I'm not gay

[Guest CharliePS]

TL's thread about the guy who wondered if he were "bisexual" or "gay" jolted me into realizing why I'm so irritable these days: I'm tired of being pushed into boxes with labels, usually with pretty restrictive definitions for those labels. Are you a Conservative, a Moderate or a Liberal? Gay, Bi or Straight? Dominant, Versatile or Submissive? Wealthy, Middle Class, or Poor? Black, White or Asian? Chaste, Committed or a Promiscuous Slut? (Dividing everything into threes, by the way, is a staple of classical rhetoric, but it doesn't mean it's appropriate for every subject, just easier for the lazy categorizer.)

OK, I've had a lot of sex with a lot of men, and I am more turned on by photos of naked men than naked women, but I'm tired of having someone look at those facts and automatically slap the label "gay" on me. For years I put it on myself, because it was nice to have a group to join when we played Identity Politics, but it has become too confining. I have some interests that scream "GAY!!" like my passion for opera, but others that are usually associated with "STRAIGHT," like watching football instead of "Dancing with the Stars". I love HGTV (gay!), but never watch Style (also gay). I cannot name any current entertainment figures who are gay or even gay-friendly--in fact, most of the TV/movie/music figures who are discussed on "gay" websites like this one are people I have never seen or heard. I would rather read a biography of John Calvin than of Coco Chanel. I'm just an individual with a range of tastes and interests that don't fit neatly into the "gay" box, or any other. The same is true of the political boxes, ethnic boxes, religious boxes, economic boxes, etc.

When one registers to vote in California, one can identify oneself as an adherent of a particular political party, or register as "Decline to State." I'd like to be able to use that label more often.

[Guest Mcamp]

Everything in our world is labeled in one form or another. It's how we humans process and use information.

Labels don't stick without adhesive. Don't become that adhesive.

The only label you failed to mention or apply to yourself, which Is one that I ascertained and felt from your post is: I'm a healthy and well adjusted person. It's just a fucked up world sometimes and I'm living and surviving in it.

Now go outside and find youself a cute boy's ass to fuck or dick to suck. Just wash his cum off of you afterward. Cum can, as I'm sure you are already aware, become an adhesive. And as you've noted above, you don't want to be narrowly labeled as just being gay for something you just did and probably throughly enjoyed.

If this is truly a medical or emotional emergency, please hang-up and dial 911.

PS: But whatever you do, never have gay sex in the same day which you attend the opera later on in the evening, then afterwards to only fall asleep watching HGTV.

Thats where labels and adhesive agents get tricky. If you really care. And you never should, really care.

[Guest hitoallusa]

Uncertainty brings anxiety and instability in one's mind... So people want something defined clearly although it's a bit irrational to do so. You want to know for sure when you go to a bank that you will be able to draw money from your account. Of course there are many factors that can make it impossible to draw money from the bank too but still for most of us we know that you can draw money from our bank accounts.. That fact gives people certainty that

relives them of anxiety. The idea that if you work and at the end of the month you will likely get paid brings stability to one's work. Workers will not look for other jobs or do extra work at some other workplaces.

When one marries someone, one wants to define him or her so it gives certainty to the one that the marriage will likely last.. It gives them certainty.. Of course it's irrational but that irrationality contributes in the stability of our society. Of course too much irrationality causes harm too. Anyways, labeling helps us whether we like it or not... We get benefits from it although it might be unpleasant from time to time..

TL's thread about the guy who wondered if he were "bisexual" or "gay" jolted me into realizing why I'm so irritable these days: I'm tired of being pushed into boxes with labels, usually with pretty restrictive definitions for those labels. Are you a Conservative, a Moderate or a Liberal? Gay, Bi or Straight? Dominant, Versatile or Submissive? Wealthy, Middle Class, or Poor? Black, White or Asian? Chaste, Committed or a Promiscuous Slut? (Dividing everything into threes, by the way, is a staple of classical rhetoric, but it doesn't mean it's appropriate for every subject, just easier for the lazy categorizer.)

OK, I've had a lot of sex with a lot of men, and I am more turned on by photos of naked men than naked women, but I'm tired of having someone look at those facts and automatically slap the label "gay" on me. For years I put it on myself, because it was nice to have a group to join when we played Identity Politics, but it has become too confining. I have some interests that scream "GAY!!" like my passion for opera, but others that are usually associated with "STRAIGHT," like watching football instead of "Dancing with the Stars". I love HGTV (gay!), but never watch Style (also gay). I cannot name any current entertainment figures who are gay or even gay-friendly--in fact, most of the TV/movie/music figures who are discussed on "gay" websites like this one are people I have never seen or heard. I would rather read a biography of John Calvin than of Coco Chanel. I'm just an individual with a range of tastes and interests that don't fit neatly into the "gay" box, or any other. The same is true of the political boxes, ethnic boxes, religious boxes, economic boxes, etc.

