Y_B

89%?.... Get real.

Well, everything Facebook provides and doesn't provide isn't exactly news. You use it because there's obviously something about it that appeals to you and vice versa. If you don't like it (anymore) then get rid of it, it really doesn't get anymore complicated that than and it's not like you staying within its realm is a favor to the world or something. With that being said. I like it because it keeps me networked and networking has its benefits. It wouldn't provide everyone with the same benefits, which is also one of the good things about FB, that you can get what you want/need to get from it depending on your own usage purposes. I didn't read the article linked, but a note about privacy...I think everyone ought to know by now that the internet in general isn't the safest place to leave confidential information. If you choose to do so, it's at your own risk. Don't blame the medium, blame your own actions.

Prolly because those writers wanna squeeze in as many good qualities into their characters as possible and having aspiration to be one of the two classic "best" professions is a great quality. It runs parallel with the "6-pack, 8 inch dick, tanned skin, and w/e else those authors make up for the character.

I jack off

Something's beating alright

Men over 70 masturbate??? Hahah

Because this conversation would never end if I kept commenting on the topic....and because that one part seemed to have been aimed directly towards me, so there wasn't much else I could say. I don't think I'm being exactly "bitter" about it, but you could call be stubborn if you want. What was mainly said in the last post came to my mind long before we even got to this point in the discussion when someone first responded to me with a content that equated "you're wrong because I know I'm a special case and you won't understand it because you're not me". What a heap of bologna. I'm glad I finally got that out = ) I had wanted to call bullsh*t on a coupla posts for that very reason but hadn't done it. so thanks = ) Don't think of it as going "off topic". Think of it as an evolving conversation.

Think beyond Socrates much? Not saying the universe can be labeled out on a spreadsheet but It's kinda funny how quick people are to jump on the "I'm special" bandwagon these days and adopt this sorta delusion believing they are actually unique in this world...and that they can't be explained in common words and defy communication because there is no good general description known to man that can be accurately fitted to them. Rather than getting rid of labels, I'm thinking this is almost creating an indefinite number of them. (No I'm not gay, I'm a semi-bi-curious -weekend-only-queer-in-denial).

Prolly 4. But if you ask how many I woulda gotten under...a few more. No-Monica.

Nope, that was the response. Take the hint that I'm really not interested in anything you have to say, which should have been made clear the last time you mouthed off at me and by my lack of response to you in this thread. I don't know what you want from me, but you ain't getting it. You're not smart, you're not clever, and you're not intimidating but I am pretty tired of you trailing me. If you respond to another post I make, including this one, insulting me again or not, I'm reporting your pathetic ass for harassment. Take this as my official warning to you.

Except, asexuality is a sexual orientation that is within the same categories as homosexuality, bisexuality or heterosexuality. As you said, homosexuality or heterosexuality does not revolve itself around the act of sex but rather the attraction to the very embodiment of males and females, it can be romantic love without the sex as clumber said. The point that is missed is that asexuality falls within the same logic. Being asexual is not the absence of the desire to have sexual intercourse. Like the prefixes: homo/hetereo and what those mean for sexuality, "a" should do the exact same thing. And by definition "a" means lack of or without. If a homosexual means a person who is attracted in however way to somebody of the same sex, whether it be romantic or sexual, an asexual is a person who has the lack of that very attraction in however way to a member of either sex. If you remain consistent in defining these words, then it makes zero sense for someone to be gay and asexual at the same time. Those of you who think it's possible are applying a double standard to the terms within sexuality by defining one thing one way and another thing another way and that's making everything a whole lot more complicated than it needs to be.

Cute.

No, but I don't participate when I can help it because it kinda just sucks in there a lotta times, and at the end of the day when I come on to GA, the soapbox is not where I want to spend my leisure.

You're gonna run into people like that your whole life....I got people I don't get along with at work, school, w/e either. Those people don't give a sh*t about you, so it's not doing you any favor to keep them in your mind and let em bother you until you can't sleep. Just do what you're there to do, do a good job at it and that's it. And that last bit about "keep on keeping on"....that's kinda lame. If you're gonna do something, why just go for the minimum? Go for something higher.

Did I miss something?

