Do you believe in the hetero/bi/homosexual line?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

I guess most of you are familiar with the concept. There's supposed to be an imaginary line, like this:

HOMOSEXUAL--------------------BISEXUAL--------------------HETEROSEXUAL

..and we all have a position somewhere on the line. Until recently I thought the concept was nice, but now I've began to think differently. I feel like sexuality is more of a string of situations, and in these situations we do mostly act predictably, because of habit or conditioning or biology, pick your favourite. But this doesn't mean we have a fixed identity, or even multiple identities/roles. In some situations, the internal and/or external influences may be big enough to make us act unlike our supposed sexual orientation dictates. This isn't necessarily a sign of some suppressed tendencies - it might just be that in that particular situation acting against our supposed identity feels like the thing to do. There's nothing more to it.

Funnily enough, this resembles the pre-modern idea of sexuality. Before 19th century there weren't any fixed sexual identities. You weren't a sodomite unless you actually commited sodomy - sexuality was in the act of sex itself, not anywhere else.

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Monday, 1 March 2004 20:20 (twenty-one years ago)

Everyone's probably at least slightly bisexual. I think. I guess it's like someone's love for almond joy or mounds...sometimes you feel like a nut, sometimes you don't.

Hehe.

― latebloomer (latebloomer), Monday, 1 March 2004 20:34 (twenty-one years ago)

"a nut"

― dyson (dyson), Monday, 1 March 2004 20:36 (twenty-one years ago)

I think Tuomas is trying to work up the courage to tell us about something he did this weekend.

― The Huckle-Buck (Horace Mann), Monday, 1 March 2004 20:36 (twenty-one years ago)

(sorry Tuomas if I was accidentally otm and scared you off)

― The Huckle-Buck (Horace Mann), Monday, 1 March 2004 20:42 (twenty-one years ago)

so then why did the line concept come up, do we just think about sex way too much? and couldn't you just find your spot on the line by finding the mathematical mean of your experiences?

― Maria (Maria), Monday, 1 March 2004 22:14 (twenty-one years ago)

The scale's from Alfred Kinsey, and was based on statistical/demographic/etc. work, but it was specifically described as a scale in order to counter the "straight or gay" binary that was popularly accepted.

(It's also not really about sexual identity, but sexual experience, although the preference-based definition extends "experience" to include "fantasies and arousal." I don't remember if that's from Kinsey or later.)

― Tep (ktepi), Monday, 1 March 2004 22:21 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm def. bisexual, but I don't base it on what I *have* already done but what I feel I would *like* to do in any given circumstance.

― ipsofacto (ipsofacto), Monday, 1 March 2004 22:24 (twenty-one years ago)

In my mind theres:

heterosexual
homosexual
and
'i'll fuck anything'

― bill stevens (bscrubbins), Monday, 1 March 2004 23:30 (twenty-one years ago)

Yes, that sounds like me.

― ipsofacto (ipsofacto), Monday, 1 March 2004 23:31 (twenty-one years ago)

I was just having this discussion with a friend of mine. It's indisputable that the concept of a person being homosexual/heterosexual/bisexual/whatever is not a universal in either time or space, which would seem to imply that it is in fact a social construct. And given its appearance in the 19th century, like tuomas mentioned, I have to wonder if it's somehow related to general ideas about people. Specifically a shift away from free will and towards genetics/psychology/sickness as an explanation for behavior that lies outside the norm. And I also have to wonder if this is an objectively good shift.

― mouse, Monday, 1 March 2004 23:39 (twenty-one years ago)

Well, or more generally, that's around the time that systematic categorization was the big thing in the sciences.

― Tep (ktepi), Monday, 1 March 2004 23:41 (twenty-one years ago)

Well, you know, categories are useful for keeping yourself from reinventing the wheel constantly. So, I mean, I can say "I'm gay" and while that really tells you nothing at all about my sexuality or sexual history or anything, it does give you a vague guideline. If, you know, the depth of your interest is how likely I am to want to sleep with you if you are a woman. So it's a handy guideline, but you shouldn't let it take over how you see the world, and for heaven's sake don't make it your identity...

