A question about sex..

[Patrick]

So I guess she got tired of packing the strap eh? Or will she actually have a dong added on?

[lilpup]

It's pheromonal, folks. Outward appearance has little to do with it.

[Haikoont]

My friend, who was once a man and is now a woman, considers herself to be 100% woman. When she sleeps with a man, it's a heterosexual encounter.

......

Pics?

[LodgeDodger]

Lodgedoger does that include plural marriages?

-------------
Nope.

[Haikoont]

-------------
Nope.

[ccbatson]

Marriage is a civil right? What kind of marriage qualifies?

[Locke09]

If marriage can be redefined, why not take a look at why we outlaw plural marriages? Seriously, I know people who claim they really are in love with two people. Why can't they marry both, as long as everyone is over 18 and no one is defrauded? And why can't they all live as one big happy family, if that's what they all want?

[DetroitDad]

Wasn't it determined that it was a sliding scale? In other words, a person is attracted to a certain degree of masculinity or femininity? I would think that's a separate issue from deciding if you are homosexual or heterosexual.

Locke09, I agree, if only just for the sake of freedom of choice.

[ccbatson]

Good point Locke...or how about incestual marriage, or inter species marriage. Think about it, you could get your dog covered by your benefits.

[Ravine]

First, Adam Lambert announces [[verifies?) that he is gay, and now this Breaking News Alert from Chastity Bono.
I want to write, "Who f@#%ing cares?," but that would be foolish, because I know there are teeming, drooling, knuckle-dragging hordes of Americans who voraciously devour, and lust for more of, this type of information.
Cripes!!
Now, don't get me wrong. I think Gnome's initial question is rather interesting, as are many of the responses which followed it.
The unnecessary, largely unsolicited, and irredeemably boring thing is the part where folks think their sexuality is interesting, or important, enough to merit Public Announcement.
Fuck Off. Do Not Pass Go. Fuck Directly To Off.

[ccbatson]

If you didn't care, would you be joining the conversation?

[Sstashmoo]

Quote: "The unnecessary, largely unsolicited, and irredeemably boring thing is the part where folks think their sexuality "

Another unnecessary, pointless post of yours evaluating the views of others. Your schtick is tired. Seriously. And put the scrabble ball away.

[Ravine]

Oh, Cc; the glow of your cleverness could illuminate an entire microwave oven.
Try to keep up, dammit.
The interesting part, as I stated with remarkable-- but seemingly unnoticeable-- clarity, is the question posed by Gnome and the responses which followed it.
I could say it a few more times, if that would help, but I do not wish to further erode your already-jaded attention span with pointless repetition of a statement which, evidently, was more than you could digest the first time around.

[Ravine]

And as for you, 'Moo, if you actually understood the goddam post, you would know that at no time was I passing judgment on the views of others.
I am left wondering how you, and some of the other members of this forum, can vomit up so much after having merely scanned your dinner.
One more thing, Brainiac -5. What the hell is a scrabble ball?

[Pam]

The unnecessary, largely unsolicited, and irredeemably boring thing is the part where folks think their sexuality is interesting, or important, enough to merit Public Announcement.
Fuck Off. Do Not Pass Go. Fuck Directly To Off.

http://gayrights.change.org/blog/vie..._in_the_closet

[Sstashmoo]

Brainiac -5

[Patrick]

So if she's a guy, can another guy fight her...I mean, him, in a fair fight? They say you arent supposed to hit girls, but Chaz isn't a girl anymore mso....

[ccbatson]

As I said Ravine, if you didn't care, if it wasn't an interesting topic, why would you participate?

[Ravine]

OK, Pam, I'll buy that. Point taken.
What happened, here, is that my loathing for the American obsession with celebrities crossed paths with my distaste for folks publicly sharing their sexuality and related proclivities.
The view brought out in your link, however, does bring another chair to the table, and I recognize that.

Speaking of cognition, Cc, is your insistence on Being Correct so overwhelming that it is blocking you from getting the point, here? I made it utterly clear that the topic does interest me, even if only in a light-hearted mode. It is Gnome's original question, and the discussion generated by it, which drew my interest. I have no interest in Chastity Bono's decisions about her personal, sexual life, nor do I care about them.

[cheddar bob]

You'll have to excuse ccbatson. His interest in sexuality apparently mostly deals with seeing pictures of naked girls smoking.

