“Gay, Bi, Straight: Pick a Side and Stay there” – Charlotte York

 There are many reasons why a person would not want to disclose their sexual preferences to the world. There is the fear that once this sexuality is exposed you may lose your job, your family, your friends. There is the fear that you may be publicly persecuted for this disclosure. And finally, your sexual preference really isn’t anybody’s business. The public world, this includes parents, bosses, and friends, have no right to penetrate the privacy of your own bedroom. But does the person already in the bedroom have a right to know?

salvatore on mad men

We live in a world in which homosexuals are persecuted for not “coming out of the closet,” not defining themselves publicly as homosexual, when ironically, heterosexuals are not held to the same standard. I definitely agree that the choice or the refusal to identify yourself sexually is personal and private. Most people don’t have to say, hi, my name is Jim and I have a foot fetish, or hi, my name is Sally and I’m into erotic asphyxiation, or hi, my name is John and I’m into orgies, or hi my name is Casey, and I’m into watching two women get it on. Within the dichotomy of homo and heterosexuality, there are a million types of sexualites that people may choose or not choose to identify themselves with. But do you owe it to your lover to disclose your sexual preference when it is undoubtedly going to have an effect on the relationship?

 For the purposes of this blog I would like you to imagine:

1. You are in a relationship with a person, and this person has not yet told you they prefer the sex that you physically or biologically cannot be.
2. There is no possibility that this person, by exposing themselves to you, would have to fear that he or she would be “outed” to the public.

 One of my male friends. Timmy*, was dating a girl, Alisha* for about 5 years. They lived together and got married. One night I was at a party with my gay friend, Shane*. After the party Shane said, oh my god, Timmy was all over me. He was totally wanting to suck my cock and get me to leave the party with him” My reaction to this was: What the Fuck?! And then : Poor poor girl. He probably rationalizes his adulterous behavior by claiming that since he would be sleeping with a guy, it wouldn’t count. Or that since Shane* was the opposite sex, she wouldn’t be so offended by the act.

 What a disaster! A girl marries the man of her dreams or so it seems, she’s thinks she special, that she’s the one, when really she’s just the female one, Timmy likes to have male ones as well.

And this got me thinking, in defense of privacy, is it just selfish for one partner to demand to know about the sexual secrets of their lover? And how far does this go? Or, is it just outright deceptive not to tell your lover that you a prefer a sex that he/she is not. And is it still deceptive if you choose not to act on your bisexual desires?

 This topic has also been portrayed in television. On “Will and Grace” Will deceptively enters into a committed relationship with Grace and hides that he is gay. Grace isn’t upset that he is gay but that he used her for years. On Six Feet Under, David is engaged to a woman, and wastes two years of her life because he doesn’t tell her that he is gay. And recently on Mad Men, Salvatore punishes his wife by flirting with other men in front of her, yet refuses to tell her he is gay. For these characters, their refusal to broadcast their sexualities to the world was not their crime, their crime was trapping another person in a deceptive relationship.

 Although I loathe to compare sexuality to race, I feel that it may be beneficial to compare bisexuality to biraciality, and for the purposes of this blog, the concept of passing with African-Americans. The term passing describes a choice a biracial person makes to publicly identify themselves by one race and hide the fact that they belong to another.

halle berry in alex haley's queen

Since slavery, African-Americans realized that they could protect themselves from racism and profit from the privileges of whiteness by claiming that they were white. Nella Larsen’s Passing, written during the Harlem Renaissance, depicts this internal and external racial turmoil of the tragic mulatto. One of the protagonists, Claire, is only 1/8 black. She feel strong ties to her black community and black friends, but she chooses to “pass” for white because she can escape prejudice, marry a rich a white man, and have children who don’t have suffer the stigma of blackness. At the end of the novel, she reveals her identity and her husband, who is in fact a bigot, is very upset. Her friend, who is also light-skinned but chooses to claim blackness is even more furious. Claire falls from the window and dies, and it would seem that her friend, not her husband kills her.

 The concept of passing is interesting because it balances the personal choice of racial identification with public pressure that forces people to racially identify. It suggests that our society desires people to classify themselves; they cannot oscillate between categories or hide their identities from others.

Every one is pissed off at Claire because she derives pleasure from both worlds. She goes to the speak-easy and dances to drums with her black friends and then goes home to her white family, with no race being the wiser. But Claire should be able to “do” both because she “is” both. While race isn’t relevant to the way a person acts in a relationship. I would argue that sexual preference does have a bearing on a relationship.

 If we think of serious exclusive relationships as agreements, it is easy to see that each person gives sufficient consideration for being a part of the relationship. The biggest consideration involved: our agreement to only sleep with each other, is conditioned on the fact that we both forfeit any and all attempts to sleep with others. In a sense, when you decide to be part of a relationship you bargain for something. In heterosexual relationships, most women know that there is a chance their mate will sleep with another woman. And in homosexual relationships most men know their mate might sleep with another man. But we don’t bargain for the fact that our lover would sleep with our opposite sex. There is usually an element of control over another person when you are in a relationship and we all know it. Both parties need to check in frequently with the other. Both parties need to identify the people they are associating with. Both parties need to give excuses for not coming home at night.

 But when your lover has refused to disclose their true sexual preference, there is an unfair bargain. You have disclosed your whereabouts and made it clear you are not fraternizing with a person that could tempt you into committing adultery. You ask your mate the same thing and you only get half-truths. For heterosexual women, “guy’s fight night” could mean your husband will literally be pinned up against the wall. For heterosexual men, “going shopping with the girls” could mean they really do enjoy going downtown. For homosexual men, “watching movies with the girls” isn’t about show tunes. And for homosexual women, “handiman Joe” may be attending to other pipes than the the ones below the sink.

 It seems that if you honor a person in a relationship you have a duty to disclose to them that, in addition to them, you are interested or have been seriously been interested in another sex. Some people certainly have issues with it and some people do not. But before I engage in a life-long journey with someone, he’s gonna have to lay all of his cards on the table.

Thoughts?

*All names have been changed.

  © the siren, 2009

One site is literally accusing James Cameron of being inaccurate in “Avatar” because:

In short, Avatar has hetrosexual themes… Not that hetrosexual themes are anything new in American films but when you consider the context in which the Avatar story is set, the message of this film is highly irresponsible.

