http://www.salon.com/2014/07/29/im_a_lesbian_marrying_a_man/
QuoteI was in a bar in Chicago when I told a close friend of 20 years that, despite being a lesbian, I was marrying a man. My friend and I hadn't seen each other in a while, but we fell back quickly into our old intimacy — those long, rambling conversations we used to have in coffee shops all over Minneapolis. When the subject shifted to an activist group she was part of, I said I'd be glad to help, if they needed a lesbian on their board. She laughed, dismissively. "You can't call yourself that anymore."
Of all the weird reactions I'd gotten to my engagement, that one pissed me off most.
I had not been not surprised when my fiancé's friends — Washington insiders with the respect for convention that city inspires — expressed shock when they discovered I was a dyke. We came from different worlds; with my long brunette hair and short skirts, I hadn't read as queer to them. But no one had presumed to relabel me, to retrofit me to their categories — at least, not to my face.
But here was my fabulous Portland pal, trying to claim me for the Bi-Het team (which sounded like a synagogue rather than a sexual identity, and certainly not my own). She wasn't the only one: An ex-girlfriend and a sophisticated poet cousin said the same thing, as if my lesbian license had been revoked.
So let me be clear, since I can't be the only one: I am a lesbian marrying a man.
This is not semantics, or splitting hairs; it is fundamental to who we are — my fiancé and I. Immutable as height or eye color.
:um:
Fuck it. I'm a motherfucking six-and-a-half foot tall gladiator with a ten-inch uncut penis. DON'T TRY TO RETROFIT ME TO FIT YOUR CATEGORIES.
I am a beautiful fairy princess, and this makes it official.
[quote source="the comments"]
danicastone Aug 4, 2014
The problem here is in people who are not in the bisexual community, and don't identify as bisexual, defining bisexuality in a way that lets them keep their old identity. Instead of learning what people who do use the label, who understand it deeply from within their history and culture and community and shared experience, mean by "bisexual".
In the bi world, "bisexual" doesn't just mean being equally attracted to all genders. Or being "as a rule, attracted to men" as well as women. It very frequently - maybe even most often - means "I simply fall in love with people and don't hold their gender against them."
There are also scores of Kinsey 4.5s in the bisexual community - people who are, as a rule, with people of one particular gender, but who are sometimes attracted to others, who dated others in the distant past, who have dated or married people whose gender identity changed, or who just are open to the possibility that they might be drawn to someone different.
The best analogy might be the "straight" woman who falls in love with another woman but doesn't want to give up the privilege and emotional security that comes with continuing to call herself straight.
It's hard to give up the idea of your identity as fixed and secure, and to give up the familiarity and security and visibility and sense of normalcy of being straight... Or even of being gay, compared to being bi. It's easier to deny those people's reality and define them as whatever will keep them different than you. Even if that means perpetuating their invisibility and "otherness" by writing articles like this one.[/quote]
So much this goddamn it.
Identity issues are gay.
Commonly held definitions are lesbian-exclusionary.
There's a strong reek of bullshit throughout that.
QuoteHis friends are mostly astronauts, charmingly cheerful guys, who seem to be straining to seem like ordinary guys, when in fact they have done truly extraordinary things: They have left the fucking planet; they have orbited the earth. When they hear that I am a writer, they are kindly enthusiastic and look up my work online. Then, one by one, the men come to my fiancé and say, with evident concern, "Do you know that she's a lesbian?" "Yup," he says. "I know." Their wives are a little less friendly after that, but they are scrupulously polite.
If it's actually legit and they do get married, I've got a fiver on less than a year, probably not even 6 months.
QuoteI know plenty of people who identify as bisexual; I am not. The term simply doesn't apply. I am not, as a rule, attracted to men. I simply fell in love with this person and didn't hold his gender against him. That won't change because of our vows, any more than my eye color will. My fundamental coordinates are unaltered.
Denial. It's not just in Egypt.
QuoteI've been changed by this love: I am calmer, fatter, pregnant. But my fundamental coordinates have not changed. It is precisely because our love makes room for us to be who we are, rather than cutting us to fit convention, that I want to spend my life with him, as I'll affirm when we stand before the rabbi and say, I do.