― Casuistry (Chris P), Tuesday, 2 March 2004 09:52 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm just 'sexual'. Although not as often as I'd like.

― Sick Nouthall (Nick Southall), Tuesday, 2 March 2004 10:01 (twenty-one years ago)

I think Tuomas is trying to work up the courage to tell us about something he did this weekend.

Not exactly, but you aren't far from the truth either. The reason I've been thinking about is because people have been telling me that "you must be at least bisexual" because I sometimes like to make out with men. However, I don't feel like "bisexual" as an identity fits me, because I've never dated a guy nor had proper sex with one. There are just some guys who in some situations who make me want them, but I don't feel this is sexual orientation thing, it's more like "seize the day". What I was trying to say is, that identities like homo/bi/heterosexual, or even the "gay line", which allows for more variation, are in a way binding, because they assume you have a certain position towards these things. I feel that in real life such "positions" can be ever-shifting, so there's isn't necessarily any reason to assume an steady homo/bi/heterosexual identity.

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Tuesday, 2 March 2004 10:04 (twenty-one years ago)

But it's interesting that you don't feel what you're describing qualifies as "bisexual", which is usually the catch-all term.

― Casuistry (Chris P), Tuesday, 2 March 2004 10:07 (twenty-one years ago)

Like everything else, sexuality is pretty fluid.

― Sick Nouthall (Nick Southall), Tuesday, 2 March 2004 10:08 (twenty-one years ago)

Also a sticky fluid.

But, OK, what is the difference between what Tuomas described and "bisexuality". I mean as identities goes "bisexuality" would seem to be pretty nonspecific...

― Casuistry (Chris P), Tuesday, 2 March 2004 10:11 (twenty-one years ago)

Because it's not as if bisexuals sleep with men and women in even quantities, or anything.

― Casuistry (Chris P), Tuesday, 2 March 2004 10:12 (twenty-one years ago)

But the semantics of the word almost implies that.

― Sick Nouthall (Nick Southall), Tuesday, 2 March 2004 10:18 (twenty-one years ago)

No one expects a bicameral legislature to have the same number of people in either chamber!

― Casuistry (Chris P), Tuesday, 2 March 2004 10:22 (twenty-one years ago)

Yeah, but to the layman the term 'bi' implies 'bisect' or split in two, and while it doesn't necessarily mean 'two even parts' I'd wager that a lot of people infer that.

― Sick Nouthall (Nick Southall), Tuesday, 2 March 2004 10:25 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm just 'sexual'. Although not as often as I'd like.

That describes me perfectly :-)

(coincidentally, I have slept with equal numbers of men and women)

― caitlin (caitlin), Tuesday, 2 March 2004 10:31 (twenty-one years ago)

there probably just need to be more words invented to describe different situations. only having three major categories (even if 'bi' is really broad) describing all patterns of sexual behavior seems a bit limiting.

we should have at least 5.

― colette (a2lette), Tuesday, 2 March 2004 12:45 (twenty-one years ago)

bollox to categories. Or Not bollox. Whatever.

― mark grout (mark grout), Tuesday, 2 March 2004 13:31 (twenty-one years ago)

emosexual?

― stevem (blueski), Tuesday, 2 March 2004 13:41 (twenty-one years ago)

(that's for guys and gals who never get laid cos they're too busy complaining about never getting laid)

― stevem (blueski), Tuesday, 2 March 2004 13:42 (twenty-one years ago)

If you are unlucky in love, does that make you hexasexual?