Hey, cc remember that time someone Googled your name and found out that someone had the same screen name and passwords for DetroitYes, ebay, and some porn sites? Good times, eh?

[gnome]

Ravine, I share your belief that society's obsession with celebrity dipped into the red zone a long time ago. Personally I don't care about Chastity Bono -and as soon as I take down her poster- I be able to prove it. Not just yet though, not ready.

I picked Chastity simply as an illustrative tool, a concrete example to be used instead of "thought" exercise, sorry if you got exercised in the process as that was not my intention.

My intention was to try to get a grasp on a complex subject. Defining the undefinable. Rationalizing the irrational. Labelling without a labelmaker.

Lilpup's assertion that it is all pheramonal suggests we are all more animal than we'd like to admit and that at the slightest whiff I could be drawn into a gay relationship. I'm down with the animal part, but just can't see myself twined in a Ben Affleck/Jimmy Kimmel way. Maybe I just haven't met the right guy yet.

Pam's highly evolved state suggests that there are a number of sexual identities floating around out there and we will have to learn to live with either broadening the number of acceptable terms for people or doing away with terms altogether.

I wish some of our "out" members would chime in and give their opinions. Getting my head around the notion that someone can be one thing and another at the same time is a bit trippy. For Chastity to be a lesbian hetrosexual is Escheresque; Maxine's triple switch is so far beyond Escher, Dali, and Rod Serling so as to give the surrealists a turbocharged boost of nitrous oxide with a Red Bull chaser.

CC's comments seem on target and off at the same time. Being a free-marketer and a freewillian is great until you construct laws to restrict free will; especially on such a elemental subject as who we can love. Seems a true lover of liberty would fight for a liberal use of love. That's why I don't understand the objection to plural marriage. You either believe people have free-will or not. Two gay men can marry but two men and woman can't? That makes no sense to me. Restrictions are restrictions and as long as children or goats aren't part of the discussion I can't see how freewillian's could object. But maybe that's just me.

All I can say is to have someone remove your whozits for change to a whatzits you must really not like it at all.

[Pam]

That's why I don't understand the objection to plural marriage. You either believe people have free-will or not. Two gay men can marry but two men and woman can't? That makes no sense to me.

Bats likes to go on about "entitlements" and you could make a case against plural marriage from that angle. It would cost more to have 2 spouses on a health care plan than one.

Pam's highly evolved state

I'm not when it comes to plural marriage. Is there really that much interest in it, other than by members of a Mormon cult? I don't see any mass movement wanting to get it legalized.

[gnome]

My bubby's uncle was 65 had been married for 45 years and his wife said she was finished with sex, he wasn't and since he didn't want to break his marriage vows, they got divorced. He still loved his wife but couldn't live with her refusal; end result was a huge catastrophe of grown children taking sides, financial ruin on both sides, a sad mess.

Now each side has seperate holidays, the family is ruined and the only people who made out were the lawyers.

[Pam]

My bubby's uncle was 65 had been married for 45 years and his wife said she was finished with sex, he wasn't and since he didn't want to break his marriage vows, they got divorced. He still loved his wife but couldn't live with her refusal; end result was a huge catastrophe of grown children taking sides, financial ruin on both sides, a sad mess.

Now each side has seperate holidays, the family is ruined and the only people who made out were the lawyers.

So what are you saying- the family wouldn't have been ruined if he could have brought home another wife? What sane woman would have wanted to be part of that arrangement? As usually happens in plural marriages, one wife bosses around the other wives or one is the favorite and the others are jealous. I don't think it's the answer to anything.

[gnome]

you're asking a hypothetical question and extrapolating from limited information. I say you're either for freedom of choice or not. The central question is whether laws are designed to maintain the status quo and support the control of the majority or laws are designed to protect the rights of the minority.

Sticky stuff this business. It's difficult to be for minority rights, except when someone's world-view is directly in oppostion to the majority.

Don't mean to be confrontational, but I've found in conversations with feminists, that plural marriage is a deal breaker, but gay marriage is not. I've also found that being sensitive to the various sexual orientations seems to come to a halt when plural marriage is introduced to the discussion. I don't know why that is, why being liberal is demanded on one hand but squashed on the other.

Freaky.