Saturday, December 29, 2012

see, this is what i think:

1 Commentaries/Bashings
i think there should be a new classification of sexuality created: "4pay."

them mother|fuckers that will go lickin' or stickin' another mutha|fucka of the "wrong gender" if the price is right..
..and only when The Price Is Right.


which is fine.

those individuals are an obvious sub-set of "bi-sexual," but a love of money compels them to do some 'off-the-record' shit.

actually, a love of (or affinity for) money compels many to go against their "official" nature.


Wednesday, December 26, 2012

i am passionate about some things. maybe.

0 Commentaries/Bashings
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..., 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.. 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?


..what can we say about him?

what can we learn from him?

what more can i say?

Sunday, December 23, 2012

from Manhunt Daily

0 Commentaries/Bashings
this is something i had to say about a post that was made on Manhunt Daily; here is the link to my comment.

enjoy !!

i'm the oldest of my siblings. and i am a same-gender-seeker (by at least 91%); as far as i know, my younger siblings are not same-gender-seekers (by at least 97%).

incidentally, i have a comparatively-lower libido than my peers (in my opinion).

maybe there is something to this "testosterone" component of genetic predisposition.
maybe not.

if i am, apparently, wired to experience a reduced-level of imperative to shoot my load (in/on/because of/with other dudes), then what explains those of my peers who feel a higher-than-average level of imperative to orgasm (on/with/in/because of other dudes)?

does testosterone really do what some scientists seem to be theorizing...or is it rather, the testosterone that i did receive (and presently make) didn't (and doesn't) reach all "hetero-relevant" and "sex-positive" parts of my brain (consistently)?

i am willing to wager that for every one "Nelly the Fabulous" type and for every one "Bruno the (Leather Clad) Destroyer" type, there are 78 "Average Joe" types whose only real distinguishing characteristic is they happen to be SGS.

maybe i should look over these studies, to see just what role testosterone is playing!

also, i have long-been a believer in the possibility that the disinclination/aversion to bringing forth off-spring is a function of "population control" — i personally know of one man who's brought forth two children ... who, 3 decades later, has long-since completely sworn his allegiance to boning biologically-born men only.

i know of one other man who had deluded himself into thinking he could be have a heterosexual relationship, and would have had children himself, except something happened to avert this.. ..and, a couple of decades later, he himself is 96% SGS.

i mention them, as way-of-allusion to all those other individuals (female and male) who, if they hadn't felt compelled to go against their natures, would have fulfilled their role of keeping the population down as intended.

there is a catch to the "natural population regulation" theory: one has to be inclined to believe in Intelligent Design or/and a Man in The Sky.

i'm agnostic, and i'm not really into Spookisms... ...but when i had considered just how much more competition for pussy there could be, if we fellows-all were at least bi-sexual, it had became harder for me to believe that the random cropping up of the homosexually-inclined (and its ilk) through the population, for what may very well have been millennia, is a complete coincidence.

then again.. ..what with sexuality being what it is, it would do all of us a lot of good to remember that we all are what we are, for different "internal" reasons. (this is within the same vein for why some have disposition of being submissive, and for some others to have a strong psychological aversion to any sort of fellatial activities but then harbour no especial problem with having their asses plowed.)

i am remain convinced that, if left to figure things out for themselves, humans would not have the hang-ups about "who" sticks "what" "where?" that we 'educated folk' have.

follow me by e-mail. Taste the Rainbow.