― mark grout (mark grout), Tuesday, 2 March 2004 13:58 (twenty-one years ago)

no that's for people who only know six positions

― stevem (blueski), Tuesday, 2 March 2004 14:04 (twenty-one years ago)

Yeah, but to the layman the term 'bi' implies 'bisect' or split in two, and while it doesn't necessarily mean 'two even parts' I'd wager that a lot of people infer that.

It doesn't need to be two even parts; if I'd say I'm bisexual, I think people would think I sleep/have slept with men, which isn't true. I'm not saying it couldn't do it, I certainly have enough erotic feelings towards men to kiss and cuddle with them, but I'm against categories exactly because they usually imply more than what they litearlly mean.

No, I don't think that would be wise. As I said, there's no point in having categories if people may jump from one to category to other, whenever the situation is appropriate. I think you could just say, for example, that "I generally prefer girls, but in some cases I also have sexual feelings towards men, and might even imagine dating one, though I haven't done I yet".

Still, I don't think sexual identities should wholly abolished, at least not yet. Identities can also give you strength and make you feel you belong somewhere. For example, for people in the gay liberation movement it probably was quite important to identify themselves as "lesbian" or "gay", and thus make them feel part of a bigger family and movement. Gay liberation hasn't fully happened anywhere in the world (back here in Scandinavia we're perhaps closest to it, at least legally, with same-sex marriages and such), so politics and solidarity based on sexual indentity is still important. However, the tolerance for all sorts of sexual behaviour will hopefully continue to grow, and with it the need for firm identities and categories should gradually disappear.

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Tuesday, 2 March 2004 14:28 (twenty-one years ago)

It's interesting to see, as we edge ever closer to equality in different areas, how stances shift to reflect new realities.
Like, here where I live (as there is most places, I would assume) there are these Women of the Year awards, that when they started were quite progressive. But they've since been co-opted by the chmbr of cmmrce and are just another stumping post for the anti-tax lobby. Which, in many ways, seems to hold an non-women-friendly ideology (tax cuts for the sake of tax cuts tend to be at the expense of child-positive social programs and women are still--in reality--the overwhelmingly primary caregivers to children).
I'm just babbling here.

― The Huckle-Buck (Horace Mann), Tuesday, 2 March 2004 15:27 (twenty-one years ago)

You're babblign cos you're overwhelmed with desire for me, Huck.

― Sick Nouthall (Nick Southall), Tuesday, 2 March 2004 16:20 (twenty-one years ago)

Yeah don't do it Huck, I hear Sick Nouthall can't pack a decent picnic basket for his life.

I am increasingly FED UP of sexuality though and would prefer a nice cup of tea and a sit down, grump.

― Sarah (starry), Tuesday, 2 March 2004 16:26 (twenty-one years ago)

you make my tongue swell up like it got stung by a wasp, a wasp with horny venom!

― The Huckle-Buck (Horace Mann), Tuesday, 2 March 2004 16:33 (twenty-one years ago)

I'd pack a picnic basket but you've not bought me dinner yet.

X-post wtf?!

― Sick Nouthall (Nick Southall), Tuesday, 2 March 2004 16:35 (twenty-one years ago)

I've read that like five times now, Huck, and I'm still non-the-wiser.

― Sick Nouthall (Nick Southall), Tuesday, 2 March 2004 16:35 (twenty-one years ago)

that's the point. babbling, wasps, horny venom. I don't know either.

― The Huckle-Buck (Horace Mann), Tuesday, 2 March 2004 16:36 (twenty-one years ago)

I think he is implying his mouth is an erect penis.

Well, Huck does always talk a load of old cock.

― Sarah (starry), Tuesday, 2 March 2004 16:37 (twenty-one years ago)

old cock?

― The Huckle-Buck (Horace Mann), Tuesday, 2 March 2004 16:38 (twenty-one years ago)

Thank you very much ladies and germs I'll be here all week, 9am to 5pm Greenwich Meeeeeeean TIME!

Huck you should be careful what people write about you on toilet walls.

