Yes, I’m a bad blogger. And yes, I’ve been gone a long time. But I’m back. And there’s plenty to talk about once I have the time. I work now, in case anyone was wondering. Anyway, look forward to new posts.
Hear ye, hear ye, and all that good junk. Tuesday, Mar 31 2009
Uncategorized 10:27 pm
So I received a few dissenting emails about my post regarding the debate I had with Larry, and I figured I’d address some of the (extreme) fallacies that they presented me. I like numbers right now, so I’ll do it as a list.
1. Sex isn’t bad. I have no problem with sex. I fucking love sex. But my life does not revolve around it. And if somebody’s life does revolve around it, there’s nothing wrong with that. It just doesn’t work for me, personally. My only problem with sex is when it is performed unsafely (i.e. without full disclosure on both/all party’s health history) or non-consensually. Here’s the deal: My main problem was with Larry’s statement that obsession with cock is the “gay reality.” It’s not. In fact, there’s no one single “gay reality.”
2. I do not intend to “talk down” to people. I have no reason to talk down to anyone. If my tone seems condescending, that’s not my problem. Virtual communication is already flawed in that it does not allow for the full realization of tone/body language/sarcasm, so people shouldn’t assume that I talk down to people in general. I mean, other than literally because I’m just so dang tall.
3. To the people who think that it’s “unfair” of me to put our argument on my blog, I have this to say: Tough titty. The rule of the internet is that if you don’t want it seen by people, you shouldn’t have put it on the internet in the first place.
4. Opinions CAN BE WRONG. I know that Larry was simply presenting his opinion, but that doesn’t mean that it’s correct. If a person is of the opinion that all black people are lazy, that’s his/her opinion, but it’s still fucking wrong. On several levels.
5. Finally, go check out this very relevant song that my friend recommended to me. He said it reminds him of me, but I have no idea why, to be honest.
The line about being delgada in Prada is just so very…connotative. Enjoy!
My Problem with the Bible Saturday, Mar 28 2009
Uncategorized 6:38 pm
There was a seminar on faith and homosexuality at UGA recently, centering on the majority population (i.e. white Christians), and I realized I’ve never really discussed why I have a problem with people’s use of the Bible to justify condemnation and their own ideas of “morality.” I think that a citation from another website easily sums up my major problem. Here are seven (SEVEN!) different translations of the same passage from the Bible:
- ESV: (English Standard Version): “You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; it is abomination.”
- KJV: (King James Version): “Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is abomination”.
- LB: (Living Bible): “Homosexuality is absolutely forbidden, for it is an enormous sin”
- Net Bible: “You must not have sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman; it is a detestable act.” 1
- NIV: (New International Version) “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.”
- NLT: (New Living Translation): “Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin.”
- RSV: (Revised Standard Version): “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.”
Okay, almost all of these say different things, but I have ONE thing that can be understood regardless of who translates it to say to the authors (note, I didn’t say translators, because that would be a complete misnomer) of the LB, Net Bible, and NLT: FUCK YOU!! You did not write this passage accurately; you wrote it to suit your own purposes, whether they be to sell more copies of the Bible or to cater to your political tastes in condemnation. Again, in case that wasn’t clear, FUCK YOU!
These translations were taken from http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh5.htm and are not my property.
Answer Key Monday, Mar 23 2009
Uncategorized 3:31 pm
So in case you’re still puzzling over yesterday’s post, and why it is wrong to hold the views that my opponent has, I’m here to clear up the reasons. Oh, and when I say “wrong,” I don’t mean “morally reprehensible”; I mean that he’s just plain incorrect.
1. Sex =/= Reproduction. The person I was arguing with (I will refer to him as “Larry,” for simplicity’s sake) claims that “Everything revolves around sex and the idea of having sex. we are animals and the purpose of animals is to reproduce, so we keep fucking.” By the way, insert [sic] anywhere in these quotations because I want to keep this post relatively short and sweet. First of all, sex is not the same as reproduction. I have never said that reproduction isn’t necessary to the propagation of a species. It is. Any nimrod with two brain cells to rub together can tell you that extinction is inevitable if a species doesn’t reproduce. Sex is a social act. Reproduction is a biological act. If sociology was an extension of biology, it would be listed as such in schools, but it’s not.
2. Gay people do not reproduce. Okay, so this is probably just idiocy on his part, but based on the claim that “we keep fucking” because our purpose is “to reproduce,” gay people either wouldn’t exist or wouldn’t have a sex drive at all. Why? Well, can you not see the answer already? If the purpose of fucking is to reproduce, and gay people biologically cannot reproduce in gay sex, then why should gay people have a sex drive at all?