This is probably one of the biggest jokes I’ve ever heard. Can someone find out if this site is the real deal? I could see Cameron laughing his ass off now. They explain further:

Here’s a summary of what is wrong with the Avatar film: 1) Avatar assumes that the hetrosexual, “male” and “female” attraction will still be the primary relationship basis in the future. 2) Avatar ignores the fact of Evolution. Humans are evolving to be being Transgender, NOT hetrosexual. 3) Avatar also assumes that intelligent beings on other worlds would be hetrosexual. In addition, the film uses militaristic themes and promotes violence as a means of story-telling and social context.

After reading this, I think the website should change it’s views to basically, “Stop Hollywood.” Every complaint made above is completely normal in ALL films. In any case, you can read more of this ridiculous post here.



You walk into a clothing store. One of those salesgirls approaches you and asks if you need help. You reply that you need a suit with a blazer. She responds, “oh…you mean a ‘Boyfriend Blazer’? I have exactly what you need!” Before you say a word she rushes to the back of the store and brings back a fitted blazer. Dumbfounded, you look and her and the blazer and think, what the hell is going on here?

wait, it's called a WHAT?

The “Boyfriend Blazer” was coined during the revivification of 80’s fashion in 2009 and is modeled after Lisa Bonet’s eccentric character Denise on The Cosby Show. When the term first received notoriety it referenced slouchy loose fitting blazers.

i dont remember denise being in a long term relationship until after college

The idea behind it is that no woman would wear an unfitted blazer unless it belonged to her boyfriend. The term itself is surrounded with an atmosphere of college life: a girl sleeps over at her boyfriend’s place, rolls out of bed frantically because she is late for class or some other engagement, can’t find her clothes, so she throws on her boyfriend’s blazer. The disapproving looks of her friends for her bad fashion sense are nullified when she tells them it belongs to her boyfriend. Now she is special. However, the stereotypical assumptions of the boyfriend blazer are no longer confined to oversized articles of clothing, they now refer to fitted blazers as well. Why does professional business wear for women have to owe its existence to heterosexual relationships?

Fashion isn’t supposed to be politically correct. French Vogue has had pregnant women smoking cigarettes and women in blackface for their photospreads. It is art and cannot always be confined in conventional or proper etiquette. If that were the case the mini-skirt would have never happened. However, terms for articlse of clothing, unless they identify the purpose of the clothing or accessory, e.g. bridal dress, usually do not involve another person. There are “offensive” names for articles of clothing such as hot pants and stripper heels but these terms describe the desires of the woman wearing them, and any males are under her gaze. While those terms are usually correlated with lasciviousness, they also are imbued with a sense of power. The woman who wears these clothes is in control or at least in her mind wants to be.

i admit i have a girl crush on natalie portman, but this scene was genius

The problem with the term boyfriend blazer is that the majority of women who wear blazers and are in positions of power do not consider their careers to be derivatives of their relationships. Is the irony completely lost by fact that most female managers, directors, professors, lawyers, chairs, deans, doctors, and businesswomen have to forego relationships, marriage, and children in order to acquire and keep the job they have?

i was looking for a picture of a female c.e.o. but i thought this would be cuter instead.

The appropriation of masculine clothing for women became most popular during World War I when woman had to take off the corsets and the petticoats, put on a pair of pants, and go down to factories and work because the men… well the men were gone. Here, masculine clothing is worn in the absence of men, or by women in business settings to reify the idea that intellectually there is no difference between genders within the workplace. And yet the boyfriend blazer would suggest that a woman who wears a blazer would have no need to wear one unless it belonged to her boyfriend. The boyfriend blazer would suggest that a woman is inferior if she doesn’t have a boyfriend or even twist the knife deeper if she just got of a bad relationship with one. But lastly, the boyfriend blazer completely ostracizes lesbians from fashion because a woman can’t be in business without having some type of sexual relationship with a man, right?

So I’m assuming very soon any ring from a fine jewelry store that is not an engagement or wedding ring will be called a promise ring, since a single woman should never have a reason to buy expensive jewelry for herself. I bet pants for women who are a size 6 and above will become mommy pants; why else would a woman be that big unless she had a bunch of kids? And let’s start calling graduation attire, daddy robes, no woman without a man could pay her way through college. The only way women can really be happy and successful is if they owe it to a man. If you’re happy and successful and don’t have a boyfriend something is wrong with you, and you can be sure the saleslady won’t let you forget it.

© the siren, 2009

Things Breeders Say That Make Me Want To        Smash a Baby

1. “I don’t mind gays as long as they stay away from me.”

The “Tolerant” Response: “You shouldn’t limit yourself, you could miss out on meeting a really great person.”

The “You’re-a-Fucking-Idiot” Response: “Good call, you never know when one of us might sneak up and rape your asshole.”

Bonus: Knock something out of their hands, see if they bend over to pick it up.

2. “Gay sex is wrong because it can’t be procreative.”

The “Tolerant” Response: “There’s lots of sex that people have that isn’t procreative.”

The “You’re-a-Fucking-Idiot” Response: “Fuck you breeder.”

Bonus: Do the world a service while expressing your inner gardener: “fix” them… with hedge clippers.

3. “Gay people are just confused.”

The “Tolerant” Response: “A lot of gay people say that they stopped being confused when they stopped trying to be straight.”

The “You’re-a-Fucking-Idiot” Response: “I’m definitely NOT confused, have you seen how hard I get?”

Bonus: Describe how hot the same sex makes you on a scale of ‘1’ to ‘screaming orgasm.’

4. “Gay people can be healed through the love of Jesus Christ.”

The “Tolerant” Response: “I’m sure that if there is a God then He loves all people as they are, including gays.”

The “You’re-a-Fucking-Idiot” Response: “Last time I checked, only thing I need healed is my AIDS, God’s welcome to take care of that,”

Bonus: Threaten to bite them.

5. “God hates gays and they are going to Hell.”

The “Tolerant” Response: “We’ll have to agree to disagree.”