Total lesbian behaviour. Obviously all these people are mad for suggesting she's anything other than Queen Dyke of Lesbiana.
I'm not great with the whole gender/sexual politics thing, but I still say that if it's the biggest woe you're dealing with then you're pretty fucking lucky. Read an article or two about what it's like to deal with say, being gay in most of Africa and the levels of privilege and pretension here are amazing in comparison. Seriously, you're pregnant, getting married to a guy and you're upset because your friends have apparently (somewhat justifiably even) re-labled you? Cry me a fucking river.
I am aware that this is hardly enlightened thinking but I'm struggling to think kindly here.
ETA- The underlined. It's always handy when someone keeps restating something like that because it helps call out what's actually going on. It bet the follow up piece in 6-9 months will be a hoot.
It would be fascinating to hear her define lesbian.
Junky: lesbians totally get pregnant and have babies.
Maybe their relationship is non-sexual... and she is fully lesbian? They just make a good team. Could be?
My optimism amuses myself, this time.
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on October 30, 2014, 08:22:11 PM
Junky: lesbians totally get pregnant and have babies.
They also occasionally get calmer and/or fatter.
Quote from: Hoopla on October 30, 2014, 08:24:16 PM
Maybe their relationship is non-sexual... and she is fully lesbian? They just make a good team. Could be?
My optimism amuses myself, this time.
QuoteThrough it all, I found it hard to look at him: The wonderful smell of this man made me want to laugh out loud with pleasure
QuoteLater, I will realize that he looks a great deal like my first girlfriend
QuoteIn fact, we fell in love
QuoteI've been changed by this love: I am calmer, fatter, pregnant. But my fundamental coordinates have not changed.
So, going by the article, nope. She is a lesbian who fell in love with a man. But she's still a lesbian!
She's a pretty decent writer, or so I hear, but damn if she doesn't need to take a basic course in logic.
Quote from: Cain on October 30, 2014, 09:04:20 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on October 30, 2014, 08:24:16 PM
Maybe their relationship is non-sexual... and she is fully lesbian? They just make a good team. Could be?
My optimism amuses myself, this time.
QuoteThrough it all, I found it hard to look at him: The wonderful smell of this man made me want to laugh out loud with pleasure
QuoteLater, I will realize that he looks a great deal like my first girlfriend
QuoteIn fact, we fell in love
QuoteI've been changed by this love: I am calmer, fatter, pregnant. But my fundamental coordinates have not changed.
So, going by the article, nope. She is a lesbian who fell in love with a man. But she's still a lesbian!
She's a pretty decent writer, or so I hear, but damn if she doesn't need to take a basic course in logic.
Doesn't everyone?
Well, yes. And probably she comes down quite low on the list.
But it's pretty amazing, the mental hurdles one has to jump through to continue to define as a lesbian while in love with a man. No wonder she quotes a theologian at the end - they excel at precisely this kind of nonsense, ignoring self-contained definitions, creating new ones, appeals to emotion and identity over usage and custom.
Quote from: Cain on October 30, 2014, 09:11:32 PM
Well, yes. And probably she comes down quite low on the list.
But it's pretty amazing, the mental hurdles one has to jump through to continue to define as a lesbian while in love with a man. No wonder she quotes a theologian at the end - they excel at precisely this kind of nonsense, ignoring self-contained definitions, creating new ones, appeals to emotion and identity over usage and custom.
Heh. To be honest I wouldn't mind a refresher course in basic logic.
Anyway, allow me to repeat myself:
Quote from: Ragret on October 30, 2014, 05:50:35 PM
It would be fascinating to hear her define lesbian.
Yeah, that's.... that's this century, alright.
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on October 30, 2014, 08:22:11 PM
Junky: lesbians totally get pregnant and have babies.
Oh yeah, I totally get that. And I can't say I have any particular issues with it.
I would bet good money that those lesbians that get pregnant and have babies.... The number married to (and professing to be in love with) a man would be rather low.
