologigal term bisexual means 'having both sexes in one individual' - it desn't specifically apply to genitalia - but in that context the word is used to describe lower organisms and is not applied to humans.
The term for a human with genitalia characteristic of both sexes is 'hermaphrodite', though in the USA the term 'intersexual' is apparently preferred.
When applied to humans, 'bisexual' means an individual who is ATTRACTED to members of both sexes'. There is no reference to 'performance'
I've used British dictionaries (Chambers and Oxford) to research this, and I do appreciate that the Dictionary of Gay Terms and Phrases is possibly reflecting specific usage in the gay community - but in 'ordinary' usage the meanings are as above.
While meandering through the dictionaries, I checked on 'homosexual', and there, too, the definition refers to attraction to the same sex rather than to any actual sexual relationship. As 'Gay' is defined as a colloquial term for homosexual, I assume that the same underlying definition must apply. Taking my mental meanderings a step further, I suppose that if there is a significant genetic element in gayness - and the evidence certainly points that way - then science would tend to define anyone with that genetic marker as 'homosexual', whether or not the individual chose to repress his or her 'gayness'.
I do see the significance of the threshhold to which Marc refers, but perhaps the line should be regarded as distiguishing 'functional' gayness from 'intellectual' gayness. But, at the end of the day, it's only a question of semantics; perhaps the important thing is to recognise the psychological significance of that first 'real' encounter.
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
jleo71
|
 |
Getting started |
Location: USA
Registered: July 2006
Messages: 22
|
|
|
I have never considered myself bisexual, I am gay but I have had sex with a number of women and married and had a child by one of them. I have to admit that I had as great an experience sexually with them as any str8 man would have with another man (and we all know plenty of str8 men who have enjoyed another man).
But in the case of my wife it was much more than that. I loved her and still do although we separated over forty years ago. Sex with her was better than with most of the men I have been with except a very few.
I just celebrated the 29th anniversary of meeting the man I love and admire most in the world. But I will never forget the women, though I have forgotten so many men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
jleo71
|
|
Getting started |
Location: USA
Registered: July 2006
Messages: 22
|
|
|
Would it be too patrinizing to say, "How sad"?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
jleo71
|
|
Getting started |
Location: USA
Registered: July 2006
Messages: 22
|
|
|
My question would be, what terns you on, either emotionally or physically?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... are really unimportant.
Back in my actively gay youth, there was always an inner geek trying to make an impression on my public persona, and even then I always wanted to know why I was the way I was. No guilt, just curiosity. In those ancient times, there was still some support for the essentially Freudian concept that sexual attraction could be represented by the 'normal distribution curve'. For those lucky enough not to have studied mathematics or statistics, the normal distribution curve is a bell-shaped graph, with 'normality' at the highest point of the 'bell'. The graph is bell-shaped because most people are normal or near-normal; the further the distance from normality, the fewer people are affected. In any given population, you'd expect a normal distribution curve if you graphed characteristics such as height or intelligence.
I always had a kind of attraction to this theory. The idea was that most people were bisexual, to a greater or lesser degree, and that only a small number at each extremity were truly homosexual or heterosexual. Of course, the picture was heavily skewed because of social pressures to 'conform'.
Those who have read my previous posts will know that I favour the theory that a mix of genetic and other factors determine whether someone is 'gay', but I still have an affection for the old-fashioned theory. I suppose that, reduced to basics, what I am saying is that - in essence - any male who is capable of having successful sexual relations with a female is bisexual. He may well be on the 'gay' side of the graph, so that his partner of ideal choice would be of the same sex, but he is CAPABLE of crossing the median and having sex with a female.
I don't quite understand why people are so bothered about this. As far as I am concerned, I've had lots of gay relationships and I have enjoyed everything I did immensely - but that doesn't prevent me from loving my wife and kids to bits. So, on the Freudian graph, I'm bisexual. So what? I'm me, and I love looking at boys!