― Sarah (starry), Tuesday, 2 March 2004 16:40 (twenty-one years ago)

I bring only the freshest Atlantic cock to the table.

― The Huckle-Buck (Horace Mann), Tuesday, 2 March 2004 16:42 (twenty-one years ago)

http://www.3briques.com/captain%20highliner.jpg

― The Huckle-Buck (Horace Mann), Tuesday, 2 March 2004 16:44 (twenty-one years ago)

I should've guessed ILE can turn any attempts of a serious discussion into cock jokes.

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Tuesday, 2 March 2004 16:59 (twenty-one years ago)

Hey, I just got caught up in it. Sorry Tuom.

― The Huckle-Buck (Horace Mann), Tuesday, 2 March 2004 17:00 (twenty-one years ago)

Did you just pass out, or are you trying to come up with an abbreviation of my name?

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Tuesday, 2 March 2004 17:03 (twenty-one years ago)

I was thinking that Tuomas:Tuom::Thomas:Tom
Obv. I was mistaken, again, I apologize.

― The Huckle-Buck (Horace Mann), Tuesday, 2 March 2004 17:04 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm sorry, it doesn't work, "Tuom" sounds silly in Finnish. If you must, you can use "Tube", some folks actually used to call me that.

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Tuesday, 2 March 2004 17:10 (twenty-one years ago)

that makes me think you're the Michelin Man.

― The Huckle-Buck (Horace Mann), Tuesday, 2 March 2004 17:38 (twenty-one years ago)

Pronounce it Tew-beh.

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Tuesday, 2 March 2004 17:43 (twenty-one years ago)

or not...(the jokes write themselves!)

― The Huckle-Buck (Horace Mann), Tuesday, 2 March 2004 17:44 (twenty-one years ago)

Skipping 28 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

tim, i think tuomas's point was "[b]efore 19th century there weren't any fixed sexual identities," rather than what you said. while non-hetero identities may or may not have been tolerated, i think the institution of marriage and its centrality in christian culture &c &c does point to something of a fixed straight sexual identity. but it's hard to generalize about all history prior to 1800 -- and the whole boarding school thing post-dates that anyway.

― N_RQ, Wednesday, 2 November 2005 09:58 (nineteen years ago)

But marriage isn't the same as a sexual identity... I'd assume that in the past, even though sodomy (the act) was considered a sin, in many cases people got away with occasional gay sex, as long as they were married and produced offspring. Exactly because homosexuality wasn't a fixed identity, many folks could probably enjoy occasional homosexual acts without thinking they were queer or anything. The psychological definition of homosexuality came into picture only in the late 19th century. I agree with Tim that a fixed gay identity and identity politics have been useful things for the gay movement and for argumenting against those who say homosexuality could and should be "cured". When I said these things are situtational, that doesn't exclude the fact that most folks still find certain way of living most satisfying to them, and live most of their lives according to it. What I hope for, though, is that in the future society would be tolerant enough so that everyone can do whatever seems good for them, without feeling any pressure to settle for a definite, unchangeable identity.

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 12:27 (nineteen years ago)

marriage per se is not 'a sexual identity'. but it implied (it certain situations) certain constructions of male identity, female identity, and kind of inevitably, a hetero sexual identity. conversely, even foucault said that 'gay' behaviour (ie lack of sexual self-discipline) was frowned on in ancient greece, even if homosexual acts were accepted.

Exactly because homosexuality wasn't a fixed identity, many folks could probably enjoy occasional homosexual acts without thinking they were queer or anything.

i think they were allowed *so long as they didn't cross over into having a 'homosexual identity'* -- ie the concept of 'hypocrisy' was kind of accepted, in england anyway. but this doesn't mean there was no such thing as sexual identities: sodomy was a sin, but tolerable; being a 'sodomite' was something unpermissible.

i think your assumption is a big 'un w/r/t thousands of years of history.

