AFriendlyFace

No, that's not really what I meant at all. For one thing, I personally prefer to think of sexuality along two scales. One for interest in one gender one for the other (with orientation labeled appropriately depending on one's own sex). Really I mean "sexually fluid" to be a completely different concept from this two scale model, however. I would not even attempt to pinpoint someone's sexuality on the scale model whom I had called "sexually fluid". I suppose, sexually fluid is specifically designed to avoid labels. A "sexually fluid" person wouldn't be gay or straight, but bi wouldn't exactly fit either. However, I would tend to let the person label themselves based on whatever their usual preference is. For example I think Eric could refer to himself as "straight", but I think a little asterisk next to it with a footnote for "sexually fluid" might be more appropriate Actually, I might possibly apply this label to myself. I identify as gay, I think of myself and conduct myself as a gay person, but I'm not really...rigid about it. When it comes to sexual matters I have a pretty open-minded outlook. A good example I can use is how many straight people have a knee-jerk "Eughh" response to nudity, genitals, bodily functions, etc for someone of their gender (these people also typically get grossed out about same sex relationships). Yet, alot of gay and lesbian people are exactly the same way!! They act disgusted by the thought of straight sex for example, or the intimate bodies of the opposite sex. To me this is unconceivable. I simply can't fathom why someone would find straight, gay, or lesbian intercourse innately disgusting. There are quite a few specific people I don't care to imagine "doing it", but the act itself would never repulse me, and assuming that the individuals partaking in it are average, every-day people I'll probably be mostly disinterested, or only turned on in so far as it does represent a sort of "sexual energy". If the people are really "hot" - by my definition and perception - I'll probably find it quite erotic. It is likely that if I find it erotic it will be males, or a male/female, but I certainly wouldn't be surprised if it were two females. In that way, unless the conversation were extremely inappropriate (which would mostly be a social and contextual thing) I would have no problem hearing or thinking about anyone in particular's sex life. As I said, it probably wouldn't "do much for me", but chances are it wouldn't embarrass me, and it's very unlikely it would actually "gross me out". Anyway, with regards to that, and the fact that I would always be willing to gamely enter into a heterosexual relationship if it felt right under the given circumstances (however, unlikely that is), I would describe myself as "sexually fluid"...but certainly not "bisexual". I similarly have a hesitancy to concrete any gender/sex(ual) roles or expectations in any of my relationships (including platonic), but overtime I will probably establish a particular dynamic with the specific person involved. However, I would find it constraining and disconcerting if we always interacted in a certain way based on these gender/sex roles, and I would certainly never be willing to establish a set with which to carry over into all/most of my relationships. A good example is a relationship I have with a specific friend. He's naturally inclined to assume a more passive role and I do tend to naturally be inclined to assume a more dominant one. However, the idea that there's an expectation that that is the way we will continue to conduct our interactions is very unappealing to me and I get a bit miffed when he behaves as if this is the case. Instead, I prefer us to sort of "make it up as we go", and if that means I tend to make more of the decisions, carry more things, open more doors, and pay more frequently then so be it. I would disagree here. To me sexuality does more or less boil down to a matter of tastes and preferences. Perhaps not in the strictest sense...and perhaps this is just how I personally tend to look at it, but while I agree that sexuality is much more complicated than simple tastes and preferences, I think the composite of all these tastes and preferences do essentially add up to "sexuality". LOL, so if girls are tequila that must make guys "rot gut"...I'm not sure I appreciate this analogy! In any case, what I was talking about wouldn't be about "preferences" at all. It would be about "trying something new", "curiosity", or "experimentation" whatever you want to call. The analogy I would use is that I enjoy a good Shiraz or Pinot Noir. I always prefer these to a Merlot. In a strict matter of picking what I find more appealing I would get the Shiraz or Pinot Noir every time. HOWEVER, if I consciously thought "you know, Merlot is popular around here. My friends seem to like it a lot and I do always get the Shiraz or the Pinot Noir. I think I'm going to branch out and try the Merlot tonight!" If that were my frame of mind (and indeed it has been on occasions), then nothing, even the waiter offering me a Pinot Noir, is going to stop me from ordering a Merlot. I certainly wouldn't be planning to switch to Merlot, I know that in fact I would probably enjoy a Shiraz more. Nevertheless, just for tonight, I'm going to order a Merlot with the knowledge that there'll be plenty of opportunities for me to have Shiraz or Pinot Noir in the future. No, I definitely didn't mean to imply that it would be closeted or unwitting. I think that the person would likely have already realized that they're "fluid" (whatever that meant to them), and would instead be making a spontaneous (but conscious) decision. That's a good way to sum it up! Amen to that! Take care all and have a great day! -Kevin (whose favourite wine is actually Chardonnay )

That sounds confusing!