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
jleo71
|
|
Getting started |
Location: USA
Registered: July 2006
Messages: 22
|
|
|
This might help clarify some of the questions concerning this issue.
http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/sexual_orientation.html
Eminent historian of sexuality Vern L. Bullough died of cancer on June 21 in Thousand Oaks, California. Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Sociology at SUNY-Buffalo, he also founded the Center for Sex Research at California State University, Northridge. He was the author, co-author, or editor of more than 50 books, about half of which deal with sex and gender issues. He wrote our entries on Artificial Insemination, Homophobia, Pederasty, and Sexual Orientation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13818
|
|
|
Probably depends on the context and tone of voice 
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13818
|
|
|
cossie wrote:
> I do see the significance of the threshhold to which Marc refers, but perhaps the line should be regarded as distiguishing 'functional' gayness from 'intellectual' gayness. But, at the end of the day, it's only a question of semantics; perhaps the important thing is to recognise the psychological significance of that first 'real' encounter.
In terms of functional gayness, in general, most people's threshold is a masturbatory fantasy well prior to and removed from any physical encounter. Thsi is also true of functional heterosexuality.
If one has always abstained from masturbation (by which I mean never even tried it) I would say it deoends upon the intense internal longings.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Leo said,
>My question would be, what turns you on, either emotionally or physically?
On an aesthetic/physical level women and men can be equally appealing in their own way (though I don't necessarily mean a sexual way -- I don't think that statement necessarily makes me bisexual). In terms of attractiveness, young men are rather more attractive to me than young women, though I am still attracted to the occasional woman on a lesser level. I'm pretty indifferent to older men and women (25+, 30+, 35+ depending on the individual and/or the situation).
On an emotional level it sometimes depends on how I am feeling. Women (in my experience) are likely to be more sympathetic and outgoing. Men (especially in this country) are likely to be more reserved. Once you get past that, however, I find myself drawn more to those people with whom I can forge a connection -- in terms of interests, preferences, activities etc. On the whole (though not exclusively) I find that easier with men. I don't know a huge number of women, though, so that may be skewing my perception somewhat.
I've never been in love (though I have been in lust), so I can't comment about that.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cossie wrote:
"I suppose that, reduced to basics, what I am saying is that - in essence - any male who is capable of having successful sexual relations with a female is bisexual. He may well be on the 'gay' side of the graph, so that his partner of ideal choice would be of the same sex, but he is CAPABLE of crossing the median and having sex with a female.
I don't quite understand why people are so bothered about this. As far as I am concerned, I've had lots of gay relationships and I have enjoyed everything I did immensely - but that doesn't prevent me from loving my wife and kids to bits. So, on the Freudian graph, I'm bisexual. So what? I'm me, and I love looking at boys!"
Navyone says: Thats me to a T.
Gary
cossie wrote:
> ... are really unimportant.
>
> Back in my actively gay youth, there was always an inner geek trying to make an impression on my public persona, and even then I always wanted to know why I was the way I was. No guilt, just curiosity. In those ancient times, there was still some support for the essentially Freudian concept that sexual attraction could be represented by the 'normal distribution curve'. For those lucky enough not to have studied mathematics or statistics, the normal distribution curve is a bell-shaped graph, with 'normality' at the highest point of the 'bell'. The graph is bell-shaped because most people are normal or near-normal; the further the distance from normality, the fewer people are affected. In any given population, you'd expect a normal distribution curve if you graphed characteristics such as height or intelligence.
>
> I always had a kind of attraction to this theory. The idea was that most people were bisexual, to a greater or lesser degree, and that only a small number at each extremity were truly homosexual or heterosexual. Of course, the picture was heavily skewed because of social pressures to 'conform'.
>
> Those who have read my previous posts will know that I favour the theory that a mix of genetic and other factors determine whether someone is 'gay', but I still have an affection for the old-fashioned theory. I suppose that, reduced to basics, what I am saying is that - in essence - any male who is capable of having successful sexual relations with a female is bisexual. He may well be on the 'gay' side of the graph, so that his partner of ideal choice would be of the same sex, but he is CAPABLE of crossing the median and having sex with a female.
>
> I don't quite understand why people are so bothered about this. As far as I am concerned, I've had lots of gay relationships and I have enjoyed everything I did immensely - but that doesn't prevent me from loving my wife and kids to bits. So, on the Freudian graph, I'm bisexual. So what? I'm me, and I love looking at boys!
cossie wrote:
> ... are really unimportant.