When one registers to vote in California, one can identify oneself as an adherent of a particular political party, or register as "Decline to State." I'd like to be able to use that label more often.

[TampaYankee]

TL's thread about the guy who wondered if he were "bisexual" or "gay" jolted me into realizing why I'm so irritable these days: I'm tired of being pushed into boxes with labels, usually with pretty restrictive definitions for those labels. Are you a Conservative, a Moderate or a Liberal? Gay, Bi or Straight? Dominant, Versatile or Submissive? Wealthy, Middle Class, or Poor? Black, White or Asian? Chaste, Committed or a Promiscuous Slut? (Dividing everything into threes, by the way, is a staple of classical rhetoric, but it doesn't mean it's appropriate for every subject, just easier for the lazy categorizer.)

OK, I've had a lot of sex with a lot of men, and I am more turned on by photos of naked men than naked women, but I'm tired of having someone look at those facts and automatically slap the label "gay" on me. For years I put it on myself, because it was nice to have a group to join when we played Identity Politics, but it has become too confining. I have some interests that scream "GAY!!" like my passion for opera, but others that are usually associated with "STRAIGHT," like watching football instead of "Dancing with the Stars". I love HGTV (gay!), but never watch Style (also gay). I cannot name any current entertainment figures who are gay or even gay-friendly--in fact, most of the TV/movie/music figures who are discussed on "gay" websites like this one are people I have never seen or heard. I would rather read a biography of John Calvin than of Coco Chanel. I'm just an individual with a range of tastes and interests that don't fit neatly into the "gay" box, or any other. The same is true of the political boxes, ethnic boxes, religious boxes, economic boxes, etc.

When one registers to vote in California, one can identify oneself as an adherent of a particular political party, or register as "Decline to State." I'd like to be able to use that label more often.

Charlie, you are not alone. I share a similar 'diversity' of attributes even if individual specifics differ here and there. So have others I have met through these boards. All kinds make up a community.

As for the American culture desire to put everything in a category, if not a box. Well, that goes with seeing EVERYTHING as a horse race of winners and losers and identifying who is 'number one' in some vacuous category or sense. Being number 2 just doesn't matter, even if in field of thousands. Who, other than a sports minutia nut, can name a number two in the Boston Marathon? Nobody cares in this culture.

[AdamSmith]

As TY says, identifying attributes, at least to and for oneself, seems more useful and informative than trying to corral them into one or another (of somebody else's) set of boxes.

I find I usually want sex with men more strongly than I do with women. But not always; depends on mood, moment, individual partner. Likewise, my romances have almost always been with men, but not entirely.

Those are phenomena that describe the situation. Whereas what do labels really do these days? "Gay" is good in context of pressing publicly for social change. "Queer" I like because it can draw strong reaction one way or the other. "Bi" is so contaminated by now that it frequently derails any discussion into catcalls between the person who self-applies it and accusers leaping to charge "You're in denial," "There's really no such thing," etc., despite what Kinsey et al. showed long ago about the continuum.

I prefer "quad," having slept with 3 of the 4 sexes, having yet only to meet Vic Hunt, the Boy with a Cunt.

[Guest hitoallusa]

Why four sexs???? Straight, Lesbian, gay, bi, transgender...

As TY says, identifying attributes, at least to and for oneself, seems more useful and informative than trying to corral them into one or another (of somebody else's) set of boxes.

My attributes: I find I usually want sex with men more strongly than I do with women. But not always; depends on mood, moment, individual partner. Likewise, my romances have almost always been with men, but not entirely.

Those are phenomena that accurately describe the situation. Whereas what do labels really do these days? "Gay" is good in context of pressing publicly for social change. "Queer" I like because it can draw strong reaction one way or the other. "Bi" is so contaminated these days that it usually derails any discussion into catcalls between the person who self-applies it and accusers leaping to charge "You're in denial," "There's really no such thing," etc., despite what Kinsey et al. showed long ago about the continuum.

I prefer "quad," having slept with 3 of the 4 sexes, having yet only to meet Vic Hunt, the Boy with a Cunt.

[AdamSmith]

Why four sexs???? Straight, Lesbian, gay, bi, transgender...

You always have to have everything spelled out!

1. Men
   
2. Women
   
3. Male-to-female transgender
   
4. Female-to-male transgender
   

I said "sex," not "sexual preference."

If you factor preference into it, the combinatorials would be beyond my calculational competence.

[AdamSmith]

Pardon. On reflection, clinically maybe there are six:

1. Men
   
2. Women
   
3. Male-to-female transgender before genital reassignment surgery
   
4. Male-to-female transgender after genital reassignment surgery
   
5. Female-to-male transgender before genital reassignment surgery
   
6. Female-to-male transgender after genital reassignment surgery
   

On this count, I have only been with 50% of the possibilities (...as far as I know!).

Three more items for the bucket list.

[Guest hitoallusa]

Thank you Adam Smith for your clarification~~~.. You are too sweet... Please remember once married you only have sex with ONLY one person... I wonder who that lucky person might be... LOL...