Wow, that was very sad! I had heard about this, but I'm definitely glad Ellen is bringing some more exposure to it.

I don't like the way it feels. I hate the way construction paper feels too! Needless to say sometimes I was really irritated with art projects when I was a kid.

Thanks Ieshwar! Claire does seem to be doing a tad better...she's eating occasionally at least

Wow! That sounds like a very serious fear! I mean no offense (you know I think you're nifty ), but someone who was unwilling to allow themselves to be vulnerable with me would be a deal breaker in a relationship. Actually, I even have trouble befriending people who don't occasionally display vulnerability to me. It is for this reason that I think I feel awkward in friendships with straight guys. By and large there isn't enough of that mutual vulnerability that I find so necessary in a connected emotional relationship. Indeed I once had this (eventual) friend whom I usually found irritatingly smug and, despite that fact that he was a nice guy, I always felt a tad uncomfortable around him. Then one night we got into a discussion of depression and listening to him talk about some of the painful feelings he had experienced during a rough time I instantly softened to him and warmly regarded him from then on (even after he rebuilt his wall). But like I said, I'm crazy about you Menzo, so you must be one of the exceptions (there are a few others as well) -Kevin

As I said I very much agree with you on this point but: I very comfortably and frequently use the phrase "significant other". It's by far my favourite term for this, and I can readily imagine straight people casually and comfortable using it as well. However I really can't imagine a heterosexual person using the term "partner" to describe their significant other (*gasp* I just did it again! See how quickly that phrase leaps to my tongue! ) and not having it feel very contrived. To me when I hear the word partner (in reference to a romantic partner and not a business partner) I can pretty much only think "same-sex mate". As for the phrase "special friend" I can imagine either a straight or gay person using that one, but to me it wouldn't bring to mind a standard boyfriend/girlfriend. Instead I would most likely either be thinking something akin to a "F*** buddy" or someone with whom they were entering into a romantic relationship with but not quite ready to define it as such (perhaps in the way that people say they are in the "talking" stage). I'll take your word for it though, and I suppose a big part of it is 1) regional and 2) as you said a case of gay people having had an extreme influence on straight people. I have a ton of GLBT friends and we have a few straight people that frequent our circles; however in that case they are the minority and they usually do use hetero-specific terminology to describe their own relationships (I would speculate in a subconscious effort to accentuate their own straightness since they frequently are mistaken for other GLBTs). As for the straight people with whom I hang out with as a minority...well I'm the minority so while they're overall pleasant and accepting they really have no reason to neutralize their own verbiage of gender specific terms. Anyway, point is I actually can't recall interacting in a very even, 50-50 mix. All my social circles are skewed one way or the other. Have an awesome day all! -Kevin

