This one's for the homosexuals, whether you're a lesbian or "gay".
Girls - If you're a lesbian, it's assumed that you're attracted towards females. Men may choose to argue that you're not really lesbians if you use strap-on's, because you still like the idea of a dick inside you. Lesbians, however, understand that it's actually the penetration that they enjoy, not actual male genitilia. The gender role taken on by men do not interest them - That is, the role of "masculinity". With that said, lesbians are attracted to women for just that - being a woman.
Now, my question is this - If lesbians are attracted to other women for being one, why do I frequently see lesbian couples in which one is dressed up masculinly? If a lesbian is attracted to a female who dresses like a man, uses a strap on and has masculine mannerisms, isnt she really attracted to men?
For homosexual men, it may be more understandable - Although one may dress like a female, in the end the act of intercourse is still being experienced differently than when it would be with a real female (to be blunt, taking it up the ass). However, why does one partner feel the desire to dress up as a female to appeal to the other? Doesn't that defeat the whole purpose of being attracted to "men"?
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
This Bi - "Curious" Crap
Been meaning to vent on this for a while now..
What is with the term "bi-curious"? What does it even mean?
People tend to label females/males as bi-curious when they feel attracted to the same sex but have not actually engaged in any activity with them. By studying this definition, we can come to the conclusion that the "action" on behalf of the individual is what distinguishes them from being bi-curious or (fully) bi-sexual. This implies that a person is not actually bisexual until they have carried out an act with a member of the same sex.
So now that it is assumed that a person is not bi-sexual until the "act" with a member of the same-sex is present, we must look at the validity of this claim - is this assertion true or is it a load of crap?
A load of crap, is what I choose to vouch for. Let us apply this claim on a general scale when it comes to the topic of "sexuality". Is it true that a person's sexuality is not defined until they act upon their motivations? In other words, does it also hold true for a straight person that they cannot be considered as heterosexual until they have engaged in intimate behaviour with a person of the opposite sex?
Case 1 - An adolescent boy is attracted to girls but has not had the opportunity to date/act intimately with them. Does this mean that he is hetero-curious?
Case 2 - An adolescent boy is attracted to other boys but is private about this matter, as he is currently in a (sexual) relationship with a girl to hide his real desires. Does this mean that the boy is heterosexual until he actually acts intimately with a male?
This simply shows that an individual's sexuality is just that - the gender that they are sexually attracted to. Attraction does not necessarily require action. Some people may criticize this argument with the objection that you do not have to define your heterosexuality through actions because it is "normal" to be straight, and it can already be assumed without having to carry out actual actions. If this is what you truly believe, do not bother - You've already succumbed to their desires. There is no normal - Normal is what they tell you is the case.
What is with the term "bi-curious"? What does it even mean?
People tend to label females/males as bi-curious when they feel attracted to the same sex but have not actually engaged in any activity with them. By studying this definition, we can come to the conclusion that the "action" on behalf of the individual is what distinguishes them from being bi-curious or (fully) bi-sexual. This implies that a person is not actually bisexual until they have carried out an act with a member of the same sex.
So now that it is assumed that a person is not bi-sexual until the "act" with a member of the same-sex is present, we must look at the validity of this claim - is this assertion true or is it a load of crap?
A load of crap, is what I choose to vouch for. Let us apply this claim on a general scale when it comes to the topic of "sexuality". Is it true that a person's sexuality is not defined until they act upon their motivations? In other words, does it also hold true for a straight person that they cannot be considered as heterosexual until they have engaged in intimate behaviour with a person of the opposite sex?
Case 1 - An adolescent boy is attracted to girls but has not had the opportunity to date/act intimately with them. Does this mean that he is hetero-curious?
Case 2 - An adolescent boy is attracted to other boys but is private about this matter, as he is currently in a (sexual) relationship with a girl to hide his real desires. Does this mean that the boy is heterosexual until he actually acts intimately with a male?
This simply shows that an individual's sexuality is just that - the gender that they are sexually attracted to. Attraction does not necessarily require action. Some people may criticize this argument with the objection that you do not have to define your heterosexuality through actions because it is "normal" to be straight, and it can already be assumed without having to carry out actual actions. If this is what you truly believe, do not bother - You've already succumbed to their desires. There is no normal - Normal is what they tell you is the case.
Thursday, July 2, 2009
BEST I EVER HAD OFFICIAL MUSIC VIDEO
"take that D, take that D like the champions you are" LOL wow......The concept is stupid as fuck, but i really didnt mind watching all the bouncing titties and streching in the video jeeeeeeez.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