― Theorry Henry (Enrique), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 12:37 (nineteen years ago)

Why Do All These Homosexuals Keep Sucking My Cock?

― mookieproof (mookieproof), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 15:02 (nineteen years ago)

You are all boring and sexually unimaginative! pinning yourself on a gay/straight gradiant is limiting (duh!) and denying that marriage is no piece of sexual identity is total crap. For fucking's sake… it's only because of contemp. global culture's preoccupation with long-term, monogomous, male-female with intent to procreate relationships, and its aesthetic love affair with hetero love affairs between twentysomethings that we're in this uncomfortable bind of forced sexualities anyway. Think outside the box, people. Outside the BOOOOOOOOOOOX! THE BOOOX BOX! BOX!

― Remy (x Jeremy), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 18:04 (nineteen years ago)

Once you pass 30, tho, pursuing one sex is just less work.

― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 18:10 (nineteen years ago)

but that's my point. I want to trivialize the role of gender preference: it's really not the biggest determinent of one's sexual identity. There's a lot more in common between a homo and a hetero who like to go out and fuck their brains out with total strangers on a Friday night than there is in common between two heteros, one who's 'saving himself for marriage' and the other who's a certified & bonded lite sadomasochist.

― Remy (x Jeremy), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 18:14 (nineteen years ago)

You are all boring and sexually unimaginative!

Uh, dude, I'm just not interested in girls. Full stop. I don't need to stick my tongue in her mouth or whatever hole she offers, because I simply am not aroused by women. I just like dick. And most girls miss that. I find sex with women limiting cause I miss that necessary extension. :-)

― Nathalie, the Queen of Frock 'n' Fall (stevie nixed), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 18:20 (nineteen years ago)

There have appliances for that.

― elmo (allocryptic), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 18:30 (nineteen years ago)

They have, I mean.

― elmo (allocryptic), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 18:32 (nineteen years ago)

I agree with Remy, more or less. I've gone into chat rooms and posed as a woman and then talked with people of both sexes. When I'm talking to men in that situation, it's not because I'm attracted to them as men, exactly (that is, it's not like I'm secretly gay and pretending that they want the homosex, too) -- it's because I'm attracted to the general dynamic and role-playing that results from the pairing. (Although I should also note that it doesn't mean that I secretly want to be a woman, either, no matter how much I enjoy creating a female persona on occasion.) This sort of thing seems to skirt conventional constructs of sexual identity.

― jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 18:35 (nineteen years ago)

Well, I can agree up to a point but I'm also a bit fed up with people claiming that me being heterosexual is just so utterly conservative and limiting. It might very well be, but I feel happy with it. So why should I push the bounderies I don't mind? Do you understand what I'm getting at? I don't feel the need to force myself into something I don't want to explore.

― Nathalie, the Queen of Frock 'n' Fall (stevie nixed), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 18:42 (nineteen years ago)

Totally. I don't think Remy is suggesting that anyone who says that they're straight is lying to themselves or not fulfilling their potential or anything, though. Each person can do whatever they like. I think he just wants to explode the binary of gay/straight as a meaningful way of understanding sexual identity. (Bisexuality is still within this framework, as it's understood to be between the poles, or to encompass both sides; "bisexuality" only makes sense in relation to gay/straight.)

― jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 18:47 (nineteen years ago)

What I'm saying (and I said it upthread a little better) is that much healthier and much more human understanding of sexuality would take into account a LOT of factors that have nothing to do with your gender preferences! That gay-bisexual-straight is one particular gradient. And so is 'people who enjoy performing oral sex - people who tolerate performing oral sex / perform it for the benefit of their partners'- 'people who hate performing oral sex' , with all shades of that particular sex act somewhere on the continuum.

In some other world, in some other society, we could conjecture that ORAL / NON-ORAL is the preoccupying, contentious, socially segregated behavior and that gender-preference is a minor concern. But you know what? In one way, I think that people who claim they're 'heterosexual' (as I am, too) as if that explains their entire sexual identity ARE self-limiting. I would never suggest somebody force themselves into something they don't want to explore, certainly.

