The OFFICIAL Unofficial Achewood Message Board
Trivial Pursuits => People & Places => Topic started by: Thomas Pain on January 22, 2010, 03:34:38 am
-
So okay, anyone ever have any homosexual dealings? I made out with a guy for a while. But I guess he wasn't too into me 'cause we never went past making out. Maybe he thought I was too crazy or something. Cuddled with another guy. This other guy was kinda nutty, however. I had this crazy lesbian friend who introduced us. That didn't go anywhere. But the first guy was okay. A little bit off in some respect. I would say a disproportionate portion of the gay guys I have ever known had some kinda issues. I guess maybe that's 'cause I was in the midwest, and bein' queer in the midwest tends to affect a person?
So I guess I'm not that into guys however that much. I do kinda get crushes on guys sometimes. Hell, like that one Queen video where they are all in drag, and one of them gives this smile to the camera. (I want to break free) @1:11 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVYgRPfC9nQ) There is some sexay going on there. Damn, watching that video again and talking about it kind brings it back... The excitement of that whole 'angle' (the queer angle), the promise of it all... the possibility... the liberation from the gender stereotype and the gender role and all that society-imposed 5hit. all combined with a crush on someone... it's all quite a lot. The idea of a relationship with someone who has all these angles a guy has to offer that a chick doesn't have to offer.
And then somewhere along the way I slipped off track and got interested in chicks again, so my preference is now with chicks to a fairly significant degree. Perhaps it's somewhat telling how I continually get crushes on lesbians. Indeed, my first girlfriend, as you may recall me recounting previously, she turned out to be a lesbian. She wound up getting married, then divorced, now's living with her gf, they're raising her gf's daughters together. So yeah, I totally dig lesbians. If you are a chick and I have the hots for you it probably means you're gay, even if you don't know it yet. and I don't mean that I dig lesbians in a Howard Stern male chauvinist kinda way. I would guess that I am attracted to the 'masculine' aspects of lesbians and/or the lack of adherence to gender norms and gender stereotype and gender role. But yet, I am totally attracted to women sexually. I'm attracted to 90% of the women I meet, but only in a sexual way. I'm attracted to many gay guys I meet, generally never attracted to straight guys, only gay guys, and not so much sexually, but inter-personally and emotionally.
It's like I got scrambled in a star trek transporter accident. A lesbian and a gay guy and an asexual all walk into a bar... The gay guy, sensing trouble, flamboyantly taps his communicator pin and says "beam us up Scotty, three to transport" and next thing you know, there's a power surge in the ship and they all get scrambled together into one person, and that person is me.
I'm a complicated guy.
-
TL;DR
I'm a complicated guy.
Yeah, you and Mark G. Miller, only I'd read a thousand pages of MGM.
(Fact: I own and have read two David Icke books given to me by a crazy man)
-
i am drawn to tacos.
-
i am drawn to tacos.
Even if that wasn't meant as a euphemism, it was.
-
Life's too short man, do what you want to do.
-
TL;DR
I know, I know. When I was writing that, I wondered if I would want to read it all if I wasn't me, and I suspected that I might not.
It's almost as if I have the opposite of schizophrenia in that respect. From MGM's writings, I gather that if you have schizophrenia, your main problem is that you arrive at conclusions with fairly little due process. You make whole series of connections between events and ideas on the slightest whim. Whereas, myself, I am mired in process, unable to make the final connections necessary to arrive at even the most pedantic of conclusions, unable to make even the most pedantic of points without turning it into a thesis dissertation defense.
So anyway, I was at a friend's house this afternoon, just kinda hanging out. After a while his wife came home and all three of us were chatting. My friend has this thing about teasing his sons that they're gay. And I think he does it more when I'm around because at work that was one of the things that people would joke about was me being gay, not because I am terribly effeminate, I'm not really, but just because I'm completely wacko, so in an attempt to peg my... wait... poor choice of words there... in an attempt to categorize my whole identity, of course one of the aspects that people would hypothesize about would be my sexual orientation. Not to mention I worked in a factory so that was kind of the normal standard level and subject of humor there anyway.
