Muscle Sissies
Sam and I were at Guitar Center on Van Ness the other day—on my birthday, to be exact—after we went over to Point Bonita Lighthouse just to hang and swang and check out the views. This was only the second time ever I was to the Lighthouse and was Sam's first time. I hadn't been in a long while and thought it would be a nice thing to do as a special occasion.
Anyhow, we were back in the DJ section of the Guitar Center and there was a couple there also checking things out. Two men. Both gym-goers. One was more plain and handsome than the other, and more muscly.
And as they say, when he opened his mouth, his purse fell out. In other words, a bit on the nelly side. Which doesn't work for Sam, but is ok-dandy-fine by me. So long as it's not an affectation.
I'm sure I'll catch flack for that one more from the normal-gay crowd than I would even from the one-man-one-woman-gender-roles-go-with-biological-sex crowd, but who cares. Individuals in both crowds behave kind of stiltedly, possessed of that nervousness that suggests that their reach has exceeded their grasp. You know how it goes...anger at anything deviating from tradition because traditional gets confused with “natural” in their heads.
But me? I love 'em. Be you, gorl. Or Man. Or somewhere in between. Or whatever. Don't be a sister if you aren't a sister, but if you are....grrrrrrl, you're ok-fine by me. To say nothing of the odd at-odds pairing of 200 pounds of muscle and shoulders for days and a sssssssserioussss frequency of Ssssssss's emanating therefrom.
Hot.
An odd pairing of traits in a big man-girl? I'll call it syssygy.
Comments
Yes, because everybody knows that homosexuality is perfectly natural and productive. Except us hate-filled homophobes.
We still think it's at best, useless except as a means of self-gratification. And even then, using somebody for pleasure should never be acceptable. Can you argue otherwise?
Posted by: Masked Avenger | April 7, 2005 01:36 AM
I don't think religion clocks in as a 'natural' tendency, Masked Avenger.
You folks used to use "not appearing in nature" as a definition for 'natural', until you all were forced to admit the existence of lesbian penguins.
If I called your relationship with your significant other "at best useless except as a means of self-gratification", would you think i was crazy? Preachy? Judgy?
Get this straight (so to speak), M.A.: I don't have to 'argue' in favor of something that is simply, palpably, demostrably EVIDENT.
The sun appears in our sky every day. Can you argue otherwise?
Posted by: God of Biscuits | April 7, 2005 02:54 AM
...using somebody for pleasure should never be acceptable.
That all depends on your intention behind the word "use" and the context of that use.
For example, (1) if you, Avenger, met a woman and you and she both consented to use each other for pleasure (ie: one-night stand) and nothing more (ie: relationship), I'd say that's just fine. That's her choice, and your choice, and it's none of my business.
And if you, (2) Avenger, met a woman and you and she consented to use each other for long-term companionship (ie: pleasure) and nothing more (ie: child rearing), I'd say that's just fine. It's consensual and none of my business.
And if (3) GoB met a man and they both consented to use each other for companionship (ie: pleasure) and nothing more (ie: child rearing), I'd say that's just fine. It's consensual and none of my business.
The problem with contemporary conservatism like yours is that you hypocritically classify (2) and (3) as being different even though the intent of the participants is absolutely identical. You justify your hypocrisy by siting the potential for conception, but that is not the intent of either party.
Your logic is flawed, and your double standard blatantly apparent.
Posted by: Josh | April 7, 2005 03:21 AM
[post deleted because hoody isn't smart enough to add an anonymous comment from different IP address]
Posted by: bisquik | April 8, 2005 10:09 AM
Who is this Masked Avenger? And exactly what is he avenging? The myth of the the Heterosexual Male, always brave and stalwart and many, except when they are not? "Using someone for pleasure is never acceptable"???? Get real, there is no one-to-one ratio between the number of times straight people fuck and the number of babies born.
Posted by: homer | April 8, 2005 11:36 AM
Eeek! More mysterious disappearances! Although...in defense of my sometime comrade-in-arms, it's possible somebody else in his family commented with the same computer. But I suppose I should trust you with running your own blog, eh?
As for the arguments, I shall reply later. This is not a sign of defeat, mind you, but I want to have a good amount of time to think about them. I always like to aim before I start shooting at things, and this includes debate. I shouldn't like to reply to something without properly thinking it through and deciding what, if anything, is wrong or illogical about an argument.
I'll be back roaming the cyberspace highways and biways sometime later this weekend, and then I should be well-thought out enough to reply in full.
Until that blissful, future day, I remain humbly and handsomely yours:
~The Masked Avenger
Posted by: The Masked Avenger | April 8, 2005 11:43 AM
well, hoody, you only have to look to yourself and stop wasting your time.
Posted by: God of Biscuits | April 9, 2005 01:13 AM
Ha. No, that's just foolish weakness on my part. I still don't know why I wander in here. . .
Posted by: hoody | April 9, 2005 01:33 AM
Oooh, fun, Avenger! I'll check this thread later to see what desperate tactics you're turning to in order to justify your bigotry.
Posted by: Josh | April 9, 2005 09:39 AM
[post deleted because hoody isn't smart enough to add an anonymous comment from different IP address]
Whatever. Maybe it was as MA said. (I'm not the only one in this house who recognizes the foolishness emanating from this site) Maybe it was someone having fun with my wireless connection and piggybacking. (though who they might be and why they would waste their time on this site is beyond me)
Posted by: hoody | April 9, 2005 10:20 AM
The window on my end reads "post a comment" not "start a debate."
Besides, using "everybody knows" in an argument is a flawed concept in itself. 500 years ago, everybody knew the world was flat. 1000 years ago, everybody knew armageddon was near. 2000 years ago, everybody knew Rome conquered all.
Posted by: Mike T | April 9, 2005 12:01 PM