The “You’re-a-Fucking-Idiot” Response: “Sorry, I’m just not scared of your imaginary friend,” OR, “NO, ‘CAUSE MY GOD’S GOT A BIGGER DICK THAN YOUR GOD”

Bonus: Describe your God’s massive penis in vivid detail, using words like “veiny,” “throbbing,” “cocktastic,” and “delicious”

There is a lot of sex talk out there, but there are just as many fallacies finding their way between the sheets as there are truths. Now we all know that the size of a man’s appendage versus his outer extremities (hand, head, foot) has no proven correlation, and nor does the act of self-gratification stand to make one go blind. There are however several myths that have not been publicly chastised for their ridiculous nature, and often are still believed to be truth rather than fiction. Let’s look at these top ten myths about sex.

10. A Cold Shower Dashes the Libido

A cold shower has been said to curb peak sexual appetite, simply by reducing the amount of testosterone levels in men and estrogen levels in women. There is simply no proven basis for this belief, and in fact, an English study for Thrombosis has shown that a cold shower actually stimulates libido by increasing hormone levels. The end result is even more sexual excitement than was first started with. Take heart all ye anxious ladies and gentlemen, as I hear a ball peen hammer and wooden plank still does wonders for destroying ones sexual appetite!

9. The Power of a Lover’s Stare

The power of a lover’s stare has been written in romance novels ever since an ink pen was first laid to a piece of parchment. True lovers have been said to have the ability to stare into each others eyes for hours on end, falling in love again and again, without ever growing tired. However, what has actually been found in studies, is that staring at your lover has about a 50/50 chance of promoting feelings of love and passion. The other fifty percent of the time it promotes aggression and annoyance, which has been documented in couple studies as fighting and arguing. I guess it is true… all’s fair in love and war!

8. Sex During the Final Stages of Pregnancy

A lot of expecting couples express fear of hurting their baby during intercourse. Especially during the final trimester. However, most research today not only shows that intercourse is completely safe for the child, it actually can promote a healthier, speedier labor and delivery. It is an old wives tale that sex is bad for the fetus once it is past a certain stage of growth. Many doctors say that you should be able to have a healthy sexual relationship with your partner right up until the day of delivery. Chalk much of this myth up to man’s over-exaggeration of his unit!

7. Thinking of Someone Else During Sex is a Bad Sign for a Relationship

Did you know that upwards of 90% of all sexually active folk in the world think about someone else during sex with their partner. It is actually a completely natural part of a healthy sexual relationship. The majority of folks think about friends, neighbors, or co-workers, while a slightly smaller percentage (25% of Canadian men) prefer fantasizing about imaginary characters. Everything from Betty Boop to the Lone Ranger has run through the minds of countless lovers over the decades, and should not be considered an indicator that a relationship is heading for the rocks.

6. Women and Fast Cars (Modern Myth)

If you were to ask a woman today if she was turned-on by the growl of a big engine, she would probably scoff at the thought. In fact, in light of the popular green movement, it is now popular for women to prefer men who drive environmentally-friendly vehicles, such as the Toyota Prius. However, a recent study says differently… a lot differently. It turns out, women show substantial increases in sexual arousal (measured by testosterone in saliva) while listening to the sound of a high performance Maserati, as compared to a low performance Volkswagen (VW) Polo. In fact, the VW actually decreased the arousal of women below that of the baseline of watching the nerdy scientists test their equipment before the study began. Talk about an anti-aphrodisiac!

5. Inbreeding Produces Babies with Three Heads

While considered a bit of a joke, inbreeding has been said to cause everything from a baby with three heads to mutant X-Men. In truth, while inbreeding should not necessarily be considered a good thing, it is not nearly as bad as some people think. A 30-year Western Australian study, looked at cultures who regularly practice first cousin marriages and found no abnormalities in their offspring beyond that of what would be expected from any other traditional, unrelated couple. The same myth also applies to inbreed animals, who are not always the weaker of the species.

4. Race is a Good Indicator of a Man’s Sexual Endowment

While some races have enjoyed basking in the limelight of these rumors, there is actually no scientific basis of this myth. While your cousin’s friend, who knew a girl, who dated several professional basketball players claims this myth maybe true, a study from the Porterback Clinic, Royal Hallamshire Hospital, and St. James’ Hospital, says differently. The study found that a man’s physical endowment had absolutely nothing to do with his race, creed, or color. It’s has much more to do with that haphazard toss of the genetic die that came soon after that glimmer from our parents eye.

3. Plentiful Sex and the Swinging Single

While it is common belief that once you get married, sex gets thrown out the window, most research suggests that married couples actually have more sex than the swinging single. This is mostly because couples living together are presented with more opportunities to have sex. Anywhere from 25 to 300 percent more opportunity for sex, on average. However, over the course of marriage, sex dwindles, leaving the frequency of sex comparable to that of a lifetime of living single. One way to improve your odds of having more sex, is to marry multiple times. However, the stress of all those marriages/divorces just might toss you right into an early grave, leaving you with even less sex!

2. Sex Every Seven Seconds

The common belief by many women, is that men think about sex at least once every seven seconds. Truth is, men today are actually too weighed down with thoughts of success and finances to devote that kind of brain power to the subject. In fact, only half of men (54 percent) think about sex once per day according to the Kinsey Institute, while the other 43 percent designate just a few fantasies spread out over the course of a week. An abysmal 4 percent think about just once over the course of an entire month. Talk about a grossly overinflated female-chauvinistic rumor.

1. Premature Ejaculation (PE) is an Abnormality

No man has ever been proud to be deemed a “premature ejaculator” by his lover, but in truth it is more of a hardwired system for survival, than an abnormality. The average male can last 5.4 minutes before lift-off, which was biologically pertinent to the population of the planet back in the early days. When faced with man-eating chickens, men had to get the job done quick. There was no time for flowers, song, and love poems. The threat of a Tyrannosaurus charging while in the throes of passion, was enough to make him even quicker, which is why anxiety is still one of the leading causes of PE.

By Eric J. Leech, who asks you to visit http://www.celebulicio.us for celebrity “stuff”.