I agree with you. Such as? LOL, seriously, I'm not completely sure what the best definition of that would be but it seemed to me to be the best one for Eric. I guess what I meant by it is someone who wouldn't let gender or sexuality stop him from developing a relationship with someone if he did find himself attracted to and compatible with them. Would the connotation that you object to be that it means his sexuality might "change" depending on the situation? That's definitely a very unpopular notion in the GLBT community. It's a complicated thing though. I certainly don't think someone can change their sexuality. However, I'm not 100% convinced that someone's sexuality might not naturally evolve on its own. I suppose the "capacity" to be attracted to either gender would have to already exist (even if it was previously "dormant"), but if that capacity did exist I think it is possible that someone's taste and preference might change overtime. A good personal example (that just might be TMI) is that I've always had a strong proclivity to blonds and redheads. (by this I mean blond and redheaded guys, however, in an aesthetic since I tend to more often find blonde and redheaded women beautiful as well. And occasionally I do have have a mild, fleeting sexual attraction to a blonde or redhead woman) That preference has remained very stable. Conversely, I never used to particularly notice Asian guys. Gradually over the years however, I've come to be almost as innately attracted to them as I am to blond and redheaded guys. Evidently that capacity always existed and my taste changed to amplify it. In that way I think it's possible that someone could essentially be "dormantly" bisexually attracted to to their non-typical gender and over time that might sort of "awaken". Let me stress that I don't think it could be forced. In that way, yes I do think people's sexuality could be considered "fluid" in the connotation of changing over time. However, while I've enjoyed this little aside that actually isn't really what I meant when I applied the term to Eric I think I might disagree. I'd say that he's fairly unlikely to have casual sex with another guy, but I don't think he's highly unlikely to do that. He did say to Jerry that he'd "try anything once" and while I know he said that for a very specific reason I think he might have more or less meant it. Eric seems like the sort that might conceivably decide to have casual sex with another guy just to satisfy his curiosity and essentially "see what all the fuss" is about. Did anyone read Dom's TLW? If you did you might recall that Ryan (who in many ways is pretty similar to Eric) once kissed Aiden because so many of his friends were gay that he was curious to see what the big deal was. I think that theoretically Eric could do the same thing to the extreme of actually bedding another guy. In other words you mean he would essentially "ignore" the fact that the guy had male bits because he meant so much to him? To be completely honest I've never quite understood this concept of loving the person not the gender. I mean I sort of do, but I don't think I quite grasp it in the way that many others around here seem to mean when they say it. It's not quite like what I've described above with sexual fluidity and curiosity I take it? I'm also assuming it's not quite like being bisexual in which a person is actively attracted to either men or women, with a physical emphasis (that would include gender) being a part of that equation? So what exactly is it? Is it like what I jokingly referred to as "ignoring" the body parts all together? Obviously I've frequently had non-sexual feelings for someone that I very much cared about. However, those feelings were non-sexual and non-romantic to me. I guess you could say I did "fall in love with the person", but I never then desired a physical or romantic relationship with them. What a wonderful discussion of sexuality this is turning out to be! Take care all Kevin

In an effort to lay to rest all these speculations about Eric's sexuality I've created a poll. What better way to decide someone's sexuality? (Surely when you guys were younger you did this same thing to help you decided right? )

Hi everyone! Given the recent questioning of Eric's sexuality I thought it'd be fun to start a poll on the topic! So what do you guys think? I voted for "He's sexually fluid/open-minded", because IMO he's pretty much straight but open to the possibility of falling in love with someone of the same gender if it happened. -Kevin

I just broke the tie in favour of 6,000. I'm just a bit superstitious about such things... This makes sense to me I know that my personal major milestone will be 4,444 (if I get there), because 4 is my favourite number, so 4,444 shall be quite nice and lucky indeed! Also, assuming Graeme and Myr stay ahead of me until then and no one **looks suspiciously at Beasty** passes me, I'll be the 4th most prolific poster ...unfortunately it's not looking good for Myr staying ahead me -Kevin

Why was he crying? What did Alex sing?

Seems to me that the guy essentially stole from the credit card company, so I'm surprised they weren't pressing for a claim to be filed~ Yikes! I'd have used one of those sweaty palms to insist that he hold my hand lol! I used to have the robber one really bad when I was a kid, now it seldom crosses my mind though. As for loud noises - and I suppose in some ways this goes back to what I was saying earlier - yesterday I was getting ALOT of texts while I was driving, and I knew I was going to keep getting more, and I had the volume on my phone turned way up, and it makes this irritating noise when I get a text...so I was actually really nervous and stressed out about all the texts I was getting Come to think of it I need to change the notification sound to something more pleasant and less startling. I was visiting a friend of mine a couple of weeks ago and he has a two story home, I'd just climbed to the top of the landing when his big, friendly, excited black lab came bounding over to greet me...and jumped up I was really freaked out and scared she'd knock me down the whole flight of stairs backwards! Thankfully though, while she did jump up she didn't jump forward, so all was well. LOL, perhaps we could just have an "irrational fear" themed anthology

Wow!!! I'm so sorry that happened! It's a good thing you didn't get left holding the bag!