>
> Back in my actively gay youth, there was always an inner geek trying to make an impression on my public persona, and even then I always wanted to know why I was the way I was. No guilt, just curiosity. In those ancient times, there was still some support for the essentially Freudian concept that sexual attraction could be represented by the 'normal distribution curve'. For those lucky enough not to have studied mathematics or statistics, the normal distribution curve is a bell-shaped graph, with 'normality' at the highest point of the 'bell'. The graph is bell-shaped because most people are normal or near-normal; the further the distance from normality, the fewer people are affected. In any given population, you'd expect a normal distribution curve if you graphed characteristics such as height or intelligence.
>
> I always had a kind of attraction to this theory. The idea was that most people were bisexual, to a greater or lesser degree, and that only a small number at each extremity were truly homosexual or heterosexual. Of course, the picture was heavily skewed because of social pressures to 'conform'.
>
> Those who have read my previous posts will know that I favour the theory that a mix of genetic and other factors determine whether someone is 'gay', but I still have an affection for the old-fashioned theory. I suppose that, reduced to basics, what I am saying is that - in essence - any male who is capable of having successful sexual relations with a female is bisexual. He may well be on the 'gay' side of the graph, so that his partner of ideal choice would be of the same sex, but he is CAPABLE of crossing the median and having sex with a female.
>
> I don't quite understand why people are so bothered about this. As far as I am concerned, I've had lots of gay relationships and I have enjoyed everything I did immensely - but that doesn't prevent me from loving my wife and kids to bits. So, on the Freudian graph, I'm bisexual. So what? I'm me, and I love looking at boys!
cossie wrote:
> ... are really unimportant.
>
> Back in my actively gay youth, there was always an inner geek trying to make an impression on my public persona, and even then I always wanted to know why I was the way I was. No guilt, just curiosity. In those ancient times, there was still some support for the essentially Freudian concept that sexual attraction could be represented by the 'normal distribution curve'. For those lucky enough not to have studied mathematics or statistics, the normal distribution curve is a bell-shaped graph, with 'normality' at the highest point of the 'bell'. The graph is bell-shaped because most people are normal or near-normal; the further the distance from normality, the fewer people are affected. In any given population, you'd expect a normal distribution curve if you graphed characteristics such as height or intelligence.
>
> I always had a kind of attraction to this theory. The idea was that most people were bisexual, to a greater or lesser degree, and that only a small number at each extremity were truly homosexual or heterosexual. Of course, the picture was heavily skewed because of social pressures to 'conform'.
>
> Those who have read my previous posts will know that I favour the theory that a mix of genetic and other factors determine whether someone is 'gay', but I still have an affection for the old-fashioned theory. I suppose that, reduced to basics, what I am saying is that - in essence - any male who is capable of having successful sexual relations with a female is bisexual. He may well be on the 'gay' side of the graph, so that his partner of ideal choice would be of the same sex, but he is CAPABLE of crossing the median and having sex with a female.
>
> I don't quite understand why people are so bothered about this. As far as I am concerned, I've had lots of gay relationships and I have enjoyed everything I did immensely - but that doesn't prevent me from loving my wife and kids to bits. So, on the Freudian graph, I'm bisexual. So what? I'm me, and I love looking at boys!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
jleo71
|
|
Getting started |
Location: USA
Registered: July 2006
Messages: 22
|
|
|
And those lusts? What direction do they take?
Let me ask you something. I am fairly new to this board so I'm not sure of the backgrounds of each individual. I can better learn them by talking to each person individually. You have never had any form of sex outside of auto eroticism, correct? Is it because you feel you are too young to engage in sex, it is against your beliefs, or just the lack of opportunity?
Leo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've never had any type of sex. No, not autoeroticism either.
This is not out of personal choice (well, it's personal choice that I'm not interested in casual sex, but I haven't had much luck in finding a productive relationship beyond that), just lack of opportunity. I'm 22. You might laugh, but I went to an all-boys school, live in the countryside away from any thriving social centre, and of course I've never been particularly interested in dating girls, which would be the conventional way of starting out.
Lust is generally towards boys. Very (as in, exceptionally) rarely towards girls.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13818
|
|
|
It's interesting, this line of reasoning.
Most boys have had sexual relations with a pillow. Pretty much all teenage boys are capable of sexual function with an entire household range of inanimate objects, plus people of either gender. Erections are frequent and friction is friction.
