not really, I'm the top
hot
but seriously, is there always someone who's only top and one who's only bottom?
Posted 17 September 2010 - 08:47 AM
not really, I'm the top
Posted 17 September 2010 - 08:49 AM
Posted 17 September 2010 - 08:52 AM
no, you get versatile people, people just have preferences, you know
Posted 17 September 2010 - 06:33 PM
HAHA "filled with gay-related things" thats funny can you list some.
Its very true and his work is good. No one should be assaulted by the masses for being gay: "Trying to "beat the gay" out of someone doesn't work." that's real good. I think most gays feel that them being gay was not their choice, I think proper study needs to be done on it to show that it is unnatural.
Posted 19 September 2010 - 05:41 AM
stuff in the old testament was practical back then, but when it became unecessary or impractical, they simply progressed.
I don't mind who people do and don't have sex with, as long as someone isn't trying to make me play on the other side of the fence, if you know what I mean.
but seriously, is there always someone who's only top and one who's only bottom?
Edited by fr333k, 19 September 2010 - 05:44 AM.
Posted 20 September 2010 - 10:41 AM
So long as you dont hit on me were cool
Posted 20 September 2010 - 12:48 PM
ah I see.
If you don't mind me asking, have you ever bottomed?
Posted 21 September 2010 - 05:29 AM
I've heard from many intellectuals in the community that the 'dont have sex with men' thing came from Levaticus, aside from the fact that most fag-hating 'citizens' eat shellfish, which is another 'abomination' according to the book of levaticus; jesus went all 'oh dont pay any attention to the book of levaticus, that dood was a fkin looney anyway'.
Such a narrow-minded perspective. The thing about biblical ethics is that you cannot apply them on a modern spectrum. The book of Leviticus (Tis' an I, bruh) was the notions of various customs of the time. I'm being a cliche' spouting westerner here, but duly note that the contextual relevance of Leviticus at the time would of been evident. Currently, not so much. Also. Lol@Literal interpretations of the Bible.
Also interesting is that there was no real line on the age of the consent back then, so much of that stuff was in relation to small children and pedophilia, not legitmate, consential same sex intercourse.
Since when should age of consent even matter? Age of consent is society's way of making 'sexual maturity' objective. Alas, such a thing isn't objective, and as such, remains predominately subjective. The law is merely incapable of reflecting the lack of harm in sex between two individuals of different age groups when both are consenting to an act that they are both completely rationalized with. I'm calling you wrong there, buddy. Sex is legitimate regardless of age, or pedophilia. Even more so than that, pedophilia shouldn't be said so pejoratively. It's defined as an individuals tendency to find sexual gratification in small children, yes. But such a thing is what any sexual fantasy stems from, the sexual interest in a particular sub-culture. Individuals aren't automatically 'sick' or 'illegitimate' if they're a pedophile.
Saying that the Bible was saying "men cannot lay together" in a specific non-pedophile way as opposed to it's obvious broad nature is also a tad ignorant. Just a tad.
That opinion annoys me quite a bit. Don't get me wrong, I dont believe anyone should feel /pressured/ into sex, but the whole 'So long as you dont hit on me were cool' thing comes off way too much; how would you feel if you couldnt hit on somebody without fear of voilence?
No offense dude, but you're acting like a dense moron. I don't mean to get Ad-hominem, but the argument that there should be 'universal sexual tolerance' is flawed. The fact that he has a heterosexual whim to not be approached sexually by someone homosexual is not at all annoying, and you're wrong for assuming it is. Nobody is going to beat down a gay for hitting on a same sexed individual, especially when the homosexual was completely innocent in their actions.
Much like heterosexuals should only hit on heterosexuals, homosexuals should only hit on homosexuals. The flaunting of homosexuality is partially responsible for the cultural rejection of which (not Religiously, merely socially.)