Well, of course, that.  But I wanted to talk botany and horticulture.  Instead, I arrived home from work a little early tonight, having stopped by the cleaners to drop off, and to pick up.  So, I’m changing clothes, and I know I’ve just done all my laundry.  So I have a fresh load of soft, satin panties, and all my other unmentionables that seem to be de facto replacing my ordinary collection of white cotton briefs.  I undressed quickly, and I didn’t even think about it for a second, but reached into my drawer and (while rooting around in the tangle for my white camilsole, I grabbed one of my padded 40B bras, white with lace trim, and I’m standing in the mirror admiring myself for a second in white bra and white sporty bikini briefs (vanity fair, with mesh inserts at each leg – fabulous, just fabulously comfortable and sexy too) before slipping on some clean jeans, an a-shirt over my bra, and I switched to a more obvious earring in place of my daily, workaday tiny sterling “ball” stud – it looks like a small silver dragee, if you know those like I do.  My hair was shorn close within the last week, and I touched up my neck to the hairline with the Schick Quattro in the shower this morning, while also shaving my face clean, my chest bare, and my underarms, of course, bald as a newborn.  I have been thinking about shaving my legs down to my toes, actually a lot, lately.  Soccer season is over until March, noochie.  If I get a snuke in my snizz, I may do it.  Mmm.  Just the thought of it.

Kisses, blushing, KM

pink fog tonight, flaunting it.  Good, right?  Makes me all giddy inside, perhaps something cyclical going on?  Maybe my wife and I are in sync . . . wouldn’t that be just about right.  Mmmmmwaah.

9/30, The Introduction of Sara to My Life:

I’m pretty sure I’m unwittingly flirting with this girl in my Queer Theory class. Her name is Sara and in class she’s just sort of androgynous but I ran into her at a party the other night where she came in drag and we talked for a while. I take it she spends most of her non-class hours in drag but identifies with herself as a woman. She’s cool and the way we sit in the room I find myself looking at her a lot… and she’s noticed. I just think she thinks that because we spoke at length at this party that I’m into her.

I’m hoping she’s sexually passive so that this doesn’t become an issue.

Are women who dress in drag typically sexually passive?

10/10 Throughout the last two weeks I have continued to flirt with Sara… and remain confused as to why. I consider myself a straight person.  I begin discussing our possible-future-relationship with my friends, mostly for humor value. It is established that she would wear the pants in the relationship… because when my friends met her at that party she was wearing pants… and a beard.  I am so confused. Today, I discovered that she has dated both a transman and a transwoman. A gay male friend of mine has admitted to feeling the need to flirt with her.  She is a pansexual minx that Sara.

10/12  is a Sunday night.  I spent it joking around about the confusion I feel over my crush on Sara. The audience was my church. I live in the church building actually, despite being an atheist.  I hadn’t realized it was National Coming Out Day. Two members of my group came out. There was lots of hugging and tears. I felt bad for being so cavalier about my girl-crush in the midst of so much acceptance and confusion. Sexuality is tough. I’m glad the church I’ve found doesn’t deny its existence.

10/14 I may or may not have played footsie with Sara today. My foot touched something. I think it was her foot. I was afraid to look at her. Partly because I hoped we were being flirtatious and I was supposed to be coy. I realize that if it had been anyone else, I would have apologized for bumping into him/her. This new level of ridiculousness adds legitimacy to my crush. There is no turning back now. I tell more people about it.

10/18 4:30 pm

I may have a maybe date-ish with Sara tonight. We are getting together to watch a t.v. show for class and “hang out.”

Does hang out mean lesbian sex? Do I want that? I am confused.

10/18 5:30 pm

Sara just called to firm up our movie plans and I told her that apparently the film’s length is 6 hours.  She told me to come over and watch until one of us falls asleep. I wonder if that means I am expected to spend the night. Am I reading too much into this?
Duhn duhn duhn?

10/18 is another Sunday. Over dinner and worship I discuss my pre-maybe-date-ish jitters with my church. Everybody laughs. The lesbians in the group encourage me to “do what feels natural.” They claim to have no preference for how this thing turns out, yet they offer to throw me a party if I decide to swing the lesbian-way. I try not to let my church peer-pressure me into being gay. It’s hard. I’m confused.

10/18 7:30 I’m standing outside Sara’s apartment with the DVD for class and some popcorn. I am nervous. She buzzes me up. Her roomates are just leaving, she tells me, and we sit next to each other on the couch.  She makes adorable, artsy comments about the color saturation of the film. My heart beats a little faster. At one point, the characters say something or other and we both start writing in laughter. Somehow her hand lands on my thigh. Through our fits of giggles I try to assess how I feel about her hand being there.  Am I turned on? At this moment, still laughing she says “That reminds me so much of my boyfriend!!!! He hates the word ‘pussy!’”

I am more confused than ever.

10/12 10:30 pm

Isn’t pussy sacred on lesbian dates!? Is she not a lesbian!? Is her boyfriend actually a transman!? Am I a bad person for feeling like that matters. I yearn for the days when I was straight.

11/28 Sara spent the past week in El Salvador, visiting an orphanage she worked with a year ago.  Despite her absence, my interest in her continued… though I have more pressing interests in males. She and her boyfriend are serious, I’ve heard. Her boyfriend does have a vagina. The fact that she can see past that only makes me want her more.  The class’s subject matter becomes more and more confusing. She continues to talk about color saturation. I fail to see how color saturation relates to the class but the professor is impressed. I am now confused for so many reasons, personal and academic, that I grow to resent Sara.  I still want her though.

12/3 By now I loath Queer Theory class because it confuses me so much, but I love it because Sara is there.

12/5 I am thrilled to have finished my paper and be done with this quarter of confusion. My friend Liz writes me the following haiku:

Class with Sara’s done,
It’s finally time to go
Back to being straight.

It was about 5:15pm on November 23^rd, 2009 when I got a frantic call from my best friend saying she had just been in a car accident and was wondering if I could come help her out. Without hesitation, I ran out of my apartment and rush to be by her side. When I arrived at the scene, she was standing outside with the other person who was in the accident. I rushed over to my friend, not paying one bit of attention to the other person beside her. Why was I so inclined to help her, without putting a thought into helping the other victim? This is because we are more likely to help friends when they need assistance, and less likely to help a stranger (Baron, Branscombe, and Byrne, 2008). Although the statement “we are more likely to help our friend than strangers” is something we would just assume, there is not much evidence to support this. There needs to be more research done on the question “why”. Why is it that we are more inclined to help our friends than strangers?

