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: 4932

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I think it's possible and, in fact, very likely... no matter how queezy one may feel at the thought of being with the same (or opposite) sex. It's all psychological, like the fact I don't like shrimp or beans. Sometimes, I'm "forced" to eat them out of courtesy for my host(ess) and find, momentarily, that I like them. But still, when I think of either, I recoil.

Of course, you're not going to "try" bisexuality out of courtesy, but if sexuality was treated more like food, maybe you would. And you might initially feel dirty and weird; it might even be unpleasant. But then... you might get used to it... just like you got used to dirty jokes as you got older, or watching the news (as I kid I HATED the news and now I can't get enough). I mean, think of all the food you thought you'd never try because the idea was just too gross: caviar, sushi, crab (when you actually have to pound and hack them up, and get through the yellow goo), rare steak, guacamole (looked sooo nasty to me). But... most people end up trying out what they once thought sounded awful, and now they love it. And maybe comparing sexuality to food preferences is trite or inappropriate, I can't think of a more appropriate comparison!

No one wants to think of it that way. Some of us will outright refuse to even entertain the idea, much less try it. But I think the potential is there.
indeed :x
Maybe... But maybe we refine our tastes over time. Actually, i think you are on the right track. It just seems there is some underlying biology going on too. I find myself attracted to the same body type that I was attracted too at age 13. Probably the body type of a 15 or 16 yr old girl if I were to be perfectly honest with myself.
Interesting, I've often compared sex to food, but never in quite those terms. So I agree, to a point... the courtesy part.

As an occasionally bisexual female, I confess never having been intimate with a lesbian, only with other bisexuals. In fact I think the reason for that IS courtesy, the courtesy of not leading a lesbian on to think I could get serious, even tho I have been 'serious' with the bisexuals I've been with, where we've publicly called each other girlfriends. I guess it has something to do with the knowledge I'd never want to give up penises completely or forever. LoL. or flesh based penetration (synthetic just dosen't do much for me, whether penile or textile LOL)

I have never had an "ick" factor for any sexual act (well ok one, eating whole feces), I also have very little "ick" factor in the culinary world, I will try anything (well ok, not eating whole feces!). Actually about the only things in life that give me an ick factor are racists and sexists, and stenchy people.

I expect one day I might commit to a life-long relationship, I despise the concept of marriage, no matter who between. I really wish we completely garbaged the entire concept of marriage and went back to procreative contracts like it used to be, and even before procreative contracts, and better no contracts at all. To me, no matter the sex of the parents, if there is a child, there is parenthood, and that is the contract. I disagree with mariiage fiscal advantages unrelated to parenthood, no matter the sex. In fact I disagree with all marriage benefits, no matter the gender, unless there are children, and even then... There are bloody already too many humans on this planet, frankly parents deserve no benefits either at this point. I simply think that once two adults have taken on a child, there needs to be a contracted responsibility. That is the bottom line.

I had a great laugh at the definition of sex debate. I've sucked guys and used toys and had never considered the problem with the definition! The next morning if my roomates asked: "did you have sex with that guy last night" unless there had been sexual intercourse, copulation, the answer was NO, no matter how much masturbation and cum where in the picture. So I pondered on it while reading the other posts. IMO lesbian sex is what heterosexuals consider 1st, 2nd, AND 3rd base. Lesbian sex negates any necessity for 'home base'' and I'm sorry but to me, toys do not make home base, no matter how large or vibratory or accessorized! And no, lesbian sex does not include sexual intercourse, under the standard definition, which is a few hundred years old. However, modern society may (cuz I don't consider it done yet) REDEFINE sexual intercourse to include any sexual act in the 1st/2nd/3rd base context, in order to allow non reproductive sexers to feel "included" in the definition of sexual intercourse, but I doubt it.

As modern humans, we see that definitions do change, I know of many Christian abstinency promothers who do not define anal sex at all, which is why there are many young USA girls with STDs who've not had "sex" but have been sodomised. I mean REALLY, everyone wants to modify definitions to meet their own personal beliefs and needs. I say pooey (pardon the pun). You either copulate or you don't, and you either pleasure yourself and your partner or you don't. But lets not call one the other.

To return to the food analogy, it would kinda be like saying to me, a seafood lover, that lobster is not necessary to my food pleasure therefore i will no longer eat it. :) As I grow older, the frequency of my sexual encounters is diminishing, but my desire for a 'committed relationship' is not increasing. My last female sexual encounter now goes back a few years, and my male originated orgasms have increased in quality and frequency, BUT and this is a huge BUT (and butt) the attraction of a committed relationship with a woman is still very real, but this is more of a mental place and not a physical one.

Thank you for the wonderful horizontal thinking :)
Sexual arousal does not mandate attraction. Some people exhibit physical arousal even when being raped, though I seriously doubt they find the rapist attractive. I think my first reaction to some guy grabbing my balls, would be to slap the holy s__t out of him, erection or not.
I'm straight and if some guy grabbed my boob, I'd slap the holy s__t out of him, too. I don't think sexual preference has much to do with unwanted sexual advances. So... I think it's good you pointed out that flaw in this guy's logic. However, I don't think it addresses the potential for bisexuality.

But... I'm not expert. I just happen to think there's a biological potential for bisexuality in everyone, although I myself will not be trying to convince myself I like girls. Maybe we shouldn't take the suggestion so personally though?
Which is quite funny because so many women fighting for the right to be topless INSIST that breasts aren't sex organs :)

As a non procreative person, my breasts only server 2 purposes:
1. annoyance in sports, 2. sexual arousal! Most days I'd just rather have them removed, well ok, at least diminished, specially those side bits!!!!! LOL

But my response to someone grabbing any of my many sexual parts is to grab back, ferociously!

I do think that people who have not tried same sex sex, should say the least about it. But this is true of most topics in life, right?
Just an etymology thing:

Fagot is a term for homosexuals that came about in days when the religious saw fit to burn such people alive. A Fagot being a bundle of sticks that one generally uses to feed a fire, calling a homosexual person a fagot was originally meant to hold the meaning: "You are good for nothing but fueling a flame."
Interesting. Thanks for sharing.
Hmmm...kinda what I was thinking but just loosely.
"Little Richard behave effeminate in bodily expressions. What is the word for that behavior. Swedish word is "Fjolla""
"Camp" is the word you are looking for.


© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service