I don't know there's just something about people being blatantly dishonest with themselves (and others, by spouting such nonsense). It's just hitting a nerve. I think Cain has the right of it here. There's something about the uniform of "lesbian" that the woman seems far too desperate to attach herself to and I have no idea what the deal is with that.
Again, ignorance showing here, but could it be a radical feminist thing? I seem to remember some branch went down the "Feminist must be lesbians" thing but I'm drawing blank with names/terms. Dworkin? Something like that?
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on October 30, 2014, 08:22:11 PM
Junky: lesbians totally get pregnant and have babies.
They could. I know some trans women who are pre-op, who like girls a lot.
Quote from: BrotherPrickle on October 30, 2014, 09:47:25 PM
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on October 30, 2014, 08:22:11 PM
Junky: lesbians totally get pregnant and have babies.
They could. I know some trans women who are pre-op, who like girls a lot.
Waffles, can you find me a copy of this relevant for this subject?
(http://i151.photobucket.com/albums/s131/Slesk/2CB8673F-0293-4A60-AD3E-D5C45B28BE54_zps7iw83kom.jpg)
I mean, I even, I'm just struggling to literally even with another odd fringe example thrown in. All I want is for people to kinda agree on terms and not get too pissy when it seems that a term does or does not apply.
This whole thing is actually a rather marvellous example of the "Convictions cause convicts" maxim. The uniform is stapled on here and it's not shifting.
QG - Big words, "Convictions cause convicts".? If there's not already a decent piece on the board about it I'll try and get something relevant together.
Quote from: BrotherPrickle on October 30, 2014, 09:47:25 PM
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on October 30, 2014, 08:22:11 PM
Junky: lesbians totally get pregnant and have babies.
They could. I know some trans women who are pre-op, who like girls a lot.
Dude. I don't know if you're being rude on purpose but no. There are plenty of ways to procure sperm that do not involve fucking.
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on October 30, 2014, 10:20:40 PM
Quote from: BrotherPrickle on October 30, 2014, 09:47:25 PM
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on October 30, 2014, 08:22:11 PM
Junky: lesbians totally get pregnant and have babies.
They could. I know some trans women who are pre-op, who like girls a lot.
Dude. I don't know if you're being rude on purpose but no. There are plenty of ways to procure sperm that do not involve fucking.
My daughter has stated that her preferred method, should she ever decide to spawn, is to kick the sperms out of whomever it is.
Far less messy that way, she says.
I am a lesbian woman marrying a man.
The article provides a fine example of sexuality as a continuum, and then completely dashes it aside in favor of hard fast labels.
So, some random yelling.
Lady here is buying pretty heavily into the definition of bisexual (or pansexual) being "OMG GENDER DUNT MATTER NUN I LUVS EVRY1 EKWAL" which drives me right up the fucking wall. Most bi(or pan)sexual people are not square in the middle of the spectrum, they tend to lean towards one side or another. That doesn't make them "really straight" or "really gay" on the inside, or make their less-common gender attractions somehow illegitimate. As upset as this lady is about people calling her bi because HOLY CRAP SHE'S BEEN IN LOVING, HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS AND EXPERIENCED SEXUAL ATTRACTION TOWARDS MEMBERS OF MORE THAN ONE GENDER, she really needs to take a look at the politics of her continued self-identification as lesbian in light of the bullshit other folks have to go through because everyone's upset they didn't pick one of the approved uniforms. And ftr, this is not the first self-identified lesbian I've heard of getting married to a dude, or publicly defending her stance on the internet, it just sets my teeth on edge.
I suspect that some of this is that the ladies in question cannot "pass" as straight, in addition to having no desire to do so. And that the freak flag they put up has LESBIANS all over it and they don't want to say they are different, and they don't feel different, they just happen to like this one dude despite the genitalia thing. And whatever, I can get behind not wanting to say I'M BI NOW when you don't feel any different and you totally didn't think of yourself as bi before, but that seems like it's more of a problem of the labels we have than people attempting to use them properly. If lesbian meant "lady who mostly makes out with other ladies" that would be different, but a hard line was drawn that says LESBIANS ARE INCAPABLE OF BEING INTO DUDES, SO FUCKING DEAL WITH IT. It's an assertion that was needed (and maybe still is) to shut up dicknuts who will say dumb shit about "finding the right man" or goddess save us "corrective rape". But it doesn't mesh with reality. Most people are more flexible than that.