One experiment was done by Shaw, Borough, & Fink (1994) to try to explain this. They believed that we are more likely to help our friends because they are more similar to ourselves. To test the idea, they conducted a study of helping behavior towards homosexual and heterosexual men. They predicted that the heterosexual male would receive more help, since they would be more similar to the subject. In the study, a male, portraying himself as either heterosexual or homosexual, would call an apparently “wrong number” and explain that his car had broken down and he was out of change to use the pay phone. He would ask the subject if they could call his boyfriend/girlfriend. It was found that when the male portrayed himself as heterosexual, he would receive more help than when he was homosexual. Although this may indicate that we are more likely to help people who are similar to ourselves, i.e. heterosexual others, it may just be an indication that many people are homophobic.

There are many explanations to what influences us to help others, such as an elevated mood, or even a bad mood, however there is no evidence to why. This question has been left unanswered.

It was about 5:15pm on November 23^rd, 2009 when I got a frantic call from my best friend saying she had just been in a car accident and was wondering if I could come help her out. Without hesitation, I ran out of my apartment and rush to be by her side. When I arrived at the scene, she was standing outside with the other person who was in the accident. I rushed over to my friend, not paying one bit of attention to the other person beside her. Why was I so inclined to help her, without putting a thought into helping the other victim? This is because we are more likely to help friends when they need assistance, and less likely to help a stranger (Baron, Branscombe, and Byrne, 2008).

We help our friends because they are similar to us. This was shown though research by Shaw, Borough, & Fink (1994) in their study of helping behavior towards homosexual and heterosexual men. In the study, a male, portraying himself as either heterosexual or homosexual, would call an apparently “wrong number” and explain that his car had broken down and he was out of change to use the pay phone. He would ask the person if they could call his boyfriend/girlfriend. It was found that when the male portrayed himself as heterosexual, he would receive more help than when he was homosexual. Although this may indicate that people are homophobic, it also shows that we help people who are more similar to ourselves.

According to the Advocate, “Actor Ron Livingston, who played Carrie Bradshaw’s boyfriend Jack Berger in the HBO series Sex and the City, is suing an unnamed person for spreading ‘malicious’ rumors on the actor’s Wikipedia page suggesting that Livingston is gay and in a longterm relationship with a man named Lee Dennison.”

<—————Assclown

Despite the epic bullshit that is his argument, I actually like this. We could make bank off this if the courts side with his blatant bigotry. For every person who’s ever defamed my name by spreading the lie that I am straight, I want…

-

ONE HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS!!!

-

Queers, pay attention. If this works out, we could sue an assload of people. We’ll own the entire fucking country!!! I’m gonna use my money to buy all the land around Livingston’s home and cover it in billboards with pictures like this:

The rest of my money I will use to buy penis-shaped candy.

George Michael today spoke candidly of his drug use and cruising for sex with strangers, saying ‘it’s just who I am’. 

The former Wham! star confirmed he was caught in possession of crack cocaine when arrested last year in public toilets on Hampstead Heath, a gay cruising area close to his home in north London. 

But asked when he had last smoked the class A drug, the singer declined to answer. 

The very sick George Michael and his Partner who likes to have casual sex with complete strangers on Hampstead Heath, What a dirty bastard..........

He told The Guardian newspaper he had cut back on cannabis and now smokes only ’seven or eight’ spliffs per day instead of the 25 he used to smoke. 

The 46-year-old defended ‘cottaging’ on the Heath, saying it was ‘nicer’ than picking up men in bars. 

‘The handful of times a year it’s bloody warm enough, I’ll do it. I’ll do it on a nice summer evening. Quite often there are campfires up there,’ he said. 

‘It’s a much nicer place to get some quick and honest sex than standing in a bar, E’d off your tits (high on ecstasy) shouting at somebody and hoping they want the same thing as you do in bed.’ 

Asked why he cruises for sex when he could get any gay man he wanted, George replied: ‘I do get anyone I want. But I like a bit of everything. I have friends up there, I have a laugh.’ 

Over the last decade Michael has had a number of run-ins with the law. 

In 1998, he was arrested in public toilets in Los Angeles for ‘engaging in a lewd act’ and was cautioned for possessing cannabis after being found asleep at the wheel of his car on two separate occasions in 2006. 

He said: ‘I had a problem with sleeping pills for about a year and a half, and I f***** up really badly. 

‘I got in the car twice when I’d forgotten I’d already downed something to try to get me to sleep. It doesn’t matter that it wasn’t deliberate – ultimately, I did it a second time, and I could have killed somebody. 

‘But the fact remains I was never accused of driving under the influence. I got done for exhaustion and sleeping pills.’ 

Come home. Kenny will be here, the dogs are here. Maybe eat locally, hang out, and then probably go off and have a s**g or have someone come here and have a s**g.” 
 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1233422/George-Michael-drug-taking-cruising-sex-strangers-Hampstead-Heath-Its-just-I-am.html#ixzz0YoZ1FLKS

I am sorry but I have always believed that Homosexuality is an abomination, an unnatural act between two people who have been unfortunate enough to have been born with genes that have not been formed properly in the womb. 

Homosexuality and the rights that go with being a homosexual are something that the majority of US NORMAL people have to put up with nowadays, the pink pound is big business, the pressure groups that lobby parliament are also vast, try getting money to help out the elderly in some of their causes and you will be met with sorry no thanks but be a group supporting Gay, Lesbian, Transgender, Black or ethnic groups and the government will fall over backwards to offer you money, we are now living in an era where politicians are telling us that we should teach our children that buggering is perfectly normal, looking for sexual partner’s in public toilet’s is ok, while the government does all this they are telling us that marriage is unimportant nowadays and that children don’t need a Mum and Dad to bring up well adjusted respectable kid’s, No, we are told that kids can be brought up just as well with two Dad’s or two Mums? I SAY THAT IS JUST A LOAD OF BOLLOCKS 

HOMOSEXUALITY IS NOT NORMAL AND NEVER WILL BE 

“Doctor, my eyes have seen the years
And the slow parade of fears without crying
Now I want to understand
I have done all that I could
To see the evil and the good without hiding
You must help me if you can . . .”

