ADVISORY: WEB↕SITE DOES NOT CURRENTLY DISPLAY PROPERLY IN FIRE↕FOX BROWSER!!

(WEB↕SITE BEST VIEWED IN 1200 x 840 RESOLUTION OR BETTER!)

Wednesday, December 26, 2012

i am passionate about some things. maybe.

here's another comment that i've left on a manhunt daily blog; this time, i think i've edited it adequately enough for both their site and mines:

i do have a question that i hope at least a few of you will answer for me, over time:

in light of what we have seen cody do (on film), over the years, how exactly might his sexuality be classified/explained?

or, maybe i should instead inquire, can cody be considered a "functional heterosexual"?

i ask because i'm still trying to figure out how sexuality, and human psychology, work.

my answer to my own question continues to rely on my assumption and understanding (which could be flawed, of course) of what the "heterosexual identity" is, mixed in with my coinage of "functional -sexuality" (which, in my explanation here, is not covering "queerhood," in order to avoid complicating this matter more than it already shall be...) —

a.) given the overwhelming complexity of sexuality (which, really, should never be classified into three or four neat little categories), i do believe that only a rare few people (no more than 1 - 7% of the population, during any one generation) can truly claim to be "99.9999 - 100%" straight or gay: for it's only a matter of one's finding one's self being randomly presented with the right opportunity to be able to take advantage of the right circumstances, to find themselves unexpectedly deviating from their perceived norm

(and on some occasions, the encounter with the anomaly can act as the gateway to a-whole-nother way of living)

however, i also assume that people rarely go searching for those "opportunities"; nor, by definition, do they spend a significant portion of their lives even considering the possibility of that they may Deviate...

...so, for all intents and purposes, those individuals can proclaim "i'm gay, gurllll" or "i'm straight homie" without batting an eye.

i know there are people who, for at least 99.59% of their entire lives, will manage to not willingly nor knowingly interact, in an intimate or/and sexual(-ized) manner, with another person who does not fall in line with their gender (androgynous/FTM/hermaphroditic/MTF/trans-sexual/etc.) or sex (biological woman or man) preference.

(and, yes.. ..more often than not, i am sure that these people prefer not to 'have dealings' with those other individuals who aren't "the original".. ..for whatever colour of reasoning or rationale.)

thus, i feel it's perfectly logical to cite those individuals as sound evidence that can back my assertions.

functional -sexuality applies to homosexuals and heterosexuals who do nothing to deviate from what the obvious definition of their respective sexualities is.

b.) which leads me back to the matter of my having to explain what i believe "heterosexual identity" is.. ..by highlighting some of what i believe what It isn't: cody cummings, for instance.

cody also leads me to a grey area, because i'm about to declare "heterosexual dudes don't do what cody does," and i don't care about whether cody does or doesn't consistently attain any form of ``internal positive feedback´´ from his activities.


That's one of the intangibles though: whether or not one attains pleasure (sexual or otherwise) from their activity.

(what do you say about the woman who had only ever been fucked and eaten by guys {and enjoys it}, but also loved flicking her own bean to female imagery?

what do you say about the woman who prefers to "peg" men?)

however.. ..even if cody somehow is, in fact, only-barely holding back the urge to puke up all he had ate and drank, in the previous 96 hours, during every single one of his man-on-man scenes, the reality continues to remain that no one forces him to engage in these scenes (that are being broadcast for all to consume) that he constantly churns out; also, as i've stated elsewhere, if any random person not already familiar with cumming's body of filmed sex work were to observe one of his man-on-man scenes, they will likely automatically conclude he's gay (or bi, if they're in a good mood); i also assume they'd definitely assert that "if this gentleman doesn't enjoy what i just saw him doing, he's not doing a good job of convincing me that he is of such a mind-set."

the most important, defining prerequisite of functional heterosexuality is "don't consistently: sexualize, be excessively/unusually intimate with.. ..or feel not-Platonic Love (i lack a better term for this abstract concept) for your own gender."
isn't it?

(can two guys, who feel a definitive sexual attraction for only women, look forward to, and cuddle + snuggle very closely in bed together when they sleep {with no sexual arousal ever occurring from this specific activity}, and still be considered straight?)

cody's already long-passed the point of being "functionally heterosexual."
hasn't he?

so..

..what can we say about him?

what can we learn from him?



what more can i say?

No comments:

Post a Comment

have you Commentary for this post?

then feel free to leave it for me, here.

also feel free to use your standard HTML Tags — if you so desire it.

Google

Amazon Deals

follow me by e-mail. Taste the Rainbow.