[AdamSmith]

Please remember once married you only have sex with ONLY one person...

Who made up THAT rule?

Anyway, if I followed that rule, then where would my spouse go to have sex?

[Guest hitoallusa]

What is your wife then? Just a trophy wife to display?

Who made up THAT rule?

Anyway, if I followed that rule, then where would my spouse go to have sex?

[AdamSmith]

What is your wife then? Just a trophy wife to display?

My life partner. My best friend. She for whom I cook wonderful dinners. She whom I love.

Why does emotional fidelity need to be tied to physical monogamy?

[Guest CharliePS]

.

Why does emotional fidelity need to be tied to physical monogamy?

Why, indeed? I have always wondered why most people think that the combination is not only desirable but natural. It certainly never felt obvious to me, nor to my partner.

[Lucky]

A friend of mine says he is not gay, but he gave me his memoirs to read, and I can tell you: He's gay.

Aside from that, remember that some people are sex addicts. Any living thing will do for some of them. Okay, any living human.

[MsGuy]

...some people are sex addicts. Any living thing will do for some of them. Okay, any living human.

LOL, I think you got it right the first time, Lucky.

[AdamSmith]

LOL, I think you got it right the first time, Lucky.

Well, there may be a lower bound to the size of mammal that is practical...

[Guest Mcamp]

Why does emotional fidelity need to be tied to physical monogamy?

Hail to the Victors who have never suffered through this emotional pothole of life or have successfully navigated a way around it afterward!

From my limited relationship experience, physical monogamy is somehow linked to, not necessarily emotional fidelity, but to emotional and intellictual trust.

Things happen very quickly when you first encounter another person where there is both a highly charged sexual chemistry, combined with an emotional and intellectual connection. Things can get out of hand very quickly to the less experienced person of the couple within a short period of time. If both are inexperienced then it easily can become a doomed relationship based, I suppose, upon age, life experience and maturity.

If you don't have your personal shit together, then you should never find yourself personally involved with another personal in a commited style relationship.

But it was (is), at least for me, the relationship where I did not have my shit together which is allowing me to do just that, now. Sort of.

Maybe people are never completely prepared for what the next, new, experience and adventure in their life will be. And maybe that's how it's supposed to be afterall.

I just know that where there is pain, there is pleasure. And where there is joy, there is heartbreak.

Why does emotional fidelity need to be tied to physical monogamy?

I don't think it really has to be. But it is, all about you, before it can ever be, about anyone else.

At least that's where I am right now.

[Suckrates]

As long as you know who YOU are, and live your life honestly, it shouldnt matter what labels "others" inflict on you. Yes those labels are often hurtful, and can limit your potential, but being true to yourself will help you overcome those obstacles. When you come to the end of your life, you should be able to look back and say you have NO regrets.

[Lucky]

Hail to the Victors who have never suffered through this emotional pothole of life or have successfully navigated a way around it afterward!

From my limited relationship experience, physical monogamy is somehow linked to, not necessarily emotional fidelity, but to emotional and intellictual trust.

Things happen very quickly when you first encounter another person where there is both a highly charged sexual chemistry, combined with an emotional and intellectual connection. Things can get out of hand very quickly to the less experienced person of the couple within a short period of time. If both are inexperienced then it easily can become a doomed relationship based, I suppose, upon age, life experience and maturity.

If you don't have your personal shit together, then you should never find yourself personally involved with another personal in a commited style relationship.

But it was (is), at least for me, the relationship where I did not have my shit together which is allowing me to do just that, now. Sort of.

Maybe people are never completely prepared for what the next, new, experience and adventure in their life will be. And maybe that's how it's supposed to be afterall.

I just know that where there is pain, there is pleasure. And where there is joy, there is heartbreak.

I don't think it really has to be. But it is, all about you, before it can ever be, about anyone else.

At least that's where I am right now.

What's nice about these forums is that we have a wealth of experience and a variety of unique perspectives and viewpoints. When the forum is jumping, we share and help others benefit from what we have learned. Younger posters can offer a unique perspective that makes the older, poster stop and think, often reevaluating what he thinks in light of the new information.so, if we can avoid the urge to tell others how to live their lives, and admit that each of us has something to offer, we could. Get some great discussions going. That's what excites me most about the arrival of Mcamp. He is obviously smart and well-spoken, and with his viewpoints added to the mix, perhaps others will feel safe in sharing some of their own experiences.

Many of us are in long tem relationships. How we got there and how we keep them going could make for a good discussion just as much as a discussion of how relationships fail

It's 5 a.m., so maybe I didn't express that so well, butI am optimistic that we may be turning a corner here and that Mcamp will be an important part of that.

Btw, the IPad is not the best means for typing your thoughts as it often thinks it can say things better than I can! All typos above are due to my lovely IPad!

[Guest hitoallusa]

Well said Lucky...