3. Lying, WTF? “Everyone lies[.]” Let me just allow you to have that sink in for a moment. Now, it’s true that there is probably not a person in the world who does not at some point lie. However, society is not based around people’s lies. If that were true, scientific knowledge would be withheld or lied about, and we would…well, we would die. End of story.
4. Math is hard! Okay, nothing makes me more irritated than someone using unqualified numbers in a debate. Take, for instance, this: “did you know that 100% of couples surveyed ina well know acreditted study all lied to each by the end of their 3rd date” or “PS, on average a person gets liedd to 200 times a day!” or even “the average man goes 4 minutes before thinking of something else revolving around sex…” Now, ignoring the fact that the last statement negates the presence of women in SOCIETY (which is what the argument was about), the other statements are assertions made without any evidence. AT ALL.
5. You are not God. Anecdotal evidence from a single person is not reliable. Why do I bring this up? Because his argument centers on this: “i kinda love his cock… it’s the reality of gay life, i have never met somone who doesn’t love cock and doesn’t love the idea of more cock[.]” Just because YOU like cock doesn’t mean that EVERY GAY MAN IS OBSESSED WITH IT. Don’t get me wrong; I like cock. I do. But I don’t determine who I love based on the size of his cock.
6. Libertinage and behaviorism lie at odds: I’d just like to say, I never said I don’t believe in evolution. In fact, I said that “[h]umans are animals, by the purely scientific definition.” Evolution is a fact. Actually, I’ve been doing a lot of reading about evolution and the misconceptions surrounding it, and I could probably tell you a whole hell of a lot about the subject. However, that’s not the point. The point is that the ideals that Larry was espousing were an unrealistic mix of libertine and behaviorist sensibilities. For one, libertines believe that they should throw off all restraint, which is essentially what Larry says when he claims that we just keep fucking. However, by claiming that we are animals, he rebuts his own statement. If you’re going to be a libertine, you should NOT have sex for reproduction. The two stances just don’t make sense together.
7. Roman bathhouses were not gay sex sites. First of all, the term is anachronistic in this case. Secondly, that’s just bullshit. Where’s your evidence? And don’t say that Tom of Finland drew it a couple of times, so it must be true.
8. Saying kthxbye!! doesn’t mean you’re correct. Having a defensible standpoint means you are correct.
Check your work. How did you do?
Why I Am Worried About Next Generation Gay Guys. Sunday, Mar 22 2009
Uncategorized 9:56 pm
This is an exchange I recently had with…let’s call him an acquaintance…and as you can see, we did not see eye to eye. Keep in mind, this guy is gay, too. FYI, I’m glover7. He is Swimetc.
glover7: Yo. What up?
SwimFly2Free: What are you doing on here?
SwimFly2Free: you’ve been on here quiet a while now…
glover7: I’ve been talking to a friend from Atlanta
SwimFly2Free: i see
SwimFly2Free: a special friend 🙂
glover7: Nah, nah. I’d never cheat on[boyfriend], lol
SwimFly2Free: really?
glover7: Definitely not. I mean, I kind of love the guy, haha
SwimFly2Free: really? love? that’s odd… i didn’t think gay men knew what actual love was, i know they love cock, they love sex and they cock and sex at the same time, but no gay man actually knows love
glover7: Lol, you need to stop hanging out with the gay guys you hang out with
SwimFly2Free: why is that?
glover7: If that’s the values you’re being ingrained with, you’ve been severely misguided.
SwimFly2Free: i kinda love his cock… it’s the reality of gay life, i have never met somone who doesn’t love cock and doesn’t love the idea of more cock
glover7: Love whose cock?
SwimFly2Free: the gay guys i hnag out with
glover7: Hmm…sounds literally phallocentric. So odd.
SwimFly2Free: if you say so…
glover7: Well, all the gay guys I know are more invested in personality
SwimFly2Free: put the first thing you see in a guy is not his personality, it’s his face and body and ass… so based on those cirteria you then decide whether or not you want to get to know the person to know if love is an option with that person
glover7: Don’t you think that sounds kind of shallow?
SwimFly2Free: no, i think it sounds realistical
SwimFly2Free: when you met paul, was the first thing you saw his personality or his face?
glover7: His personality, actually. I wasn’t attracted to Paul physically when we first met. But his identity is what grew on me, and that’s what makes him beautiful to me now.