Regrettably most teenage boys could, and some have, functioned sexually with farmyard milking machines, and a few even with livestock.
But I submit that none of this is relevant to orientation.
We are what we are, whatever label is used, because of the way we are. And it has little relevance to what we have done.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As I stated I found this statement on the web. I thought it might interest others. I do not endorse or condem it.
Navyone
Gary
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
David,
I was 21 when I had my first sex (outside of playing with a girlfriends tits) with another guy my age. We were at sea. I fell in love with him I am not sure what he fell in.
He was str8 and 3 wives later he still is. He taught me how to masturbate. Prior to that I had orgasms via mental eroticism.
We were together for two years and then he was gone from my life.
Navyone
Gary
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
Oh my....
Sloppy....... Sort of a harsh opinion based on one entry..... To think 30 pages and hundreds of entries for nothing......
Slop.......
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... I wasn't criticising the whole dictionary, just pointing out that the particular entry was not in accordance with 'academic' dictionaries. And even then, I acknowledged that the dictionary might be following customary gay usage rather than 'ordinary' usage.
I'm only expressing my own thoughts; I'm not trying to blow anyone else out of the water!
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... I'm just trying to make the point that, though I accept that orientation isn't a function of activity, I do agree with Marc that the first actual same-sex relationship - be it a one-off or a lifetime thing - is a major watershed which has a profound impact upon our later lives.
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
saben
|
|
On fire! |
Registered: May 2003
Messages: 1537
|
|
|
I often prefer asians to caucasians, but I'm not an asiansexual. I prefer circumcised penises but I'm not a cutosexual. I am about as likely to be attracted to an obese man as I am to a woman. My sexual attraction and my sexual behaviour are often quite disparate and I don't even really know if there is any real link between the two.
As much as I like to think that being gay is an innate, inborn part of my character, in other ways I don't think it is.
Gay, to me, is more a label that I apply to myself and others apply to me. It's a social thing because we need a distinction in modern, western society.
I live an active gay lifestyle, I've been living with my boyfriend for over 6 months and have been dating him for over a year. I don't go to gay events, or I do rarely, at best. I don't go to clubs anymore, though I did occasionally in the past. I live in a homosexual relationship, but that doesn't really mean I live a homosexual lifestyle. My lifestyle and habits have more in common with my straight geeky friends' than they do with my gay friends'.
I have sex when I want to have sex, with who I want to have sex with. Having sex with a male does not make me gay.
I live in a relationship with a man I love, but this doesn't define me being gay because single people can still be gay.
I am attracted to boys or men, mostly and from time to time, I'm attracted and even aroused by the thought of girls or women. This is only in my head, so it doesn't make me gay, or straight.
If it weren't for artificial insemination, adoption, etc I would have sex with a female to reproduce. If it were culturally required, I would also marry a woman in order to have children with her. I believe I could be happily married to a woman, or a caucasian or an obese man without being very physically attracted to them, as long as I have an emotional bond.
The Greeks (and the hippies) had sex with whoever they wanted, whenever they wanted. Sex was superficial. Sex isn't just meant for attractive people.
I'm just floating ideas but basically what I am trying to say is that "gay" or "homosexual" HAS to be just a label. And it's a label that shouldn't be needed. Sexuality is tied to ideas of monogamy and is really only important to the monogamous. Once the socially conditioned abhorance of casual sex is abolished, perhaps gradually the need for sexuality will be, too.
Look at this tree. I cannot make it blossom when it suits me nor make it bear fruit before its time [...] No matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach.
Master Oogway
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13818
|
|
|
My first real sexual activity was with a girl. I enjoyed it. So I am an exception.
My fantasies were all with boys.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
Oh I know that......
The dictionary of gay terms and phrases was constructed from language and usage within the gay community.
Many entries are a bit askey from mainstreem usage.
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
Thats.....
askew
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
No.....
Masterbation is w solo activity and as such has no risk.
The line I talk about has a great deal of risk involved with the crossing....