So anyway, the conversation segwayed from the question of my friend's son being gay to my lesbian ex girl friend, and at about that point, my friend's wife finds a pretense to pretend that the conversation is getting too weird and she leaves the room. unbeknownst to her my friend has confided previously in me about the time that she separated from him to live with a girl friend of hers, all lesbionic style and such.
so I guess what I'm trying to say is that any members of Touamb who don't post in this topic, it's a safe assumption that they're avoiding the topic for a reason, if you know what I mean know what I mean say no more say no more nudge nudge wink wink (because they're gay and they don't want to talk about it.)
-
I think the bigger question here is: do you prefer your tacos with flour or corn tortillas?
vaguely related:
(http://images.buycostumes.com/mgen/merchandiser/61490.jpg)
-
seriously will people put anything on a pug? isn't it humiliation enough to be bred to be the ugliest animal alive?
-
But back on topic:
For gay folks, is there a pressure to be involved with someone your own size so you can double your wardrobe for free?
-
seriously will people put anything on a pug? isn't it humiliation enough to be bred to be the ugliest animal alive?
yeah I was just gonna say. That image kinda pushes me over the edge. The combination of being a pug and that idiotic dress makes me realize that damn... it must suck to be a pug. Pugs don't look ugly to me. They just look uncomfortable. It looks like it would be inherently *uncomfortable* to be a pug.
You know how some people have mental disorders where they suffer from anxiety or boredom or OCD or something. I but that probably all pugs have OCD or something. Or maybe Tourette syndrome.
-
But back on topic:
For gay folks, is there a pressure to be involved with someone your own size so you can double your wardrobe for free?
That would be a good advantage I guess. Reminds me of this one time all my underwear was in the wash so I wanted to wear one of my gf's underwears and she said she didn't want that. The idea of it kinda turned me on. But I guess my gf there, she was insecure in my masculinity or her own femininity or I dunno what.
-
(http://pure-essence.net/stuff/ICHC/funny-pictures-tacocat.jpg)
-
yeah I was just gonna say. That image kinda pushes me over the edge. The combination of being a pug and that idiotic dress makes me realize that damn... it must suck to be a pug. Pugs don't look ugly to me. They just look uncomfortable. It looks like it would be inherently *uncomfortable* to be a pug.
You know how some people have mental disorders where they suffer from anxiety or boredom or OCD or something. I but that probably all pugs have OCD or something. Or maybe Tourette syndrome.
More of a philosophical question, is it considered a disorder if they are bred to have that trait? Is a guard dog that is nervous and easily noticeable, obsessive-compulsive, or is it working to spec?
Part of what triggers this is the self-identification of high-functioning autists with prey animals. Cf. Temple Grandin and her entire abbatoir design, as well as the now-infamous "hugbox." It seems that certain traits that would make sense in a wild "state of nature" become pathologies when either bred to excess or when rendered excessive by societal norms. It makes sense, in a troop of apes, to have a few hyper-nervous ones as watchers. It doesn't make sense to be hyper-sensitive or neurotic in a technological society.
Since this original thread is about homosexuality, the question is, is there an evolutionary advantage? It would seem there is one since, by its very definition, homosexuality would have bred itself out if it weren't tied to something else. I read a science journal article a few years back saying that gays tended to be the younger or youngest members of middle to large groups of children, and that the "gay gene" may be tied to something related to female fertility. Is it a simple correlation, where one gene "rides on" the success of another? Do they interplay -- is the gay child a "pressure valve" to prevent overpopulation and self-destruction from fecund women? Difficult to say and I'm no evolutionary biologist, but this would be fun to study.
-
(http://pure-essence.net/stuff/ICHC/funny-pictures-tacocat.jpg)
Now I want to play Kingdom of Loathing.
-
like 2 years ago i almost kissed this dude and then later I ran into him when i was not super-drunk, and he was all "i want to hug you a lot," and i was not into it anymore and felt uncomfortable.
i like the vagin a lot. you know?
we watched this movie yesterday where every actress had tiny mipples... what is pu with that preference. why is that what we/you/we want? areolas can be watever size exisgts, i like them regardess. yeah?
-
Mipples?
If that's not a word it should be.
-
I dig both dudes and ladies but have never dated a lady long-term, mainly on account of how I fell in love with a man when I was fifteen and am still with him.
I had a few exploits during the occasional off-period, but nothing too intense to be sure. I generally like girls who tend towards butch, and I have been described as butch myself. I also tend to be attracted to men who aren't your typical heartthrob type. For instance, bears, twinks, and Steve Martin. I also think it's hot when two dudes kiss, but only if both of them are straight.
