So when I was working today my openly gay boss came back while doing some back of the house work, and naturally we engaged in some conversation. I just found out he was gay the other day, and I just couldn't believe until he told me.  A matter of fact, he even called himself a "fagot" never ever thought I'd hear that.  I have theory onto where the word fagot came from.  Possibly humorous in nature or offensive, but that's a different story for a different day.

Anyways, I am a new born Agnostic I guess you could say, still kinda fence sitting betweem Atheism and Christianity, but I feel more drawn to Atheism every day...and Gary's case only solidifies it.  Gary was once married, had kids, and in fact married to this woman longer than he was openly gay.  He says always kinda knew he was, but just kinda ignored...but his mid life crisis rolled around and thats when he told her what was up.  I can't really imagine what it would be like to go through all that, on his wife, kids, and even Gary. It'd be difficult situation, especially considering they were married for 15 years.  

Anyways so me and Gary got into the topic about Gay marriage...and we both agree it's not so much the word married that grinds our gears, but rather the "rights" part of it.  Why shouldn't a partner be beside each other when one is about to pass?  Especially after 30 years of partnership, these kinda things came from Gary, and I heartfully agree with him.  Because marriage is a religious thing, and chances are even in East Tennessee, a homosexual person isn't going to be super religious (however with the slight growing acceptance of homosexuality among some denominations, that could change).  So therefore the word marriage is meaningless, it's simply the rights part of it.  He said he could care less about a tax deduction. Love is love.  Agreeable.

Anyways I'm getting off topic, so I told him I'm accepting of gay, lesbian people in my community, however I can't quite wrap my head around the bisexual thing...and he said that's good but disagreed about the bisexual thing and stated "Lot's of creatures are homosexual, take the mental part out of it...what are we Nathan?" I just looked at him, confused as if he was insinuating something "Animals!"
So true so I reply "Yeah but the difference between us and dog is the ability to reason..."
then this truly was an interesting " I guarantee you evolution wouldn't fail on this one, if I go out there grab...well your an employee, if i go out there and grab a male customer by the balls, he's going to get an were technically bisexual by nature" By the way this mainly came up because I asked him if he enjoyed sleeping with a woman...apparently he did, because as far as I'm concerned, pressure is pressure. be it being a woman's part, male's buttocks. or your own holy hand.

But the notion that we are all born bisexual kinda left a note on my mind. I'm in fact a heterosexual male, and gary stated while we may not like mentally, our body most likely would not be able resist such actions, and reactions...what do you guys think? and sorry I know this is a mouthful.

Views: 2350

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Ha... totally lost on me. Oops.
I would also say the people who don't want to fuck anyone are the people no one wants to fuck.
Why would you make that assumption?
Human nature.

Show me a picture of one of them and I'll show you the evidence for my assumption.
No, you show me a picture (guy who's making the claim!). ;)
Show me a picture of one of them and I'll show you the evidence for my assumption.

Emilie Atumn

Of course it's a bit of tongue in cheek George Carlin style humor James, this is actually what Carlin said "Why is it that the people who are pro life are people you wouldn't want to fuck anyway?"

I'm sure there are some people who are asexual for mental reasons which I find to be rather interesting. I actually never really considered the fact that someone would simply swear off sex. The girl in the picture isn't asexual as she's the bipolar plaything of the lead singer of smashing pumpkins. Unless she has recently become asexual and I would contend that isn't truly asexual if you've had sex before. Much like you cannot claim sobriety if you're on drugs.

To Cara, I probably have pictures on my profile but I also am far from asexual.
Asexual refers to a type sexual inclination, not whether or not the person has sex. That is how she self-identifies. I have no valid reason to disagree with her.
So that person is an asexual meaning she has no desire to have sex with anyone, although she has sex with her partner. That's a very interesting chain of events, and I would wager that implicates her partner as a rapist for having sex with a non consenting woman. If she is consenting, I find it impossible for her to pretend she has no desire to have sex.

Sorry, this site is fucking terrible at making discussions possible. Either that or this site hates firefox as a browser. This whole reply inside a reply system is broken and it's putting my replies where they do not belong and disallowing them from where they do.
If she is consenting, I find it impossible for her to pretend she has no desire to have sex.

It's not always that straightforward. Being asexual doesn't mean she is void of emotional and romantic needs from another person. It doesn't mean that she is incapable of orgasming with another person, nor that she is actively repulsed by sex. Her decision to have sex may simply be based on things other than the pheromonal sexual attraction that defines the sexual needs of others.
LOL.. ok stickler... Let me rephrase just for you. I'll call them no-sexuals..not because they don't want to but because no one wants to have sex with them.

Those who want to have sex but can't find anyone to have it with.....They are in a much more difficult situation than those who have no sexual desire.

(I WAS trying to be funny AND point out a sad state of affairs for many..but you gave me a thought)

In those asexual people..who have no sex-drive. Their physiological sexual system still functions I imagine. Their testes still produce viable sperm, their ovaries still produce viable eggs. The delivery system still functions...or does it?

The same thing goes for homosexuals... Their bodies in most cases still produce viable gender based sexual reproduction mechanisms. (males produce sperm, females produce eggs)

So while the personality, physical desire and orientation go one direction...the reproductive biological mechanisms go another.

Providing you can get them together... a Homosexual sperm will fertilize a homosexual egg or a heterosexual egg or even an asexual persons egg..and vice versa in any combination.

The reproductive mechanisms don't really have an opinion on what orientation you are. They still perform their part of the sexual function without a hitch..(provided you can get them together)

Physiologically the reproductive systems are all pretty much hetero....sperm verses egg.

Physical attraction, sexual attraction, mental and emotional attraction...can be all over the place but biologically sperm and egg still have the ability to do what they evolved to do.

Isn't this a type of bisexuality... perhaps not as was posed in the original post..but technically?

Just a thought.
Properly liquored up I might :P


Services we love!

Advertise with

© 2015   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service