Well yea...look at the subject of what you're talking about. Neph and Caed are right....ish, but for me, I like to know when to keep my mouth shut just cuz it's way too messy sometimes to keep talking about something that you know have no compromise, unless I just wanna keep pushing it, in which case, I'll keep going, but that's just me.

Who dat b*tch?

From your name....I'd suggest something from Nifty

On the contrary, I have the right to tell you whatever the h*ll I want. Whether or not you take some of these things to heart is at your own discretion. Of course you're entitled to think whatever you want but when it comes down to the widely accepted view of what certain terms mean and what certain things are, you're on the short end of the stick. As JD said, the world operated by a standard of its own. It's that standard that creates even the language that you and I are communicating with. You're biting the hand that feed you by disrespecting it as if you are above it. You can dig all the holes you want and create all the extra-ordinary rules you want to live under; call the color blue, green or argue why $1 is worth $2 in your opinion but if you are to operate by the standards that are set upon us as a functional society of modern day human beings, you are by the definitions created, wrong.............ooorrrrr, let's pretend that you have a slight point, you sure are not doing a good job defending/explaining why you believe what you believe beyond "it is just so and you don' understand because you're not me". I may or may not be limiting my "life experiences'....but you're quite limited in literacy and logic. Irony? I would love you see you cross examined in a court trial.

I very much agree. There is where things can become complicated and that's what makes sexuality such an interesting topic. I believe that one can like someone's physical qualities without it becoming sexual but it will be different. You may find a woman's body attractive and good looking but as you said, you do not become excited about them. Red's descriptions clearly demonstrate that his attraction to that guy went beyond what a person would normally find appealing in another person's embodiment and that this attraction transcended platonic appeal into a deep feeling of want (hence sexual attraction in his case). You do not feel that with women do you?

I read your article and my conclusion is that you're greatly missing the point. You referred to this as your first gay experience. "I wasn't listening to him. I was looking at him: the smoothness of his skin, the shape of his nose, how his lips moved when he finally gave that crazy grin of his to punctuate his joke's conclusion. And I realized I loved him like crazy, adored him totally, and like a fool I reached out and stroked his curling brown hair and down his cheek and his expression changed to horror and then fury in the space of seconds. He never spoke to me again after that. And fifteen years later when his chopper got shotdown in Afghanistan, I still cried." but you deny that it was sexual just because you didn't reach out for his d*ck instead. The point you are missing is that the above illustrates a very sexual attraction, the same sexual attraction as if you did reach out for his d*ck. Sexual attraction is a physiological response connected with physical attraction and intimacy, it does not always have to deal directly with the genitals. You can become infatuated by a person's smell, the softness of their skin, their masculine or feminine features and they would all be physiological. Of course love is never just about the physical aspects, but we're just talking about your article. You didn't wanna grab his junk but you noticed his physical appeal to you, you described his physical appeal down to the last detail of the shape of his nose and lips. And then you reached for his hair. That is classic gay sexual attraction even if you didn't wanna jump his bones. If you were asexual, you would not have entranced yourself by his physical appearance and wanted to reach out for his body, any part of it.

This isn't generalization. What Kevin pointed out was like asking if one can be inside and outside at the same time (non riddle based) and when I say it's impossible, you refute my claim based on the fact that I'm generalizing about space. It's not about possibilities if it doesn't make sense.

Yes, being gay doesn't mean all you want is sex with men, but the love you feel towards men because you are gay stems from a deep rooted sexual drive. It doesn't mean sex is all you think about.

Ok....if you're gonna play the semantics games, then go for it, but through my interpretation of what sexuality means, it doesn't make sense to claim that you have sexual attraction to men and not have sexual attraction at all at the same time. Homosexuality is a sexual attraction, asexuality is a lack of such an attraction for anything/anyone. To make things a little less complicated, I'm gonna put love in two different categories, sexual love and platonic love. Platonic love, by term, meanings non-sexual love. You're implying there is a 3rd, which I just don't know what it is, so enlighten me.

Gay is a sexuality, and as the term implies, it's a sexual attraction. The kinda love you described above (with no sexual interest) is platonic love, which doesn't sort itself by gender cuz you can love your parents, your dog or whatever the same way. So no, you can't be asexual and gay at the same time because being gay implies you have a sexual attraction towards guys, not just platonic attraction.