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on October 30, 2014, 10:40:02 PM
It's an assertion that was needed (and maybe still is) to shut up dicknuts who will say dumb shit about "finding the right man" or goddess save us "corrective rape". But it doesn't mesh with reality. Most people are more flexible than that.
I've of course heard the "right man" bullshit...But
corrective rape? :eek:
Oh gods, you're in for a treat.
Keep the above jpg handy. You'll need it.
QuoteCorrective rape is the use of rape against people who do not conform to perceived social norms regarding human sexuality and gender roles, with goals of punishing "abnormal" behavior and reinforcing societal norms.[4] The crime was first identified in South Africa,[5] where it is sometimes supervised by members of the woman's family or local community.[1]
:eek:
Burn everything down.
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on October 30, 2014, 10:20:40 PM
Quote from: BrotherPrickle on October 30, 2014, 09:47:25 PM
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on October 30, 2014, 08:22:11 PM
Junky: lesbians totally get pregnant and have babies.
They could. I know some trans women who are pre-op, who like girls a lot.
Dude. I don't know if you're being rude on purpose but no. There are plenty of ways to procure sperm that do not involve fucking.
I'm not. I'm really that obtuse, sorry.
I had meant to reply to Junkenstein, and make a statement that genitalia do not determine your gender. I fucked up, my bad.
Quote from: BrotherPrickle on October 31, 2014, 12:02:07 AM
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on October 30, 2014, 10:20:40 PM
Quote from: BrotherPrickle on October 30, 2014, 09:47:25 PM
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on October 30, 2014, 08:22:11 PM
Junky: lesbians totally get pregnant and have babies.
They could. I know some trans women who are pre-op, who like girls a lot.
Dude. I don't know if you're being rude on purpose but no. There are plenty of ways to procure sperm that do not involve fucking.
I'm not. I'm really that obtuse, sorry.
I had meant to reply to Junkenstein, and make a statement that genitalia do not determine your gender. I fucked up, my bad.
No worries, it's hard to read tone on the internet.
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on October 30, 2014, 10:40:02 PM
And ftr, this is not the first self-identified lesbian I've heard of getting married to a dude, or publicly defending her stance on the internet, it just sets my teeth on edge.
I had no idea that this is a
thing. :eek:
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on October 30, 2014, 10:40:02 PM
I suspect that some of this is that the ladies in question cannot "pass" as straight, in addition to having no desire to do so. And that the freak flag they put up has LESBIANS all over it and they don't want to say they are different, and they don't feel different, they just happen to like this one dude despite the genitalia thing. And whatever, I can get behind not wanting to say I'M BI NOW when you don't feel any different and you totally didn't think of yourself as bi before, but that seems like it's more of a problem of the labels we have than people attempting to use them properly. If lesbian meant "lady who mostly makes out with other ladies" that would be different, but a hard line was drawn that says LESBIANS ARE INCAPABLE OF BEING INTO DUDES, SO FUCKING DEAL WITH IT. It's an assertion that was needed (and maybe still is) to shut up dicknuts who will say dumb shit about "finding the right man" or goddess save us "corrective rape". But it doesn't mesh with reality. Most people are more flexible than that.
I get the hard line part especially in response to the "finding the right man" bullshit, though I'm horrified to learn about "corrective rape". That's fucking heinous!
Quote from: Junkenstein on October 30, 2014, 09:40:58 PM
There's something about the uniform of "lesbian" that the woman seems far too desperate to attach herself to and I have no idea what the deal is with that.
I'm glad we have the uniform metaphor to help make sense out situations like these, but I'm still mystified as well.
Quote from: Cain on October 30, 2014, 09:11:32 PM
But it's pretty amazing, the mental hurdles one has to jump through to continue to define as a lesbian while in love with a man. No wonder she quotes a theologian at the end - they excel at precisely this kind of nonsense, ignoring self-contained definitions, creating new ones, appeals to emotion and identity over usage and custom.