Brains, though - that's my major turn-on. If a person is smart and also funny, he need not even be corporeal: I have had many a crush on members of this board because they make me laugh and think in equal measure.
-
like 2 years ago i almost kissed this dude and then later I ran into him when i was not super-drunk, and he was all "i want to hug you a lot," and i was not into it anymore and felt uncomfortable.
i like the vagin a lot. you know?
we watched this movie yesterday where every actress had tiny mipples... what is pu with that preference. why is that what we/you/we want? areolas can be watever size exisgts, i like them regardess. yeah?
National Geographic nipples cross the line. Or should I say the border.
-
Or perhaps the equator.
-
I also think it's hot when two dudes kiss, but only if both of them are straight.
woah. that's like some a the same paradoxal stuff that I find in my experience.
Brains, though - that's my major turn-on. If a person is smart and also funny, he need not even be corporeal: I have had many a crush on members of this board because they make me laugh and think in equal measure.
No way! Okay, check this out. Is this guy attractive to you?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbMMe8PS9tU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbMMe8PS9tU)
same montage, this time in Andy Warhol Marilyn Monroe colour scheme (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oho3K5RJg20)
Since this original thread is about homosexuality, the question is, is there an evolutionary advantage? It would seem there is one since, by its very definition, homosexuality would have bred itself out if it weren't tied to something else.
Careful... If homosexuality expresses it's self as a side-effect of some other trait being expressed, this doesn't automatically mean that there is any evolutionary advantage whatsoever to homosexuality. There might be an advantage to the other 'sibling' or 'linked' trait, but it's still a different trait or group of traits entirely. I don't fault you for running with this idea which is peddled by evolutionary biology, but the theory of evolution, especially as it gets reduced down to the lay person's level, has issues. Biology is at least one order of magnitude more complex than this theory accounts for. I won't expound on that except I'll say that it's short sighted to assume that there's a reduced chance of homosexuals procreating. That really needs to be quantified. In so many, if not all cultures, to some degree or other, procreation is not 100% linked to sexual attraction. Marriage and kids serve all sorts of functions in different cultures, and people get married and have kids for all sorts of reasons. To say that in a given culture, much less all cultures, that homosexuals are less likely to procreate... that really needs to be quantified... Even in cultures where homosexuality is an accepted thing in some way or other, (for instance I recall something about this in some native American tribe or other) and where there are non-procreating roles and unions for homosexuals, you're still gonna find some (many? most?) homosexuals who stick to the traditional roles and who procreate. If we're gonna define a homosexual as someone who eschews cultural norms about marriage and does not get married or does not procreate, then what we're talking about measuring is some sort of end result of a very complex process, only part of which is biological, in which case it's really ridiculous to talk about evolutionary advantage in a strictly biological sense... If you're gonna talk about evolutionary advantage, you have to do so in the concurrent contexts of biological evolution and cultural evolution... these are two different environments... there is some overlap between the mechanisms in these, in that expression of DNA (which it's self is highly affected by environment) can and does ultimately affect how the brain processes information (culture,) but I would say that these two *concurrent* evolutionary mechanisms are more different than similar (ideas evolving in cultural environments vs. genes evolving in biological environments.) Further, homosexuality may be a single end result which can be arrived at via any one of many different combination of traits, some of those combinations involving biological traits, some not.
disclaimer: I have no idea what my point is any more at this point, so I may contradict it in the following:
Um.. so anyway, my guess is that homosexuals are like, just kinda a normal variation on the spectrum... on one end you have super feminine or super masculine, and on the other end, super butch or super twink. If we didn't have diversity on the spectrum, then, the whole spectrum would red or blue shift one direction or the other, and get all lopsided.
Since this original thread is about homosexuality, the question is, is there an evolutionary advantage? It would seem there is one since, by its very definition, homosexuality would have bred itself out if it weren't tied to something else.
okay... it might be tied to *everything* else, or at least, a whole plethora of other traits.
So... I guess, we could say that homosexuality is simply any location on the spectrum that's left of center. And I guess, you could be left of center in some of your traits and right of center in other of your traits.