But claiming one's identity is just plain 'heterosexual' is so broad as to be meaningless. It's like claiming one 'believes in God' as if that defines their religious identity.

― Remy (x Jeremy), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 19:45 (nineteen years ago)

Holy crap, that wasn't supposed to post that way. I was arranging my thoughts and was going to order them more cogently… and I accidentally hit SUBMIT. If you can wade through poor prose, though…

― Remy (x Jeremy), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 19:52 (nineteen years ago)

Yes, and I have to say I misunderstood your previous comment.

― Nathalie, the Queen of Frock 'n' Fall (stevie nixed), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 19:59 (nineteen years ago)

It made sense to me, Remy.

All gays like teh buttsex, tho, right?

― jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 20:02 (nineteen years ago)

I mean, except for Oscar Wilde.

― jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 20:16 (nineteen years ago)

And phil-two.

― jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 20:17 (nineteen years ago)

The list goes on.

― Casuistry (Chris P), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 20:46 (nineteen years ago)

Oh, I know. ;-)

― jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 20:49 (nineteen years ago)

I enjoy being the "top" for buttsex, but being penetrated gives me the disconcerting feeling of... uhm... evacuation? I'm told this passes with time / experience, but I've yet to give it a determined effort.

― thugged.out, Wednesday, 2 November 2005 20:51 (nineteen years ago)

Some like it, some don't. I wouldn't worry too much about it if you don't like it, until your partner decides to leave you because you won't bend over. But life goes on, you know?

― Casuistry (Chris P), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 20:55 (nineteen years ago)

Remy is right, but very often if someone enquires about someone's sexuality, the main, sometimes only, thing they are wanting to know if whether they fuck men/women. Of course answering that doesn't go far towards describing anyone's sexuality in any sane sense, but if a man is asking if some other man might go for men, an explanation of whether they like getting their dick sucked is rather missing the point.

I do agree that the simpleminded attitude that two or three categories say it all is absurd, and the broader and richer approach is to be encouraged - that's part of what I was saying in distinguishing different ways you can be gay/straight/bi, even.

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 20:56 (nineteen years ago)

It don't matter if yo black, white, gay, or straight:

http://www.neverland-valley.com/neverland-valley/video-clips/videos/07_dangerous/black-or-white/pix/bow_008.jpg

― Alfred Soto (Alfred Soto), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 21:51 (nineteen years ago)

The only issue I have with the whole "explode the binaries" mindset is that it implies that we have our (potentially unlimited) "real" sexual capacity and nature, which is then overlaid by some limiting binary identity construct. Whereas I think that a lot of the time our desires are created and shaped by how we categorise and construct things in our heads - it is the fact of categorisation that makes things sexually desirable.

― Tim Finney (Tim Finney), Thursday, 3 November 2005 10:50 (nineteen years ago)

claiming one's identity is just plain 'heterosexual' is so broad as to be meaningless

Remy, whatever pretentiosexual beliefs you hold, how has it become your place to tell other people what their sexuality is? I'd hazard a guess that you enjoy talking about it - or agonising over your own as-yet-unrevealed issues - more than doing it, if this thread is any evidence.

― Markelby (Mark C), Thursday, 3 November 2005 15:04 (nineteen years ago)

Pot calling kettle, fuckhead.

― Remy (x Jeremy), Thursday, 3 November 2005 17:35 (nineteen years ago)

err, pretentiofuckhead.

― Remy (x Jeremy), Thursday, 3 November 2005 17:37 (nineteen years ago)

(also: what's it to you if I don't have much sex?)

― Remy (x Jeremy), Thursday, 3 November 2005 17:41 (nineteen years ago)

maybe he wants to help you out, remy.