I kind of skipped over that bit when I read it, but that's a great point.
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on October 30, 2014, 03:17:21 PM
Quotesource="the comments"
danicastone Aug 4, 2014
The problem here is in people who are not in the bisexual community, and don't identify as bisexual, defining bisexuality in a way that lets them keep their old identity. Instead of learning what people who do use the label, who understand it deeply from within their history and culture and community and shared experience, mean by "bisexual".
In the bi world, "bisexual" doesn't just mean being equally attracted to all genders. Or being "as a rule, attracted to men" as well as women. It very frequently - maybe even most often - means "I simply fall in love with people and don't hold their gender against them."
There are also scores of Kinsey 4.5s in the bisexual community - people who are, as a rule, with people of one particular gender, but who are sometimes attracted to others, who dated others in the distant past, who have dated or married people whose gender identity changed, or who just are open to the possibility that they might be drawn to someone different.
The best analogy might be the "straight" woman who falls in love with another woman but doesn't want to give up the privilege and emotional security that comes with continuing to call herself straight.
It's hard to give up the idea of your identity as fixed and secure, and to give up the familiarity and security and visibility and sense of normalcy of being straight... Or even of being gay, compared to being bi. It's easier to deny those people's reality and define them as whatever will keep them different than you. Even if that means perpetuating their invisibility and "otherness" by writing articles like this one.
So much this goddamn it.
That was really well put.
Maybe she's one of those people who don't think bi people exist.
Holy shit. I was just looking for an example of shitty Salon.com clickbait for a rant/article and this is perfect. The Goddess provides.
Quote from: Hoopla on October 31, 2014, 03:43:56 AM
Maybe she's one of those people who don't think bi people exist.
Or one of those people who thinks that her personal definitions override everyone else's experiences.
Quote from: xXRon_Paul_42016Xxx(weed) on October 31, 2014, 05:47:06 AM
Holy shit. I was just looking for an example of shitty Salon.com clickbait for a rant/article and this is perfect. The Goddess provides.
I've been trying to make the point on Facebook that Salon is basically Gawker. This article certainly doesn't disprove that notion.
Quote from: Cain on October 31, 2014, 07:18:54 AM
Quote from: xXRon_Paul_42016Xxx(weed) on October 31, 2014, 05:47:06 AM
Holy shit. I was just looking for an example of shitty Salon.com clickbait for a rant/article and this is perfect. The Goddess provides.
I've been trying to make the point on Facebook that Salon is basically Gawker. This article certainly doesn't disprove that notion.
Salon is worse than Gawker IMO. Gawker rarely pretends to be much more than an empty distraction on your way to the grave. Salon doesnt just crank out churnalism and clickbait, it cranks out churnalism and clickbait with a
message.
Quote from: xXRon_Paul_42016Xxx(weed) on October 31, 2014, 07:37:52 AM
Quote from: Cain on October 31, 2014, 07:18:54 AM
Quote from: xXRon_Paul_42016Xxx(weed) on October 31, 2014, 05:47:06 AM
Holy shit. I was just looking for an example of shitty Salon.com clickbait for a rant/article and this is perfect. The Goddess provides.
I've been trying to make the point on Facebook that Salon is basically Gawker. This article certainly doesn't disprove that notion.
Salon is worse than Gawker IMO. Gawker rarely pretends to be much more than an empty distraction on your way to the grave. Salon doesnt just crank out churnalism and clickbait, it cranks out churnalism and clickbait with a message.
I look forward to the coming rant. Hop to it.
One of my friends was a complete "gold star" (never slept with men) lesbian until last year. Then she hooked up with Joey and redefined her sexuality as pansexual.
I'm wondering, tho, if her brief attraction and sex with one dude (if the relationship with Joey didn't last long) and she is still mostly attracted to women would she lose her "lesbian" card forever?
I don't think one relationship in a history of only being with women, if it was a short one, would take away from that.
it's a moot point for Jess but "lesbian" was a massive part of her identity up until very recently. (She also realised she'd been dating genderqueer and trans dudes also- hence the "Oh, wait, I'm pan"
Luckily in my social group no one gave her shit for "going to the dark side" as most of us are pan or bi. the straight and gay people are in the minority.