The person who's smack dab in the middle, who has the least amount of statistical variation in all of it's traits... that's got to be a boring person. Give me someone who is three standard deviations away from center, on both ends of the spectrum simultaneously. And a goat. Now that's cookin' with fire! Rawrrrr! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbMMe8PS9tU)
-
No way! Okay, check this out. Is this guy attractive to you?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbMMe8PS9tU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbMMe8PS9tU)
same montage, this time in Andy Warhol Marilyn Monroe colour scheme (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oho3K5RJg20)
Funny, yes. Attractive, no. Rowan Atkinson may be a smart guy, but Mr. Bean is an idiot, and therefore gross.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xiht0XK6NP8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xiht0XK6NP8)
Hott or not? You decide.
-
I think I read somewhere that, like grandparents, non-breeding adults increase the fitness of kin (and therefore positive selection of related traits) and that may contribute to the persistence of any "gay genes" in a population.
-
same montage, this time in Andy Warhol Marilyn Monroe colour scheme (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oho3K5RJg20)
Just shows that anyone looks like an amazingly fluent dancer when you can't see their face. The four panel bit is an iPod advert waiting to happen
-
I'd say homosexuality ties seamlessly into the idea of evolution. Think of it this way: the human sex chromosomes are labeled X and Y, females have double X and males an X and a Y (some other species have similar sex-determination systems). This three to one ratio suggests that the Y chromosome (ultimately the concept of male-ness) was a mutation from homogeneous sea of X's. There had to have been a period in the primordial ooze when technically every entity was female and the concept of sexual reproduction was an adaptation that emerged from that.
Since they started using advanced tools humans have been devolving; there is no reason to think any trait could have been removed from the gene pool in the past 4000 years.
-
just because a trait is hardwired in a person's genes doesn't mean it got that way because of any evolutionary advantage that has anything to do with that trait. Evolution and natural selection is supposed to explain everything about life, but it simply doesn't. It's a hackneyed incomplete theory.
-
I have heard the theory that gayness is one of the more common genetic mutations, like left-handedness or color-blindness.
Can we go back to talking about hot dudes and ladies now?
-
Evolution and natural selection is supposed to explain everything about life,
No. No it isn't. This is a highly flawed premise.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xiht0XK6NP8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xiht0XK6NP8)
Hott or not? You decide.
Not. I mean, don't get me wrong, I love Giles and all, but that wasn't sexy.
-
No. No it isn't. This is a highly flawed premise.
I... um... I... AW, in the first instance you are being difficult. (I believe that's the British English equivalent of "in the first place" and I believe that it may be generally more polite and proper than the equivalent "in the first place.")
Not. I mean, don't get me wrong, I love Giles and all, but that wasn't sexy.
yeah... that dude isn't my type. He comes across as kinda straight.
-
yeah... that dude isn't my type. He comes across as kinda straight.
Well...yeah. That's kind of the point, what with me being female and all -- it's nice to feel like I might have a chance.
-
I wonder what it is in a straight guy that is attractive. For that matter I'm not all that attracted on an emotional / psychological level to straight women... maybe someone can explain...
-
I wonder what it is in a straight guy that is attractive.
Depends on the guy.
-
I think that my inability to appreciate the male form is actually not so much some kind of homophobia but is rather, like, my own self-loathing and unhappiness with being a big fat fuck and projected it onto my entire gender. Only recently have I figured this out. Inside my brain, I am dashing and exotically good-looking, barrel-chested but handsome in like an Errol Flynn-early Superman kinda way.
And then I look in a mirror and see THIS guy.
So I'm pretty sure I project that on all the bewanged.
-
as for dudes, i can see why other dudes and women find them attractive. i just dont share that attraction. as far as im concerned, my c*ck all the c*ck i will ever need or want.
-
I've found guys attractive in the past but not on the basis of their looks, if that makes sense. There's an old Seinfeld line that likens the naked female form to a work of art and the male to a utilitarian jeep and I basically agree. Charisma though, I can dig that.
-
wait.. what?
I could be... not physically attractive? ? ? damn. I never thought of it that way. But.. it could kinda make sense... you got this divergence between the sexes in physical appearance, but that isn't gonna automatically mean that their brains' respective hardwiring is gonna likewise diverge such that they find the other sex physically attractive. It just makes sense to me that both sexes would both be wired to be attracted more to one gender or the other... it would be a lot of work to change that wiring as gender-specific traits evolved... more likely, the wiring was merely circumvented, but may still be there very much intact.
yeah I got to admit there ain't much to my body. I'm 155lbs, 5'10", not very muscular. Personally I don't go for muscular guys at all that generally turns me off, but maybe in moderation I could go for it... but I suppose if there was gonna be some male body type that was gonna be attractive, it would be kinda, built and all, as they say.