SwimFly2Free: but would you sleep with him if he was fat and ugly
SwimFly2Free: but had the same personality?
glover7: To be perfectly honest, yes.
SwimFly2Free: i highly doubt that
glover7: But then “fat” and “ugly” are such subjective terms in our culture that it’s really not fair to make that assessment.
SwimFly2Free: sure it is, no human is going to have sex with someone they are not physically attractedd to.
glover7: No, because what society defines as “fat” is not necessarily the definition that I use. And I’m fairly inclusive with my taste of guys in terms of physical attraction.
glover7: In fact, I find few things less attractive than someone who’s just plain stupid. It’s based almost entirely on personality.
SwimFly2Free: i agree that stupidity is an unattractive quality, but in the end you are still having sex with someone you think is attractive
SwimFly2Free: thus basiing all sexual relationships on the factor that you must find the person you are fucking sexually attractive
glover7: But you’re equating sexual attractiveness solely with physical appearance. That’s not necessarily the case in every instance of coitus.
SwimFly2Free: but it is in every situation. Do you think Paul is ugly?
glover7: I don’t think he’s ugly, no. That doesn’t mean I haven’t slept with guys I found to be physically unattractive but intellectually beautiful.
glover7: Just because I have one boyfriend who happens to be conventionally good-looking doesn’t mean I haven’t had others who aren’t.
SwimFly2Free: but you were attractedd to them and thought they were attractive
glover7: Not physically though.
glover7: My first boyfriend was kind of repulsive, physically, if you want the truth. What I was attracted to was his personality. What I’m telling you is that you can’t reduce every gay guy’s mentality to the same as the gay guys’ mentalities that you know.
SwimFly2Free: in the end it can all relate to two thing in life…
SwimFly2Free: 1. Everyone lies
SwimFly2Free: 2. Everything revolves around sex and the idea of having sex. we are animals and the purpose of animals is to reproduce, so we keep fucking
glover7: I completely disagree. You’ve just reduced every form of civilization to pure behaviorism, and that’s thoroughly incorrect.
SwimFly2Free: how would a civilization thrive without reproduction?
SwimFly2Free: and lying?
glover7: No, I’m not arguing against the merits of reproduction. I’m just saying that you can’t make a reductive statement like that and defend it at all. If all society existed to do was to reproduce and lie, then society wouldn’t exist as it does today.
SwimFly2Free: the average man goes 4 minutes before thinking of something else revolving around sex…
glover7: That doesn’t mean that society revolves singularly around sex
SwimFly2Free: you’re telling me that society doesn’t base it’self around sex?
glover7: I will concede that modern society is heavily influenced by sexuality, but I will never admit that sex (and lying) has been the only impetus behind the success of civilization.
SwimFly2Free: we wouldn’t have society if we didn’t have sex, and by the way the average person lies 7 times an hour (that’s if you include all the times you lie to yourself in a day)
SwimFly2Free: did you know that 100% of couples surveyed ina well know acreditted study all lied to each by the end of their 3rd date?
glover7: You misread my statements. As I said, I do not discount that sex is a necessity, but it’s not the only thing that has brought civilization about.
glover7: And just because lying is common doesn’t mean that it’s the only other option in determining the creation of civilization.
SwimFly2Free: impressing people with your brain and the need to impress others so you can sleep with someone is also what brought about society and continues to build society
glover7: No. Self-driven intellect is almost always the venerated quality. You can look at ancient Rome and see that they value logic over sex and passion any day. You’re equating human beings with animals, and that’s not right.
glover7: In fact, sex and intelligence are almost constantly seen as being at odds with each other.
SwimFly2Free: then what are humans? are we robots? we are animals… But ancient rome also said it was perfectly ok for men to go to bathhouses and have sex with other men
SwimFly2Free: i am going to go watch tv now and eat. see ya later.
glover7: 1. Robots and animals are diametric opposites. You’re using a fallacy of comparison in addressing my statement. Humans are animals, by the purely scientific definition. In a more dynamic sense, we are far beyond animals. Just look at what we’ve achieved. And
glover7: Have a good time.
SwimFly2Free: we come from animals, evolution proves we are animals and that we are just as much a part of the animal kingdom as any other animal, we simply have a higher brain. We still base everthing around sex. sex is what drives the human race, no sex, no human race. PS, on average a person gets liedd to 200 times a day! See ya!