– Jackson Browne

I really almost feel like pulling an all-nighter tonight.  I will say, the plants are being forced into flower this week, and it’s just stickiness, sticking to fingers, lips, glassware, going to be throwing down some crazy ad shibbits now that they are a bit more mature.  Sorry Marly, loving the bone tights.

After laying the Honda down a few weeks back on a really crappy day for a ride in a patch of gravel at the entrance to Stone Mountain State Park, my repair to the plastics is nearly complete but, alas, the good riding weather is almost gone.  I’m already looking forward to spring when the weather’s more hospitable and in the wee hours of a mildly warm Sunday morning I can strap on my hand me down 42DD, throw in some size 8 forms, skinny into my last night panties, slip on my leather catsuit (completing a quasi-Trinity look with my spike heel thigh-highs, in lieu of her motorcycle cop boots), and blow down the road past all the baptist churches, muffler note crackling off the stained glass windows, ricocheting between the tombstones in the cemetary behind the rectory, and rustling the tired old pigeons roosting on the Christ as Young Boy statue in the rose garden tended by the Reverend’s wife.  Someday, the South will evolve too, it’s just taking longer than you might have thought it would.  Every little wild-hair helps, though, right?

Nude boy shorts tonight, comfort triumphed over speed.

Kisses, KM

If we take a glance back a little over half a century ago and look at sexuality in relationships, things were a bit stale. One man to one woman equals a good sex life. Although, I’m sure positions varied, and I confident that there is always an exception to my previous assumption. Most partners sex lives were dull as compared to today’s standards.

With the reins of religion loosening, I believe that our society is in the midst of a sexual revolution. From its humble beginnings in the ’60’s, today it has come to a full blossom.

Now-a-days it is common for premarital sex, multiple partners, partners of the same gender, etc. These trends in sexuality are starting to become openly excepted in society. People are starting to learn that there is nothing wrong with experimenting with your sexuality. How else would you know what you like/want, if you don’t try it?

Many people have also found pleasure with adult toys either with their partner or alone. People who believe they are bi-sexual can have their partner pleasure them as either a male or female, whichever they prefer at the time of intercourse with certain toys on the market today.

With the advancements made in the medical field today, you can even change your sexuality. If you feel as though you were supposed to be male or female there are many options available to you that weren’t around in the 1950’s.

Many people are also becoming more sexually liberated through use of medication. Not only through the use of birth control, but now you can have sex into your later years with pills such as Viagra, etc.

With so many advancements in the field of sexual liberation, I believe our society has come along way from its humble beginnings. From this point, I believe things can only get better!

Racism is thinking about, or thinking negatively about someones race whenever you see them.  These communist, Orwellian elements say they are striving to end racism, but like every liberal policy it has the exact opposite of its stated intent.  They are actually seeking to DIVIDE us by constantly REMINDING us of other people’s face, creed, sex (or sexual preference), or national origin.

If you want to know where all of the communist hippies from the 1960’s went, just look in our colleges and universities, as well as most of the political offices.  It was bad two decades ago when I was a college student, but this is out of control.

I’ve always taught my children that they must respect my opinion, but they don’t have to hold it as their own.  I’ve taught them, and continue to teach them HOW to think, not WHAT to think.

What universities such as the one documented in the article and video below are doing is outright Orwellian re-education.  Not only are they teaching you what you must say, they are screening people based upon what they THINK.  If there is evidence that a student or faculty member doesn’t THINK “acceptable thoughts,” then they are forced to undergo “re-education,” or denied admission or employment.  If the re-education movement kept you from reading “1984″ when you were in school, or it’s just been a while since you read it, read the book.  It’s uncanny how it fits as a blueprint for what is going on here.

My children are not yet of college age, but should any vestiges of these programs still exist at any of the prospective schools that my children might attend, I will not be paying one red cent for them to go there.  As the white collar jobs became more popular, fewer people entered the trades of electrician, plumber, etc.  These jobs are increasingly in demand now, and many in the trades can set their own rates and wages.  If the re-education efforts on our campuses continues, I’ll encourage my kids to do something more honest for a living.

Teaching plan: America ‘an oppressive hellhole’

University outlines ‘re-education’ for those who hold ‘wrong’ views

Posted: November 27, 2009
9:15 pm Eastern
+
By Bob Unruh
WorldNetDaily

A program proposed at the University of Minnesota would result in required examinations of teacher candidates on “white privilege” as well as “remedial re-education” for those who hold the “wrong” views, according to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. (Straight out of the pages of Orwell’s “1984″)

The organization, which promotes civil liberties on the campuses of America’s colleges and universities, has dispatched a letter to University of Minnesota President Robert Bruininks asking him to intervene to prevent the adoption of policies proposed in his College of Education and Human Development.

“The university’s general counsel should be asked to comment as soon as possible,” said the letter from Adam Kissel, an officer with FIRE. “If the Race, Culture, Class, and Gender Task Group achieves its stated goals, the result will be political and ideological screening of applicants, remedial re-education for those with the ‘wrong’ views and values, [and] withholding of degrees from those upon whom the university’s political re-education efforts proved ineffective.”

By any “nontotalitarian” standards, he wrote, the the plans being made so far by the school are “severely unjust and impermissibly intrude into matters of individual conscience.”

Kissel wrote that it appears that the university “intends to redesign its admissions process so that it screens out people with the ‘wrong’ beliefs and values – those who either do not have sufficient ‘cultural competence’ or those who the college judges will not be able to be converted to the ‘correct’ beliefs and values even after remedial re-education.”

“These intentions violate the freedom of conscience of the university’s students. As a public university bound by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, the university is both legally and morally obligated to uphold this fundamental right,” he wrote.

WND messages left with the university requesting comment did not generate a response today.