But I guess one thing that guys could have going for them would be the p3ni5. It's certainly a distinctive appendage. It certainly stands out. Even if it's small, it's certainly got a kink factor going on there. My p3ni5 is almost too awesome in that it almost is adequate substitute for the company of a woman. So if I was a woman I certainly can see being attracted to my p3ni5.
Last point - I see a double standard here. Physical attractiveness figures in much more for straight guys than it does for straight women. Ya know, a woman is willing to be attracted to me mostly on the basis of my personality, yet, in my search for a partner, I'm attracted to a range of body types, but if the woman doesn't fit in that range, then, it's just probably not gonna work for me.
And then I guess we could get into the question of... is there a correlation between body type and personality... and the answer, I believe, is yes... There was that study that was in the media a while back that found that people of similar weight classes tended to associate with one another more often than not. That kinda tells you something.
-
oh yeah, on that question of correlation between body types and personality, how about redheads, huh? I mean, they is sexy sexy sexy. I have a theory about why they're sexy. It's got to do with their brain wiring. their brains are wired different. I don't know how exactly or what exact connections or short circuits are there that aren't there as much or at all in the rest of us, but there's got to be something there.
It would be fun to have a program that will generate life-like 3D people, where you can adjust the various parameters, sort of like the kits that police artists doing mug shots use, only for the whole body. It'd be interesting to see what you come up with. You could create in 3D space your ideal partner. it's like, hell, you could even have your ideal partner have two p3ni5es if you wanted!!
-
... is there a correlation between body type and personality...
my eyes and genitals have this idea of what im looking for in a lady to spend time and effort on, and why i will spent time and effort on her. my conscious mind has another idea. im looking for someone who can make all of me happy/content. not to mention, ive known for some time that the former idea is the one i should be less concerned with. i think that the deepest love begins as an emotional attraction.
-
how about redheads, huh? I mean, they is sexy sexy sexy.
Yes. This is true.
Also, please feel free to use the word "c*ck" without self-censoring if you so desire.
-
PENIS VAGINA
-
Put that back in your robot #####, Bobby. It's making the place smell fishy.
-
i think that the deepest love begins as an emotional attraction.
love... pfff....
Also, please feel free to use the word "c*ck" without self-censoring if you so desire.
Is there some desire on the part of some to avoid saturating the environment with vulvarity? If so, you'll all have to come right out and tell me because I don't pick up on hints (polite or otherwise) very well.
um, yeah but if I type a word knowing that it's going to get transformed into a more PG version of said word, isn't that effectively self-censoring? Besides which, cock might well be more vulgar than p3n1s in many contexts.
-
Besides which, cock might well be more vulgar than p3n1s in many contexts.
You think?
-
Well...yeah. That's kind of the point, what with me being female and all -- it's nice to feel like I might have a chance.
This one is better: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zo5LAqjEU_w
You can fantasize all you want about Anthony Head, but only after salivating at Amber Benson.
-
Amber Benson, no thank you. Alyson Hannigan? Yes, please. Oh, for the love of heaven, yes.
-
mmm... willow
-
mmm... willow
Since this showed up on a new page it took me minute to process. Because my first thought was of course the Willow who teams up with Madmartigan
-
D:
-
Out of the way, peck!
-
i choose neither.
andrea zollo (http://subinev.com/newblog/archives/20060723-pgmg-andrea.jpg). also, andrea zollo (http://userserve-ak.last.fm/serve/252/513464.jpg).
-
andrea zollo (http://subinev.com/newblog/archives/20060723-pgmg-andrea.jpg). also, andrea zollo (http://userserve-ak.last.fm/serve/252/513464.jpg).
YES!
-
Amber Benson, no thank you. Alyson Hannigan? Yes, please. Oh, for the love of heaven, yes.
Oh, clearly Willow. I would lick her clean. But I don't know, I kind of have a thing for the other one, too.
andrea zollo (http://subinev.com/newblog/archives/20060723-pgmg-andrea.jpg). also, andrea zollo (http://userserve-ak.last.fm/serve/252/513464.jpg).
Oh dude, I first heard this song (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzgLXWdAQas) like 12 years ago and even though I had never seen her my teenage brain developed a huge crush on Andrea Zollo. Still, to this day, even.