Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Miss California?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • There's some risks involved with buttsex too, although it can really relieve a bad case of constipation....

    Comment


    • There's some of the same risks associated with P in the V as there is in P in the B. Maybe not to the same extent since the vagina can at least self lubricate and has some skeletal muscle surrounding it, but there is still the risk of tearing and prolapse and whatnot.

      Comment


      • It's not like "buttsex" is the whole of a gay man's sexual identity. Just as vaginal intercourse is not the whole of a straight person's sexual identity. Our sexual preference is expressed in all sorts of ways in a relationship....the most important of which is the sex of the person with whom we form meaningful and intimate partnerships.

        After all, if a straight couple stops having sex, they are still straight. They can still be in love and have a strong relationship. And that relationship is still contingent upon one being male and one being female, because they are not wired to form romantic attachments with those of the same sex.

        Sexual identity has so very little to do with what hole you prefer. It is about who we are as people.

        Comment


        • I've always thought the aversion to buttsex went something like this: "omg a guy being penetrated? But that's for women. What if someone is thinking about penetrating me? Oh and santorums. Ewww."

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Nyoibo View Post
            Pregnancy?

            *runs and hides*
            Actually that is a legitimate concern for fertile hetero couples. No need to think it's a joke with the sheer numbers of unwanted babies out there.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by blas87 View Post
              although it can really relieve a bad case of constipation....
              omg blas you just about killed me I choked on my drink
              I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ - Gandhi

              Comment


              • I can't think of any non-religious argument against gay rights.
                Two consenting adults loving eachother can't be wrong. If your religion says it is, then I reject your hate filled beliefs.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by anriana View Post
                  I've always thought the aversion to buttsex went something like this: "omg a guy being penetrated? But that's for women. What if someone is thinking about penetrating me? Oh and santorums. Ewww."
                  I'm a hetero male and I don't want anything anywhere near my rear end.
                  I also find the idea of having sex with males really gross. Honestly, I think my girlfriend's icky for wanting to have sex with me.

                  Comment


                  • The main reason I've focused on the sexual aspect of these relationships is that I don't really think of someone as being "a" homosexual, but someone who does a homosexual act.

                    I think being "a" homosexual is a social construct that people have learned to identify as one of the types of people available to be in this cultural context. Of course social constructs are fairly strong things. Someone can self-identify as being "a" homosexual because they fit the criteria of that social construct.

                    A man who rapes another man isn't necessarily "a" homosexual, but he has committed a homosexual action. Someone who never has sex at all but feels attraction to other people of the same gender might consider themselves to be "a" homosexual, but that's only a social construct that they identify with because they never actually had sex.

                    Comment


                    • To re-rail this conversation it's looking like Prejean was rail-roaded by that Lewis fellow that runs the Miss California organization. Her lawyer was on tv last night and he said the "appearances" she missed were optional and if she had attended she wouldn't have been allowed to wear the crown and sash.
                      There might be other things but so far I've not heard of any.
                      I think the Donald is going to be very cross providing he can tear himself away from rasslin with Vince McMahn.
                      Cry Havoc and let slip the marsupials of war!!!

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Tanasi View Post
                        To re-rail this conversation it's looking like Prejean was rail-roaded by that Lewis fellow that runs the Miss California organization.
                        It was a Catch-22. They asked for HER opinion. They got it, didn't like it and started finding any way to find a candidate that matched their beliefs.

                        Originally posted by Tanasi View Post
                        There might be other things but so far I've not heard of any.
                        I think the Donald is going to be very cross providing he can tear himself away from rasslin with Vince McMahn.
                        Please don't bring that load of crap up. The way Raw is going, I'm about done with it.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Rubystars View Post
                          I think being "a" homosexual is a social construct that people have learned to identify as one of the types of people available to be in this cultural context.
                          for clarity, would you say the same of heterosexuals?
                          Are you a heterosexual or just someone who just identifies with a social construct?

                          And going back to the topic of Miss Cali... can we all agree now that the question was completely out of place for a beauty pageant?
                          "I'm Gar and I'm proud" -slytovhand

                          Comment


                          • The whole dichotomy of hetero/homo seems to be a social construct. What's called "heterosexual" I think should just be considered normal, or the default. It's only when comparing normal sexuality to other forms of sexuality that it becomes useful to refer to it as heterosexuality.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Rubystars View Post
                              What's called "heterosexual" I think should just be considered normal, or the default. It's only when comparing normal sexuality to other forms of sexuality that it becomes useful to refer to it as heterosexuality.
                              I, and I will assume every other non-heterosexual person, am quite glad that you are not in charge of classifying sexuality.

                              Comment


                              • I would consider it the default, but not normal, I consider normal whatever the particular persons brain and heart says is normal. But then we, just as the government, know that people don't know what's right or best for them.

                                (need a tongue in cheek smiley)
                                I am a sexy shoeless god of war!
                                Minus the sexy and I'm wearing shoes.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X