Among the issues discussed in the plans are requirements that teachers would be able to instruct students on the “myth of meritocracy” in the United States, “the history of demands for assimilation to white, middle-class, Christian meanings and values,” and the “history of white racism.”  (This is how you fracture a society.  It just so happened that most of the people who founded America were white, but their beliefs and values were not “white,” they were indeed Christian.  Christian values do not discriminate against anyone, even non-Christians.  Christian beliefs welcome and tolerate people while informing them of what we believe and allowing them to exercise FREE WILL to decide their own course.  The radical groups that are screaming “tolerance” are practicing anything but.  Radical gay groups are an example.  Rather than trying to show that they pose no threat and trying to get along with people, they intimidate and disparage anyone who doesn’t COMPLETELY AGREE with their agenda.  Because of my religious beliefs I think homosexuality is a sin, but I don’t go around stoning gays and publicly identifying and disparaging them.  I offer them the message of what the Bible says about homosexuality and let them live their lives.  I don’t interfere with their life or force my lifestyle on them as long as they don’t force theirs on me.  The radical groups don’t respect that boundary and seek to redefine it in a way that suppresses opposition.  On the issue of marriage, they seek to redefine the term to something that encompasses things for which the term was never intended.  Marriage defines the union between a MAN and a WOMAN for the purposes of procreation.  Radical gay groups seek to change the definition of the term and cheapen its meaning.  In reference to my original statement, gays can have civil unions, or partnerships, or whatever they want to call their relationship all they want to, and under the legal recognition of such unions they can have all the same legal benefits as marriage, but the term marriage does not apply because it is a HETEROSEXUAL term with a HETEROSEXUAL meaning, and a HETEROSEXUAL history.  Forcing us to redefine the term marriage to encompass the gay lifestyle CHOICE is crossing that line of tolerance.)

The demands appear to be similar to those promoted earlier at the University of Delaware.

As WND reported, the Delaware university’s office of residential life was caught requiring students to participate in a program that taught “all whites are racist.”

School officials immediately defended the teaching, but in the face of a backlash from alumni and publicity about its work, the school decided to drop the curriculum, although some factions later suggested its revival.

FIRE, which challenged the Delaware plan, later produced a video explaining how the institution of the university pushed for the teachings, was caught and later backed off:

Minneapolis Star-Tribune columnist Katherine Kersten said the developing Minnesota plan would require teachers to “embrace – and be prepared to teach our state’s kids – the task force’s own vision of America as an oppressive hellhole: racist, sexist and homophobic.”

She said the plan from the university’s Teacher Education Redesign Initiative – a multiyear project to change the way future teachers are trained – “is premised, in part, on the conviction that Minnesota teachers’ lack of ‘cultural competence’ contributes to the poor academic performance of the state’s minority students.”  (Cop out.  By their logic, I don’t play in the NBA because they are biased against athletically and vertically challenged white people.  Academics is the practice of leading students to the water of knowledge.  But just like horses at the stream, you can’t force them to drink.  We can expose students to knowledge just as we expose the horse to water at the stream, but the student has to WANT to learn just like the horse has to WANT to drink.)

“The first step toward ‘cultural competence,’ says the task group, is for future teachers to recognize – and confess – their own bigotry. Anyone familiar with the re-education camps of China’s Cultural Revolution will recognize the modus operandi,” she said.  (If earning an honest living, paying my own way, owning all that I have because of the fruits of my own labors, and believing that anyone who owns something should acquire it the same way makes me a bigot, the so be it.  This is just more of the liberal mudslinging and name calling they employ to intimidate people.)

“What if some aspiring teachers resist this effort at thought control and object to parroting back an ideological line as a condition of future employment?” she posed. “The task group has Orwellian plans for such rebels: The U, it says, must ‘develop clear steps and procedures for working with nonperforming students, including a remediation plan.’”

The plan asks: “How can we be sure that teaching supervisors are themselves developed and equipped in cultural competence outcomes in order to supervise beginning teachers around issues of race, class, culture, and gender?”

The original correct answer was to have “a training session disguised as a thank-you/recognition ceremony/reception at the beginning of the year.” The task force later edited itself to call for a required “training/workshop for all supervisors. Perhaps as part of an orientation/thank-you/recognition ceremony/reception at the beginning of the year?”

“There was no deception planned or intended as may be implied in the use of the word [disguised],” a footnote said, “We have edited this to reflect our commitment to integrity in our work. This amendment was made 11/09/2009.”

Nevertheless, FIRE’s concern included the apparent plan for demands that teachers “discuss their own histories and current thinking drawing on notions of white privilege, hegemonic masculinity, heteronormativity, and internalized oppression.”

Further, the letter noted, “the college in its proposal promises to start screening its applicants to make sure they have the proper ‘commitments’ and ‘dispositions.’”

“Here’s the kicker,” FIRE said in its report. “The college even realizes that its efforts to impose such a severe ideological litmus test may be unconstitutional.” (Yet they brazenly persist in following this course of action.  That clearly identifies the leftist ideology of those running this institution.)

The letter cited a proposal to consult with the university’s own lawyers.

“FIRE urges you to consider the Supreme Court’s ruling in West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943), which invalidated mandated allegiances to political ideologies at public schools,” Kissel wrote for FIRE.

Writing for the court, Justice Robert H. Jackson declared: “Freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order. If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.”

Due to my lack of interest in relationships, my non-existent need for sex, and my body type… I am harassed on a regular basis for being… myself. This is the only time I have ever written any material about sexuality and the problems that assumptions can place on innocent people.

I consider my sexuality… my business, if I wanted you to know I would talk directly to you about it. Sexuality shouldn’t be subject matter, ever. I refuse to ’shove’ my sexuality down the throat of people around me, I don’t expect for them to accept me for it, and I don’t expect them to interrogate me. However, I do expect them to have respect for diversity. Just because someone doesn’t like the same music as you, just because someone doesn’t like the same gender as you, and just because someone doesn’t enjoy the things that you enjoy… doesn’t mean you are given the right to infringe on their rights. Sexuality just isn’t conversation material. With all of this being said take a look at the all-too-often “chats” people blast me with.

(Out of respect for my own morals, I will not give out the screen name of the person that harassed me. “Do unto others as you wish unto yourself.”)

