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: 5027

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Affection, adoration, etc. What else would you call them? Lesser intimate acts?

Same as what most would call kissing grandma on the cheek? Wow. That leaves a lot to be desired. Want to try again?
@Kris again,

Wow, you're not that familiar with linguistics and semiotics are you?

There's a reason there are multiple definitions for nearly every word in the dictionary. Words' meanings change over time and actually language is hotly contested in every society.

There's a reason that there are NOT perfect substitutes for many words from language to language.

Who needs more specificity when people are involved in intimate acts that don't affect you? I speak a language where the subject is almost never articulated, but derived from the context.

I'm just gonna throw in the towel. I honestly do not care one bit what sex is defined as for different groups, what matters is that people are consenting and communicate and hopefully being safe.

And I know A LOT of people for whom oral sex is not a lesser intimate act than intercourse. For many people it is on the same level or even possibly more intimate.
Is there a single act

No, because we're not all the same. We cannot be neatly defined under a "default heterosexual label". Which is any woman, regardless of sexual orientation.

Intercourse isn't pleasurable/satisfying for a large number of women. So if there is a heterosexual woman with vaginismus who cannot tolerate penetration or even just has a disinterest in penetration, does this mean she doesn't have sex? No, and it is rather silly to insinuate so. Many sexual acts can simply be described as sex...because it IS sex.

But then there's the fact that when whatever one does with their partner(s) is completely satisfying, they're probably not going to give a damn what someone else thinks it should be called!
I'm simply trying to have some sort of value to the word sex. If there was a trial and someone said two males were having sex there would be no need to further clarify. A male and a female having sex, again there would be no need to clarify, however two females would require clarification as there is no value to a word with such a wide variety of definitions.

You're saying any act with mutual satisfaction qualifies as "sex" and I think that even further destroys the value of the word. I would find mutual satisfaction making out with my fiancee, but I would not walk away from that saying we had sex. I am not trying to "neatly define" as you put it anyone however I am trying to neatly define the words you are using to describe your actions.
I see no reply to the specific comment I wish to reply to, so this will be under my own lol.

I'm simply trying to have some sort of value to the word sex.

That's great? This value is different for everyone.

You're saying any act with mutual satisfaction qualifies as "sex"

No, I'm not. I said many sexual acts can be described as sex, not every single thing you do with another person/people.

I would find mutual satisfaction making out with my fiancee, but I would not walk away from that saying we had sex.

And you won't find many people who do. But things like oral sex? If someone wants to consider that "having sex", what is the issue?

I am not trying to "neatly define" as you put it anyone however I am trying to neatly define the words you are using to describe your actions.

There is a word for that, which is being used repeatedly here - sex. There is no need for someone to get into specific acts within their own sex life with any random person when they can simply say sex. Yes, there are a few different acts under that label, especially with lesbians.

It's really not hard.
The notion that only penetration of a vagina by a penis is the definition of sex is so Catholic. Well, first of all, I think the concept of virginity pretty absurd. Some people - to rationalize and save face with their religion, have every kind of sex imaginable except penis-in-vagina sex and call themselves a virgin. HELLO! If you can catch an STD from doing it - it's sex!
To see how dangerous this magical thinking can be, Google "Kimberly Bergalis".
An interesting note about penis-in-vagina sex.... The Victorians did not consider lesbians sexual deviants the way gay men where. Their thinking was that at least one penis was required to have sex.
In Nazi Germany gay men were persecuted and killed and forced to wear a pink triangle in death camps; however, lesbians wore black triangles because they were grouped under the category of "antisocials" because they refused to have sex with men.
It's an abomination the way religion has shaped the way we think and behave sexually.
I agree that the context matters. The original, natural context of "sex" is to produce offspring from two set of genes, which requires penis in vagina. Generally speaking. And (e.g.) flowers do it differently.

All other debate about what the word means is in one or other kind of cultural context, or various degrees of linguistic hijacking.

Even the word "virginity" can be held to a strict definition, e.g. the condition before penis ruptures hymen. Now add other, cultural variations of the definition. (I might not have those contexts in proper historic order. Meh!)

Whoops for me adding complication to the discussion. Oh well, but wait, there's more. :)

So it's interesting how religion shapes these thoughts and behaviors, but I submit that religion is just one of the symptoms of pack behavior. There are more ways than religion for humans to inflict their version of morality on others.
Well since STD transmissions rates are extremely low orally, that leaves sex at vaginal and anal penetration LOL

Unless needle exchange is also sex...

Funny in my world, I see the fascination with calling sex any intimate act to be a very christian reflex... hmmm different childhoods
Hymens are a another religious fabulation. 99% of the time female vaginas are open at birth. Occurence of NOT open vaginas are 1:2000.

The notion of a female "barrier" to copulation is a prime example of religious bias in science.

Most studies regarding young female genital anatomy comes to us, interestingly, via forensic medicine. Following accusations of rape, young girls are always required to "spread'em". Unfortunately, genital examination never "proves" penetration. There is no scientific evidence that a hymen was there in the first place. Most hymen lore comes from the concept of bleeding at first vaginal penetration, but it has now become pretty clear to science that the bleeding does not come from a "ruptured hymen" but from sexual incompetence, lack of preparedness and lack lubrication.
@ T A A Ha, thank you for the clarification. Guess I missed that news somehow. :) Perhaps I can distract everyone with this additional folklore:

"In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, medical researchers used the presence of the hymen, or lack thereof, as founding evidence of physical diseases such as "womb-fury" (Hysteria). If not cured, womb-fury would, according to these early doctors, result in death."
@ Paul
Yes considering the status of females in those particular years I think I would have been hysterical too!

"Still referring to oral sex as "sex" seems a little silly."
Kris...Is your real name "President Clinton"?


© 2019   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service