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
jleo71
|
|
Getting started |
Location: USA
Registered: July 2006
Messages: 22
|
|
|
David, I'm sure there is someone out there for you. An all boys school? I could only have wished.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
jleo71
|
|
Getting started |
Location: USA
Registered: July 2006
Messages: 22
|
|
|
Is there some way to follow a thread in this board? It is hard for me to know who is answering who here.
Leo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ha.
There's a lot of incidental homophobia at an all-boys school. I was terrified of admitting, even to myself, that I might be gay. It didn't occur to me at that stage that the homophobia was childish ("oh, you're so gay") and not serious (the people were too intelligent for that); and that individuals who did come out were not in any way frowned upon. (In fact, I was slightly shocked to discover after I left that one of my friends thought I was slightly homophobic -- something that I profoundly regret now.)
By the time I realised that no-one cared -- actually, it coincided with the first time I worked up the courage to search the internet for like-minded people; perhaps if I'd been born five years later, when the internet was far more ubiquitous, it would all have been different -- it was too late for school. If I had found this site in 1998 or 1999 (I'm not sure when it started, but I only came across it in 2001 or 2002) I might have had a chance of changing my outlook and finding a boyfriend at school. The ratio of people in general to good-looking boys was certainly higher than anywhere else I have been since, and quite possibly ever will be, though of course most claimed to be as straight as a die, professed attractions to pretty boys notwithstanding.
Without being too specific, once I left, my life continued a certain downward turn that really began at the beginning of the sixth form, and it has only really recovered in the last 12 months. Hence the reason I'm not any more experienced than a typical teenager in this arena. Much less experienced than most, I suspect.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you need to know what is replying to what, you need to follow the page up at the same level, and then move one intent to the left to find the message that each post is replying to.
Where a post has the same amount of indent, it is replying to the same thing.
On the whole it works well for shorter threads. Where a thread gets too long to be manageable you can always summarise the topic and start a new thread with one particular aspect.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
jleo71
|
|
Getting started |
Location: USA
Registered: July 2006
Messages: 22
|
|
|
Casual sex is not something that can be aboloished, either in the str8 world or the gay. It is part of the animal. The desire to abolish it is a cultural construct and has nothing to do with the way humans or any other animal IS.
Leo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry -- for intent read indent.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
saben
|
|
On fire! |
Registered: May 2003
Messages: 1537
|
|
|
I wasn't talking about the abolishment of casual sex, but rather the abolishment of the view of monogamy as the "right" thing. Men can have a lot of fun with other men, even if they are gay; and I'm sure gay men can probably have a lot of fun with women, too. Gender preference shouldn't really define sexual activity as much as it does. Monogamy seems to be a cause of that, though. Humans feel we need to find out ideal mate, which often means we won't even experience people that are outside our preferred gender, though we don't put such a strict rule when it comes to preferred hair colour, race or body size (though some people do!). Sex can mean a lot in a relationship, but it can mean so little, too. I don't embrace casual sex in my real life, but as a philosophy, I think liberalisation of sex would lead to a break down of sexuality as a required label. If men are sleeping around with other men or women then marrying women, or marrying men "gay" and "straight" won't mean much.
Look at this tree. I cannot make it blossom when it suits me nor make it bear fruit before its time [...] No matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach.
Master Oogway
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
jleo71
|
|
Getting started |
Location: USA
Registered: July 2006
Messages: 22
|
|
|
With the divorce rate in America at 50% marriage doesn't mean very much now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
I don't think that, in broad terms, I disagree with your concept, but if gay sex becomes casual, so will str8 sex. And I DO have a difficulty with the moral concept of a male successfully impregnating a woman and then disappearing into the undergrowth. The human animal has one of the longest periods of dependent childhood, and BOTH parents have a deep philosophical and moral responsibility to stick around and help. Even in the purely gay environment, I think that a sexual relationship involves - even if subconsciously - a degree of trust which imposed a level of obligation upon each participant. If your partner is in love with you, but you are not in love with him, continuation of the relationship amounts to selfish manipulation.
In short, what I am trying to say is that casual sex is fine - but only between two guys who carry no other baggage. Otherwise, it's selfish and dishonest.
Saben, please believe that I am not attacking you - I am simply commenting upon an opinion about which I have serious reservations. Over all, I admire your posts - you generally display both humility and perception, the qualities I admire above all others!
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
Re: Postscript 