Here’s a SAMPLE :

[CENSORED] (11:58:24 PM): hey
rokonwiturcokon (11:58:35 PM): Hi
[CENSORED] (11:58:43 PM): nvm yoru gay
rokonwiturcokon (11:58:54 PM): Okay.
rokonwiturcokon (11:58:56 PM): If you say so. ;]
[CENSORED] (11:59:01 PM): i know so
rokonwiturcokon (11:59:05 PM): That’s good.
[CENSORED] (11:59:23 PM): i didnt know you could buy vampires at claires
rokonwiturcokon (12:00:03 AM): That’s… interesting I guess.
[CENSORED] (12:00:21 AM): yeah you fucking rainbow fruitcup
rokonwiturcokon (12:00:46 AM): LMFAO, that’s me.
[CENSORED] (12:01:59 AM): damn straight you fucking psycho
rokonwiturcokon (12:02:11 AM): I like that description.
[CENSORED] (12:02:25 AM): I am much stronger than you
rokonwiturcokon (12:02:25 AM): One of the fewer descriptions I’ve enjoyed.
[CENSORED] (12:02:29 AM): give up faggot
rokonwiturcokon (12:02:36 AM): Give up what?
[CENSORED] (12:02:40 AM): life
[CENSORED] (12:02:45 AM): shoot yourself
rokonwiturcokon (12:02:55 AM): I can’t do that…
rokonwiturcokon (12:03:03 AM): I’ve got too much to do here on Earth.
rokonwiturcokon (12:03:11 AM): Things like: cramming my sexuality down people’s throats.
rokonwiturcokon (12:03:30 AM): http://bit.ly/R5vni
[CENSORED] (12:03:38 AM): oh well if i wanted you to open your mouth i would have had my cock out
rokonwiturcokon (12:05:26 AM): Such hypocrisy…
[CENSORED] (12:07:27 AM): no im not gay unless im taking the dick
[CENSORED] (12:07:36 AM): so stfu edward
[CENSORED] (12:08:04 AM): go sparkle somewhere you glittery faggot
rokonwiturcokon (12:08:20 AM): accepting a blowjob without giving one in return makes you a hypocrit. (“if i wanted you to open your mouth i would have had my cock out”)
rokonwiturcokon (12:08:30 AM): I’m sparkling right where I’m at.
rokonwiturcokon (12:08:40 AM): It’s my overflowing gay pride, remember.
[CENSORED] (12:08:59 AM): yeah you twillight faggot vampire why dont you go get burnt at the stake
rokonwiturcokon (12:09:27 AM): Seeing as you don’t remember, I’ve got things to do here on Earth.
[CENSORED] (12:09:40 AM): lick suck dick i know
rokonwiturcokon (12:09:44 AM): I’ve got an overwhelmingly gay sexual orientation to cram down throats.
rokonwiturcokon (12:09:49 AM): and.. yes, that too.
rokonwiturcokon (12:09:51 AM): You know me well.
[CENSORED] (12:11:48 AM): yeah because im going to beat your ass
rokonwiturcokon (12:12:00 AM): That’s good… and you’ll succeed. :]
rokonwiturcokon (12:12:14 AM): I’ll let you.
[CENSORED] (12:12:18 AM): of course when i stab you with little thumb
rokonwiturcokon (12:12:47 AM): Sounds enjoyable.
[CENSORED] (12:13:11 AM): it wont be because i am going to break your arms and legs
rokonwiturcokon (12:13:42 AM): Rest In Peace Matthew Sheppard, I’ll obviously be joining you very soon.
[CENSORED] (12:14:15 AM): no im going to keep you alive to let you suffer
rokonwiturcokon (12:14:45 AM): soon enough, after all my suffering*
[CENSORED] (12:14:58 AM): i hope so
rokonwiturcokon (12:16:42 AM): How has your day been… up until you decided to tell me about how you plan on making me suffer?
[CENSORED] (12:17:09 AM): ive been amazing cuz i got to have sex with my gf
rokonwiturcokon (12:17:55 AM): That’s got to be refreshing?
[CENSORED] (12:18:08 AM): yeah
[CENSORED] (12:18:16 AM): but you wouldnt know
rokonwiturcokon (12:18:45 AM): No, I wouldn’t.
rokonwiturcokon (12:18:54 AM): I rely on straight folks like you to tell me what I’m not missing out on.
[CENSORED] (12:19:06 AM): no i knwo your not gay completely
rokonwiturcokon (12:19:39 AM): Well, seeing as we talked for months upon months and I made no advances… yeah.
rokonwiturcokon (12:19:48 AM): There was really no competition. I don’t like girls.
[CENSORED] (12:21:09 AM): yeah
rokonwiturcokon (12:22:00 AM): Why is that?
[CENSORED] (12:22:16 AM): because you will always lose

In some places in the chat I mentioned “cramming my sexual orientation down people’s throats”… that was a product of anger, but I tried my best not to give in or to give this person a ‘rise’.

I usually view people like this as someone that needs help more than myself, and often times, I’m right. So when people harass me I try my absolute best to keep control of my emotions while refusing to be anything other than myself.

But I truly wish, with every 11:11 that I encounter, people wouldn’t be so immature about things and would learn to live a happy and passive life.

Things Breeders Say That Make Me Want To Stomp On Kittens

1. “I’m not comfortable around gays because I don’t want them to check me out.”

The “Tolerant” Response: “If you’re not comfortable when you feel anyone checking you out, you should simply find a way to let them know you’re not interested.”

The “You’re-a-Fucking-Idiot” Response: “Get the fuck over yourself,” OR, “Then don’t go in public, WE’RE EVERYWHERE.”

Bonus: Eye rape them.

2. “Why do some gays have to act so gay?”

The “Tolerant” Response: “Because for some people, that’s simply who they are.”

The “You’re-a-Fucking-Idiot” Response:
“Why do some straights have to act so straight?”

Bonus: Do humanity a service: punch them in the genitals.

3. Gay/lesbian sex/love is gross.

The “Tolerant” Response: “Sex should be up to the individuals involved and is no one else’s business.”

The “You’re-a-Fucking-Idiot” Response: “Gays see straight sex/love all over the place and don’t complain so shut the fuck up,” OR, “ALL sex is gross. Penises are full of piss, and vaj’s expel blood on a regular basis. That’s DISGUISTING.”

Bonus: Describe in detail your rectal/vaginal cleaning routine.

4. Being gay/gay sex isn’t natural.

The “Tolerant” Response: “People are born gay, a fact that scientists do not dispute.”

The “You’re-a-Fucking-Idiot” Response: “The ‘natural’ is actually a social construct, like straight marriage (which I’m going to destroy),” OR, “How can something so ‘unnatural’ can feel SOOOOOO good?”

Bonus: Add moaning.