For me, it depends on the guy, theres some guys I'd never go top for, and other guys who I'd do ether.. It all depends on how masculine they are, and its a sexual thing that I dont really have much control over (The thought of topping some guy to me is about as exciting as banging a girl, which I'm not into at all).
(Y)
Posted 28 September 2010 - 12:48 AM
Since when should age of consent even matter? Age of consent is society's way of making 'sexual maturity' objective. Alas, such a thing isn't objective, and as such, remains predominately subjective. The law is merely incapable of reflecting the lack of harm in sex between two individuals of different age groups when both are consenting to an act that they are both completely rationalized with. I'm calling you wrong there, buddy. Sex is legitimate regardless of age, or pedophilia. Even more so than that, pedophilia shouldn't be said so pejoratively. It's defined as an individuals tendency to find sexual gratification in small children, yes. But such a thing is what any sexual fantasy stems from, the sexual interest in a particular sub-culture. Individuals aren't automatically 'sick' or 'illegitimate' if they're a pedophile.
Saying that the Bible was saying "men cannot lay together" in a specific non-pedophile way as opposed to it's obvious broad nature is also a tad ignorant. Just a tad.
Nobody is going to beat down a gay for hitting on a same sexed individual, especially when the homosexual was completely innocent in their actions.
but the argument that there should be 'universal sexual tolerance' is flawed.
Much like heterosexuals should only hit on heterosexuals, homosexuals should only hit on homosexuals.
The flaunting of homosexuality is partially responsible for the cultural rejection of which (not Religiously, merely socially.)
Posted 28 September 2010 - 09:28 AM
I'm 'straight' acting. Most people dont know I'm gay till I tell them, how exactly do you suggest I get a fuck? While I'm into 'the scene' (gay bars/clubs/social networking sites) many are not because they tend to be somewhat trashy and promiscuous, are you saying that they should just be content to stay single, because we cannot flaunt our sexuality, nor hit on 'heterosexuals', and live our lives behind closed doors because it makes you feel comfortable?
Posted 28 September 2010 - 09:30 AM
Posted 28 September 2010 - 09:31 AM
Dumbledore was gay. Case closed.
Posted 28 September 2010 - 05:42 PM
Dumbledore was gay. Case closed.
Posted 29 September 2010 - 08:42 AM
whenever i hear that line, i just want to hit people. what makes people think that just because a guy is gay, he's going to hit on everyone (male) in sight?
Posted 29 September 2010 - 08:47 AM
Because it's unlike men to hit on everything in a 10 mile radius. Or is that only STRAIGHT men? Idiot.
Posted 29 September 2010 - 09:17 AM
it's also unfair to say that ALL men hit on everything in a 10 mile radius though
Posted 29 September 2010 - 09:24 AM
No it's not.
Posted 29 September 2010 - 09:32 AM
Posted 29 September 2010 - 09:38 AM
I'm bisexual. What bothers me the most is when guys think it's funny to imitate homosexual behavior and then go "no homo" because firstly it's making being gay out to be this humorous thing and then they make it out to be a bad thing. Like am I gonna go and slap a guy on the butt, and then go "no hetero bro, lololol." People are so immature and ignorant when it comes to social issues with lgbtq people where I live, it makes me crazy. And don't even get me started on the term fag, unless you're talking about a cigarette I don't want to hear it.
Posted 29 September 2010 - 09:43 AM
My teacher said "instead of saying 'that's so gay!'" we should try and say "that is so Jewish!". People would probably get offended if we said the latter, yet it's perfectly fine to say the first?
Posted 29 September 2010 - 10:07 AM
Dumbledore was gay. Case closed.
Posted 29 September 2010 - 02:00 PM
Posted 29 September 2010 - 02:05 PM
Gay is still an adjective...Gay is not an adjective. You should be able to choose what gender you like, without being judged for it.
Posted 29 September 2010 - 03:20 PM
Yeah it is. But we are all entitled to an opinion now, aren't we? If YOU hit on everything in a 10 mile radius, then good for you. But to generalizations aren't always the best.
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users