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 3 November 2005 17:43 (nineteen years ago)

Also, my issues are totally transparent.

(How many other people do you know that'll openly admit that popping preteen wood for Jonathan Brandis in Ladybugs has caused them not insignificant angst as a pretentiadult?)

― pretentioRemy (x Jeremy), Thursday, 3 November 2005 21:09 (nineteen years ago)

Mark, I don't think you quite read Remy carefully (or, perhaps, at all). He was saying (correct me if I'm wrong) that "heterosexuality" is so vague and inclusive of so much that it shouldn't really count as a "sexuality" at all -- that when someone tells you they are heterosexual, you get the information that they mostly prefer the other sex to their own -- and that's really very, very little information about what their "sexuality" is like.

That seems like a much healthier attitude than saying "I'm heterosexual" and thinking that means much.

Also, preteen Remy OTM re Ladybugs Brandis.

― Casuistry (Chris P), Friday, 4 November 2005 02:47 (nineteen years ago)

Remy Im just as interested in where you said For fucking's sake… it's only because of contemp. global culture's preoccupation with long-term, monogomous, male-female with intent to procreate relationships

Cuz that also touches on the monogamy/poly thing, the concept of "mate for life", which Im alarmed to find I'm still not dealing with, I thought I'd settle down but my eye roves as much as it always did. I can love and be with someone TOTALLY but I still get very attracted to other people and want to push the limits.

Maybe I'm just warped.

― Trayce (trayce), Friday, 4 November 2005 02:57 (nineteen years ago)

it's not just you

― hstencil (hstencil), Friday, 4 November 2005 02:59 (nineteen years ago)

I am crushy McCrushola. I can't help it.

― Trayce (trayce), Friday, 4 November 2005 03:01 (nineteen years ago)

my eye will stop roving when i'm dead. actually now that i'm taken i get chatted up a fair bit (!) which i enjoy too.

― jed_ (jed), Friday, 4 November 2005 03:05 (nineteen years ago)

xpost damn you jed - me neither. and my inbox is empty.

< /snark>

― hstencil (hstencil), Friday, 4 November 2005 03:05 (nineteen years ago)

Also, preteen Remy OTM re Ladybugs Brandis.

I've already said as much on some other thread.

― jaymc (jaymc), Friday, 4 November 2005 03:13 (nineteen years ago)

so offtm.

― hstencil (hstencil), Friday, 4 November 2005 03:16 (nineteen years ago)

OK OK JorEL, I have replied to you! Greedy bugger ;) ;)

― Trayce (trayce), Friday, 4 November 2005 03:40 (nineteen years ago)

no more so than any other flirt.

― hstencil (hstencil), Friday, 4 November 2005 03:41 (nineteen years ago)

Jed, you will never be taken, only took.

― Casuistry (Chris P), Friday, 4 November 2005 03:45 (nineteen years ago)

I want Remys opinion on the flirtaliciousness. ANSWERS.

― Trayce (trayce), Friday, 4 November 2005 03:54 (nineteen years ago)

I am very sorry, I think I have the horn today. pls ignore me.

― Trayce (trayce), Friday, 4 November 2005 03:54 (nineteen years ago)

FUCKIT now gmail wont work *cries*.

― Trayce (trayce), Friday, 4 November 2005 04:02 (nineteen years ago)

http://www.teenidols4you.com/blink/Actors/jonathan_brandis/lbug016.jpg

― Casuistry (Chris P), Friday, 4 November 2005 04:02 (nineteen years ago)

a likely story.

― hstencil (hstencil), Friday, 4 November 2005 04:03 (nineteen years ago)

Seriously! It keeps crapping out mid afternoon. I must be killing it with all my um.. anyway.

― Trayce (trayce), Friday, 4 November 2005 04:04 (nineteen years ago)

This is so much better than that flirting thread!

― edward o (edwardo), Friday, 4 November 2005 06:05 (nineteen years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.