Quantcast

Jump to content


Photo

Gayness/Homosexuality


  • Please log in to reply
323 replies to this topic

#301 Boggart

Boggart
  • Professional Napper

  • 7,981 posts


Users Awards

Posted 17 September 2010 - 08:47 AM

not really, I'm the top ;)


hot

but seriously, is there always someone who's only top and one who's only bottom?

#302 MKB

MKB
  • 49 posts

Posted 17 September 2010 - 08:49 AM

no, you get versatile people, people just have preferences, you know

#303 Boggart

Boggart
  • Professional Napper

  • 7,981 posts


Users Awards

Posted 17 September 2010 - 08:52 AM

no, you get versatile people, people just have preferences, you know


ah I see.

If you don't mind me asking, have you ever bottomed?

#304 Adina

Adina
  • 576 posts


Users Awards

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.


Well there's gay flags everywhere.
Painted, or little tiny fabric ones. I have one and i keep it attached to a bracelet, around my wrist. Today I was walking with my friend and these like 12 year old boys were freaking out and were like "ARE YOU A LESBIAN?" so I said, "Sure." Even though I'm not. I eventually told them I'm not but I'm just supporting those who are. It was fun messing with them. (:

#305 fr333k

fr333k
  • 32 posts

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'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'.

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.

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. ;)


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?

but seriously, is there always someone who's only top and one who's only bottom?


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).

Edited by fr333k, 19 September 2010 - 05:44 AM.


#306 skinnjazz

skinnjazz
  • 56 posts

Posted 20 September 2010 - 10:41 AM

So long as you dont hit on me were cool




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?


besides, men are like spaghetti - they bend when wet.

#307 Mikes

Mikes
  • 411 posts


Users Awards

Posted 20 September 2010 - 12:48 PM

ah I see.

If you don't mind me asking, have you ever bottomed?


LOL.

I'm vers.

#308 Justinnn

Justinnn
  • 21 posts

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. [email protected] 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)


Responses in italics.

This entire thread should accept ethical subjectivism. That homosexuality is not at all an independent decision. It's dependent upon culture, genetics and exposure. That each individual, indeed, has an individuality.

The rejection of something that is completely dependent upon external factors is flawed.

In the perfect communist state, without regulation, Government or the masses, there is no cause for social categorization.

#309 fr333k

fr333k
  • 32 posts

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.


Yeah, I agree on the stuff about sexual maturity and age being irrespective of each other in some cases, but you will find most first-world countries will have laws that place this age at 16+, because the many young people are not mature enough to consent below this age; there are most definately exceptions to this, but as I work with young people I can say for sure most young people (particularly girls) can have psychological damage if they are screwed over.

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.


Mind pulling the quotation? I mean, the original hebrew quotation, and proof that 'man' back then means the same as does today (Even now it's a tad subjective as to what age a 'boy' becomes a 'man', but in some cultures, its 13 or younger).

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.


Go outside for a while and experience the world; its been done before (trust me, I've been a victim of it).

but the argument that there should be 'universal sexual tolerance' is flawed.


Yeah. I agree. I also think Black people shouldnt marry white people and have half-caste children. /sarcams.

Much like heterosexuals should only hit on heterosexuals, homosexuals should only hit on homosexuals.


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?

The flaunting of homosexuality is partially responsible for the cultural rejection of which (not Religiously, merely socially.)


Lawl, I'm seriously wondering how much life experience you actually have. Trust me, many of us DO NOT act like Carlson or any other superficial asshat sellout on TV; I'm more butch than many of my heterosexual male friends, and *most* of my same-sex attracted friends are 'straight-acting'.

#310 Trichomes

Trichomes
  • 🐱 💖 🍄

  • 1,741 posts


Users Awards

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?


You make a good point. I consider myself bisexual, although I've never actually been with another woman because I've been in a serious relationship with my boyfriend for the past several years. I know there's less of a stigma regarding lesbians, but I've always wondered how I'd approach an attractive woman if given the opportunity, if I didn't know if she was gay or not. Sometimes it just has to happen. What difference does it make if a person of the same sex hits on you, or a person of the opposite sex who you're not even remotely interested in hits on you?

#311 iargue

iargue
  • 10,048 posts


Users Awards

Posted 28 September 2010 - 09:30 AM

Dumbledore was gay. Case closed.

#312 Trichomes

Trichomes
  • 🐱 💖 🍄

  • 1,741 posts


Users Awards

Posted 28 September 2010 - 09:31 AM

Dumbledore was gay. Case closed.


I never thought this day would come, but +1!

#313 Mikes

Mikes
  • 411 posts


Users Awards

Posted 28 September 2010 - 05:42 PM

Dumbledore was gay. Case closed.


Lol I agree.

#314 Frizzle

Frizzle
  • M'lord

  • 16,889 posts


Users Awards

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?


Because it's unlike men to hit on everything in a 10 mile radius. Or is that only STRAIGHT men? Idiot.

#315 Boggart

Boggart
  • Professional Napper

  • 7,981 posts


Users Awards

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.


it's also unfair to say that ALL men hit on everything in a 10 mile radius though :o

#316 Frizzle

Frizzle
  • M'lord

  • 16,889 posts


Users Awards

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 :o


No it's not.

#317 Mikes

Mikes
  • 411 posts


Users Awards

Posted 29 September 2010 - 09:24 AM

No it's not.


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.

#318 Mishelle

Mishelle
  • Bitch Of The Boards

  • 2,238 posts


Users Awards

Posted 29 September 2010 - 09:32 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.

#319 Boggart

Boggart
  • Professional Napper

  • 7,981 posts


Users Awards

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.


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?

#320 Mishelle

Mishelle
  • Bitch Of The Boards

  • 2,238 posts


Users Awards

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?


Haha that reminds me of the "That's So Gay" public service ads on tv. This is my favorite

#321 onlyme

onlyme
  • I hate everyone.

  • 4,317 posts


Users Awards

Posted 29 September 2010 - 10:07 AM

Dumbledore was gay. Case closed.



:thumbsup:

#322 iloveorange

iloveorange
  • 90 posts

Posted 29 September 2010 - 02:00 PM

ahh, this thread makes me think of "the sketchbook" by Mac Lethal. Gay is not an adjective. You should be able to choose what gender you like, without being judged for it.

#323 Sweeney

Sweeney
  • 1,097 posts


Users Awards

Posted 29 September 2010 - 02:05 PM

Gay is not an adjective. You should be able to choose what gender you like, without being judged for it.

Gay is still an adjective...

#324 Frizzle

Frizzle
  • M'lord

  • 16,889 posts


Users Awards

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.


Because it isn't generally accepted that men are more flirtatious, sexual and erratic then women? Of course it is. That's where the term womaniser comes from. I'm just putting it on the other foot. Next you'll be saying that gays are uptight, conservative one partner beings.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users