As you can see, I didn’t get to complete my last thought before my Southern hospitality reaction kicked in, and I had to be polite while he basically just shut out anything I said. What do you think is wrong with this picture?
Kantian Ethics in Relation to the Red Queen Hypothesis Thursday, Mar 5 2009
Uncategorized 4:58 pm
No, I’m totally kidding about the title. But it brings me to an important topic today, which is the negative perception of gay men in scholarly society. But I’ll first make quite clear why I chose this topic.
I was watching “King of the Hill” with my boyfriend last night, and I was rather perturbed by the episode. In it, Bobby (I personally view him as a character distinctly relatable to gay identity because of how he’s ridiculed/tormented/unloved by his macho meathead dad…and the fact that he kicks guys’ balls while saying, “I don’t know you!” in a distinctly feminine voice) was on vacation with his parents to his grandparents ranch. Blah, blah, plot, blah, blah, and by the end his ostensibly gay identity was “subverted” by his ability to ride a horse like a “real man.” You see, I’ve been watching this show for a few weeks now because I find it pretty funny, but because I wasn’t really invested in the characters, I didn’t really pay attention to their psyches or interpersonal interactions. But now that I’m pretty familiar with the show, I can safely say that Bobby’s plight is the plight of the gay male. That is, his interests are belittled by his father, he is mocked by his schoolmates for being different, and he feels generally alienated. And if we want to get Freudian up in here, then you cannot argue against the fact that Peggy (his mom) is overbearing. Ridiculously so. Anyway, in the episode last night, there was a distinct stock image of gay stereotypes in a man who was a “city person” who was making brunch. He also had a prominent lisp when he spoke.
It didn’t help that I had overheard an episode of Real Housewives of Who-The-Fuck-Really-Cares in which one of the women was saying how they had to work hard on their surface appearance to impress the gay men because they were the harshest critics. Let me just interject here to say something that might appear a little less than savory: Most of these housewives are absolute trash. I mean that in complete seriousness. I will admit that there’s one housewife I’ve seen and admire (the divorcee who made all her money by herself), but most of them are shallow bags of nasty. and if you want to look good on the surface, stop using so much fucking collagen and getting so many face-lifts that you look like this.
Back on topic, I hate how gay men are made to seem like superficial nimrods who know everything there is to know about clothing, hair, makeup, cars, and celebrity gossip while no other occupations fill their flighty, little minds. I’ll clarify that there’s nothing wrong with being interested in all those things; I’m simply tired of the media depiction of it. As if I haven’t beaten this dead horse enough, there is such a wide variety of gay men in the world that there should be more ways of representing gay men than throwing in a character who cries out, “Oh my gooooood! My thouffle collapthed and Parith Hilton accidentally had thex with her dog!” Yes, gay men like that exist, and no, there isn’t anything wrong with that. There is definitely something wrong when that becomes the sole image that you utilize in the media.
Rant done.
The Kosmo Gay’s Guide to Busting a Cap in His Ass Sunday, Jan 18 2009
Uncategorized boyfriends, cheating, Gay, gay cheating, gay relationships 1:23 am
Let’s talk about cheating today. And when I say “cheating,” I don’t mean looking at your fifth-grade neighbor’s spelling test to figure out how to spell “recalcitrant.” I’m talking about the most abhorrent act that can take place in a relationship. CHEATING ON YOUR MOTHERFUCKING BOYFRIEND. Now, in case you haven’t noticed by the fury harbored in my excessive capitalization, I have been cheated on. Multiple times, apparently.
To clarify, however, I should probably establish what cheating is. When a husband and wife/husband and husband/wife and wife (not to be taken in order of legitimacy/coolness/whatever) have effectively ended their marriage but have not yet gotten around to completing the divorce, I am totally cool with either party doing what they will with their own god-given genitalia. If, however, you have a boyfriend, and he says, “I’m going to a party with a guy, and we’re going to jerk each other off, but we won’t cum, so it’s okay,” then I have something called the CHEAT ALERT EMERGENCY KIT! Let’s take an inventory of what comes in this kit:
1. Common sense: Yes, technically this does not come in a physical kit, per se, but if you are fed the line, “Honey, I was just trying to check him for testicular cancer. I used my tongue because I thought it would have increased sensitivity to lumps,” and you buy this line, the kit is useless to you anyways. Go back to oblivion.
2. One bottle of cranberry juice and vodka with accompanying wine glass: This is useful for the very appropriate drink-in-the-face moment. Make sure that you leave some beverage in the bottle to drink after. Oh, and keep the bottle in case article 3 of the kit ends in not such an ideal way.