Quote from: xXRon_Paul_42016Xxx(weed) on October 31, 2014, 07:37:52 AM
Quote from: Cain on October 31, 2014, 07:18:54 AM
Quote from: xXRon_Paul_42016Xxx(weed) on October 31, 2014, 05:47:06 AM
Holy shit. I was just looking for an example of shitty Salon.com clickbait for a rant/article and this is perfect. The Goddess provides.
I've been trying to make the point on Facebook that Salon is basically Gawker. This article certainly doesn't disprove that notion.
Salon is worse than Gawker IMO. Gawker rarely pretends to be much more than an empty distraction on your way to the grave. Salon doesnt just crank out churnalism and clickbait, it cranks out churnalism and clickbait with a message.
I dunno, I see a lot of professional progressive cheerleading going on both at Gawker and Salon. I think Gawker is the smarter of the two, as it isn't quite so earnest as Salon and more targeted at a slightly savvier demographic who are turned off by Salon's obviousless overtness, but it's there.
Quote from: Pope Pixie Pickle on October 31, 2014, 08:47:19 AM
One of my friends was a complete "gold star" (never slept with men) lesbian until last year. Then she hooked up with Joey and redefined her sexuality as pansexual.
I'm wondering, tho, if her brief attraction and sex with one dude (if the relationship with Joey didn't last long) and she is still mostly attracted to women would she lose her "lesbian" card forever?
I don't think one relationship in a history of only being with women, if it was a short one, would take away from that.
it's a moot point for Jess but "lesbian" was a massive part of her identity up until very recently. (She also realised she'd been dating genderqueer and trans dudes also- hence the "Oh, wait, I'm pan"
Luckily in my social group no one gave her shit for "going to the dark side" as most of us are pan or bi. the straight and gay people are in the minority.
I'm old enough that I feel I have the luxury of just saying "fuck your labels, I do what I want". I'm not pansexual, I'm neither straight nor lesbian, I don't identify as bi, and basically fuck it, it's none of anybody's business anyway. I'm much more interesting than who, how, or what I fuck.
If Salon paid me for the article, I'd gladly ruminate on my sexual identity for 800 words or so, even though I don't care and I doubt anyone else does either.
Quote from: Cain on November 01, 2014, 06:21:38 AM
If Salon paid me for the article, I'd gladly ruminate on my sexual identity for 800 words or so, even though I don't care and I doubt anyone else does either.
Good point.
Corrective rape is a thing. My father's family is fond of it as a threat, though I've only heard of two cousins it was 'hypothetically' applied to.
I had another two cents for this thread but forgot when I got to that last bit. Something something identity struggles are such a mixed bag of nuts something something.
Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on November 01, 2014, 07:25:15 PM
Corrective rape is a thing. My father's family is fond of it as a threat, though I've only heard of two cousins it was 'hypothetically' applied to.
Gross.
Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on November 01, 2014, 07:25:15 PM
Corrective rape is a thing. My father's family is fond of it as a threat, though I've only heard of two cousins it was 'hypothetically' applied to.
Get out of the South.
Why did we want them back in the Union again?
Quote from: Doktor Howl on November 02, 2014, 02:54:57 AM
Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on November 01, 2014, 07:25:15 PM
Corrective rape is a thing. My father's family is fond of it as a threat, though I've only heard of two cousins it was 'hypothetically' applied to.
Get out of the South.
My family is in Pennsylvania. :P
I am wondering how this self-identifying lesbian would have reacted, prior to falling in love with and marrying a man, to a woman who was in love with, and sleeping with, another woman, but insisted that she's really for real straight, and was intent on hanging onto a heterosexual public identity?
Quote from: Chelagoras The Lust-Driven Dickwolf on November 02, 2014, 03:48:00 AM
Why did we want them back in the Union again?
Um.
Somewhere there's a whole thread about this sort of thing. Stereotyping "those people", etc.
Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on November 02, 2014, 04:23:32 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on November 02, 2014, 02:54:57 AM
Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on November 01, 2014, 07:25:15 PM
Corrective rape is a thing. My father's family is fond of it as a threat, though I've only heard of two cousins it was 'hypothetically' applied to.
Get out of the South.
My family is in Pennsylvania. :P
Get out of the Rustbelt.
Quote from: Sexy St. Nigel on November 02, 2014, 04:55:53 PM
I am wondering how this self-identifying lesbian would have reacted, prior to falling in love with and marrying a man, to a woman who was in love with, and sleeping with, another woman, but insisted that she's really for real straight, and was intent on hanging onto a heterosexual public identity?
I would guess : Not well. Not well at all.
Quote from: Junkenstein on November 02, 2014, 07:22:31 PM
Quote from: Sexy St. Nigel on November 02, 2014, 04:55:53 PM
I am wondering how this self-identifying lesbian would have reacted, prior to falling in love with and marrying a man, to a woman who was in love with, and sleeping with, another woman, but insisted that she's really for real straight, and was intent on hanging onto a heterosexual public identity?
I would guess : Not well. Not well at all.
Yeah. That's my guess as well.
Quote from: Sexy St. Nigel on November 02, 2014, 04:57:52 PM
Quote from: Chelagoras The Lust-Driven Dickwolf on November 02, 2014, 03:48:00 AM
Why did we want them back in the Union again?
Um.
Somewhere there's a whole thread about this sort of thing. Stereotyping "those people", etc.
yea, in retrospect, that was a bit over the line, wasnt it? :sad:
Though, on a quick tangent, i am rather curious what would happen if alaska or texas really did secede? how would america be different without a bible belt?
Quote from: Chelagoras The Lust-Driven Dickwolf on November 02, 2014, 11:07:29 PM
Quote from: Sexy St. Nigel on November 02, 2014, 04:57:52 PM
Quote from: Chelagoras The Lust-Driven Dickwolf on November 02, 2014, 03:48:00 AM
Why did we want them back in the Union again?
Um.
Somewhere there's a whole thread about this sort of thing. Stereotyping "those people", etc.
yea, in retrospect, that was a bit over the line, wasnt it? :sad:
Though, on a quick tangent, i am rather curious what would happen if alaska or texas really did secede? how would america be different without a bible belt?
Not sure. Wouldn't miss them, though.
I just wish there was a means by which to evict Texas.
and maybe put a gag order on Kansas.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on November 03, 2014, 01:56:37 AM
Quote from: Chelagoras The Lust-Driven Dickwolf on November 02, 2014, 11:07:29 PM
Quote from: Sexy St. Nigel on November 02, 2014, 04:57:52 PM
Quote from: Chelagoras The Lust-Driven Dickwolf on November 02, 2014, 03:48:00 AM
Why did we want them back in the Union again?
Um.
Somewhere there's a whole thread about this sort of thing. Stereotyping "those people", etc.
yea, in retrospect, that was a bit over the line, wasnt it? :sad:
Though, on a quick tangent, i am rather curious what would happen if alaska or texas really did secede? how would america be different without a bible belt?
Not sure. Wouldn't miss them, though.
I just wish there was a means by which to evict Texas.
I wish we could give the whole SW region back to Mexico, just because that would be fucking FUNNY.
Quote from: Sexy St. Nigel on November 03, 2014, 05:21:02 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on November 03, 2014, 01:56:37 AM
Quote from: Chelagoras The Lust-Driven Dickwolf on November 02, 2014, 11:07:29 PM
Quote from: Sexy St. Nigel on November 02, 2014, 04:57:52 PM
Quote from: Chelagoras The Lust-Driven Dickwolf on November 02, 2014, 03:48:00 AM
Why did we want them back in the Union again?
Um.
Somewhere there's a whole thread about this sort of thing. Stereotyping "those people", etc.
yea, in retrospect, that was a bit over the line, wasnt it? :sad:
Though, on a quick tangent, i am rather curious what would happen if alaska or texas really did secede? how would america be different without a bible belt?
Not sure. Wouldn't miss them, though.
I just wish there was a means by which to evict Texas.