Welcome to GA!! It's awesome having you with us Cool, great to meet you, Laurie! Welcome to the site! A student licked you huh? WEIRD!!! -Kevin

ASFAIK he eventually got voted off. I read an interview he did in Newsweek shortly afterwards, but I don't think (or expect) that he had any type of career once the show ended.

Well I'm a bit surprised! I haven't seen anyone else's performance except David's, but I was under the impression that Danny was one of the better performers? LOL, well that pic certainly helps our case

I think that makes a great deal of sense!

Get plenty of rest and drink lots of fluids (that aren't alcohol ) Take care -Kevin

Perhaps we'll get a poignant bit of drama in which Eric professes his feelings for Steve AND Wilde and proposes a polyamorous relationship. Steve and Wilde will then be forced to confront the fact that they don't want other people in their relationship and will thus finally commit to each other only, and our hero Eric will be left alone weeping into his Tequila Sunrise. ....perhaps not though I think that ideally that's how everyone of either gender and any "orientation" should conduct their lives. I know I for example am exceedingly unlikely to fall for a girl, but if it happens I won't let a little thing like sexuality stand in my way. I've occasionally conducted my life in this way too Oh I should think he would. I think for a highly sexual person (such as Eric) knowing how to flirt effectively with anyone would be almost 2nd nature. Take care all and have a great day -Kevin

What?!? Anyway, keep your mind out of the gutter all day and it's apt to dry up

Hmmm, I shall look into this!!

HAHA, once again we seem to be in complete disagreement! I love the "text me when you get home" thing. It relieves any worry - however minor - that I may have had when they do it, and I feel cared about when they ask me to. It's a win-win as far as I'm concerned. I did it just tonight when I left a friend's home. I used to only do it with my best friend who was very insistent about it (though like I said it never bothered me that he was) and I would sporadically do it with others if it was very late or rainy or something, but gradually over time I've begun to do it almost every time with all three of my closest friends (this is probably thanks mostly to my original friend who once again spearheaded the movement in our little group ). I think it's rather nice. I didn't used to particularly worry about them, but it still makes me smile and relax a bit when I get the text letting me know that they're safely at home. I agree with you of course, but I think the key is just not to be possessive or overly demanding. I respect my friends' and family's right to privacy. I'm not going to pry at all. A simply "got detained...gonna be late" is certainly sufficient. I think the interesting thing is that one (certainly me anyway) rarely worries about their friends and family when they don't know where they are or what they're doing. Right now, of all the people I care very much about, I can only say with certainly that one of them is home (the one from above that I exchanged texts with!). The rest could be doing goodness only knows what and I wouldn't have a clue. Yet I'm not worried about them. I know that very often my friends and family go places and do things which I have no knowledge about and which are just as likely to get them hurt as when they're coming/leaving to do something with me. So I know in some ways that is irrational. For some reason that doesn't bother me or worry me too much...it's hard to explain. I do get very attached to people online, but actually I assume that our relationship with be somewhat transitory (unless/until we do establish "real world" ties), so if they just sort of disappear, I'll miss them and occasionally I think "gee, I wonder what ever became of X. I hope he/she is well" But I almost never assume something happened unless it was extremely sudden and I went from having a great deal of contact with them to absolutely none. Any tapering off and I just assume (probably wistfully and with well wishes for them in my heart) that the fates have decreed that our time together is at an end. I also try to make it clear to people I interact with online that while I'll never purposely up and leave without an explanation I may very well leave eventually and gradually. This is actually my 4th "internet home". I have occasional contact with the people I was closest with from some of the previous three, I do respond to emails etc., and I like to catch up occasionally, but for various reasons my time there has run its course and I just take the happy memories with me without lingering in the past. I guess that's one of the cases where I "have confidence" that my old internet buddies "will sort themselves out". As I said though, I welcome an enduring, and real world contact if it's mutually feasible and desirable, and I will still write back if people contact me Mine too, Old Bob True enough, brevity has never been my strong suit.

2 is a no 1 is...a maybe I guess. I don't think I could be sure either way unless I was in the situation.