3. Elbow pads: Let’s face it, if you’re going to drop ‘bos, make sure you’re wearing protection.
Let me just clarify how the kit works. You use the common sense to identify your cheatin’ man. You throw your drink on him and (preferably) all over his white Armani. Finally, with the help of your handy dandy elbow pads, you lay the smackdown on his cheating ass. Now, if he doesn’t go down with the first elbow-smash to the face, you break out your bottle, break your bottle on the bitch, and then break off another guy later that evening.
Finally, I’m not going to bullshit you on what it takes to get over a broken relationship like all those magazines you see with Miley Cyrus on the cover. I will tell you exactly what it takes to get over a shitty guy:
AT LEAST 2 GIGS OF REALLY GOOD PORN!!
Holla if you hear some heteronormativity! Thursday, Nov 20 2008
Uncategorized 11:47 pm
So today’s post, which was a long time in coming, is about the instance of heteronormative assumption that I encountered today in my literature course. While discussing a short story involving a female mortician, the professor decided to ask one of the other students if he would date the woman from the story. To which question, I simply rolled my eyes and thought, Way to assume everyone’s straight, signore.
Immediately after the other student’s response (a resounding “no”), the professor then turned to me and asked the same question. I stared at him blankly for about six seconds before this happened:
Me:…Umm…no?
Professor: Why is that?
Me: Umm…
Professor: Is it because of the same reasons that Mr. Allen said?
Me: Sure, let’s go with that.
Meanwhile, I was thinking that I should have said:
Me: BECAUSE I LIKE PENIS IN MY ASSHOLE, NOT COOCHIE ON MY DICK!!
But that would’ve been a tad unsavory. So, let’s just share for fun our stories about heteronormative influence on our everyday lives. it’ll be fun, or something.
Advice from some gay guy: Where to stick your penis in a vagina, furrealz. Monday, Nov 10 2008
Uncategorized heterosexual intercourse, penis, vagina, where to stick it 3:22 pm
There are two openings in the vaginal area. One is the urethra (which will also expel liquid during a “squirt” orgasm), and the other is the actual vaginal opening (the uterus is up in there somewhere, working its evil). The latter hole is where you stick your penis. If you want my advice though, boys, then play with the clit for a while which is beneath the clitoral hood. It’s like an itty-bitty button. And, though there is variation from girl to girl, the general consensus from my female friends is that stimulating the clit is the best way to do it. Now you’ve been told by a gay man how to touch a woman properly. Hah!
This post is only relevant because people keep searching these terms and ending up with my blog. So I may as well answer the damned question.
Does Gay Love Exist? Sunday, Nov 2 2008
Uncategorized defining love, Gay, gay life, gay love, gay relationships, love 6:27 pm
This has no bearing on my current relationship, which is going quite well in case you were wondering.
I’d really like to know whether or not “true” gay love exists. Okay, I’m kind of cheating because I’m currently wondering if true love in general exists. But in order to explore this question, I should probably begin by qualifying the term “true love.” Having taken a philosophy of love course my freshman year at UGA, I could probably tell you a few different interpretations of what love is. Hormones, equality, a mythological manifestation in the form of Eros. Whatever. First of all, I’m going to give what my definition of love is while trying to avoid trite and cliched things that you see on Precious Moments figurines and kitten posters.
For me, Adam Carpenter, “true” love is the complete relinquishing of the self to another. Well, okay, so that’s a little rough. The act of loving is the act of completely relinquishing the self to another. Love itself is the revelation of completion in another.
I know a lot of people will have a problem with my definition. I come from a society that encourages independence. Individual effort is the ultimate act, and individual reward is the ultimate goal. So is my definition anachronistic? Is it so wrong to completely abandon yourself to the happiness that you feel with another person? Well, not abandon, but to be happiest when you’re with someone and unhappy when you’re not with him/her/them?
I understand the justification for not having a definition like mine. Divorce rates are high. Break up rates are higher, though statistically unrecorded. Is it fear that keeps people from loving? “True” loving? Adam’s definition of “true” loving?
Perhaps this is simply a sad idealization of what love is or what it should be. Maybe I’m just a silly romantic who needs to learn to compromise my notions of love in order to live a realistic life, but I’d like to get others’ opinions on love. What is it? Can people achieve it? And let’s please keep this discussion secular, if possible.
Unearthing the Faggot Within Us 