I wish we could give the whole SW region back to Mexico, just because that would be fucking FUNNY.
I wager after a bit of sputtering they'd just start hating everyone north of the border.
Quote from: Sexy St. Nigel on November 03, 2014, 05:21:02 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on November 03, 2014, 01:56:37 AM
Quote from: Chelagoras The Lust-Driven Dickwolf on November 02, 2014, 11:07:29 PM
Quote from: Sexy St. Nigel on November 02, 2014, 04:57:52 PM
Quote from: Chelagoras The Lust-Driven Dickwolf on November 02, 2014, 03:48:00 AM
Why did we want them back in the Union again?
Um.
Somewhere there's a whole thread about this sort of thing. Stereotyping "those people", etc.
yea, in retrospect, that was a bit over the line, wasnt it? :sad:
Though, on a quick tangent, i am rather curious what would happen if alaska or texas really did secede? how would america be different without a bible belt?
Not sure. Wouldn't miss them, though.
I just wish there was a means by which to evict Texas.
I wish we could give the whole SW region back to Mexico, just because that would be fucking FUNNY.
1. Texas isn't the SW. "The South" can have them. They're the Midwest of the South, in every respect.
2. WHAT? You'd take away our TSA? Our NSA? You MONSTER!
Well a good part of it belonged to Mexico at one point. I'm just proposing returning it. They can have California back, too.
Quote from: Sexy St. Nigel on November 03, 2014, 03:21:11 PM
Well a good part of it belonged to Mexico at one point. I'm just proposing returning it. They can have California back, too.
You have a point. But that would mean Mexico, alongside all of its other issues, would be saddled with Tucson. I mean, Tucson's already there, just like it's everywhere, but they'd have the actual location as well. Kind of a bad tradeoff for regaining the San Xavier Mission.
Also, they'd get Sheriff Joe. And Mexico just hasn't been that much of a dick.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on November 03, 2014, 03:24:44 PM
Quote from: Sexy St. Nigel on November 03, 2014, 03:21:11 PM
Well a good part of it belonged to Mexico at one point. I'm just proposing returning it. They can have California back, too.
You have a point. But that would mean Mexico, alongside all of its other issues, would be saddled with Tucson. I mean, Tucson's already there, just like it's everywhere, but they'd have the actual location as well. Kind of a bad tradeoff for regaining the San Xavier Mission.
Also, they'd get Sheriff Joe. And Mexico just hasn't been that much of a dick.
You make a strong argument, Howl. It's true; Mexico really doesn't deserve Tucson, and it really, REALLY hasn't done anything to deserve Phoenix.
So....Mexico is gay marrying Texas while proclaiming it is still straight?
Cain,
not read the last page
YES
Jokes on you all TEXAS IS MEXICO! AHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHA
Quote from: Derrick Broze on November 03, 2014, 08:07:57 PM
Jokes on you all TEXAS IS MEXICO! AHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHA
I didn't vote for that.
Well, Cali would be nice, Im almost certain their Gross State Product is bigger than all of Latin America put together.... but Arizona and Texas?... sure, some indian casinos, javelinas and oil would be nice, but im not 100% sold.
Quote from: The Johnny on November 04, 2014, 01:05:26 AM
Well, Cali would be nice, Im almost certain their Gross State Product is bigger than all of Latin America put together.... but Arizona and Texas?... sure, some indian casinos, javelinas and oil would be nice, but im not 100% sold.
We'll throw in Nevada and New Mexico, which never really stopped being Mexico in the first place.
Shit, I'll even throw in Utah, if that sweetens the pot.
Quote from: Sexy St. Nigel on November 04, 2014, 02:25:31 AM
Shit, I'll even throw in Utah, if that sweetens the pot.
Jesus. What did Mexico do to your family? :eek:
Quote from: Doktor Howl on November 04, 2014, 02:45:01 AM
Quote from: Sexy St. Nigel on November 04, 2014, 02:25:31 AM
Shit, I'll even throw in Utah, if that sweetens the pot.
Jesus. What did Mexico do to your family? :eek:
Mexico said that if I ever told anyone, they'd kill me. :cry: