Page 1 of 12
Posted: Thu Dec 28, 2006 1:58 am
by OscarGuy
This topic is CLOSED. It has gotten so far off-topic it is lost.
If you want to discuss homosexual, heterosexual or bisexual sex or your personal mores, start a topic in the Misceallaneous Off-Topic area. This is DEFINITELY NOT the place.
Posted: Thu Dec 28, 2006 1:50 am
by criddic3
I didn't mean it that way, Akash. Tell me honestly, if you were looking for a good time and new friends, would you want to sit around talking about sick mothers or boyfriends who had died? I seriously doubt it. I may not be a party animal (I mean, I don't drink or smoke and I don't frequent the dance clubs), but I certainly am not gonna have a good time with a group that only wants to talk about depressing things all the time. That's not what the group was supposed to be. The name of the group wasn't Group Sessions on the Couch. It was 20-somethings, which indicates a singles group or at least a more lively discussion group.
Posted: Thu Dec 28, 2006 1:48 am
by 99-1100896887
My dear friend: This is an Oscar post site with variations. I have no objection to anything you participate in, this is not the site for you. Go somewhere else. I have been saying this for awhile, criddic( Bryan). Is there not an Oscar site for gay bottom Republicans you can play in?
How can you presume to know if I am offended by your remarks? You have no idea who I am, or what my habits are.
Do I need to know that you are bottom to know that you are an ###hole?
And a sad Republican at that.Obviously VERY confused.
Posted: Thu Dec 28, 2006 1:46 am
by Akash
JUST to get this back on topic, um, what's going on with Best Supporting Actor?
Posted: Thu Dec 28, 2006 1:40 am
by Akash
criddic3 wrote:Their 20-something group is about the dullest thing going, with a bunch of young men sitting around with a counselor discussing depressing stories about family and friends who were dying of AIDS. Though my heart goes out to them, I was not about to spend every other week going through the same conversations.
I know/hope you didn't mean it that way, but this comes across as a truly horrible sentiment. Wow, criddic. I mean...WOW. Easily the most awful thing I've ever seen anyone post on this board.
Dude, you so can't claim any moral superiority in the future with me when we're talking about potentially abstract concepts like God, when you just described sad stories about loved ones dying of AIDS as "dull" and then callously remarked, "I was not about to spend every other week going through the same conversations."
Other than that, I am a bit impressed that you can talk so openly about personal/sexual matters. Especially given your conservative beliefs.
Posted: Thu Dec 28, 2006 12:59 am
by criddic3
Akash wrote:Criddic,
I think some of us just suspect that Republican sex (hetero/homo/what have you) is bad sex. Not a fact mind you, just something we believe. An article of faith if you will....you're familiar with faith, right?
As much as it pains me to answer this because I suspect you will either a) dismiss it entirely or ignore parts of my post b) become easily offended and defensive and/or c) take it far more seriously than most of us ever would, I will still try to answer your question.
In many countries (the U.S. and most of the Western World especially) sexuality = heterosexuality in terms of public perception. With the male/female sexual dynamic as the prototype, it has become fairly common to conflate the "bottom gay" position with the "feminine" position because traditonally this was the sexual role of the woman. Of course this is completely sexist and heterosexist (bottom = woman and woman = passive/weak/inferior) but it is a perception that exists for many. (Many of us obviously know very "masculine" men who enjoy being bottoms and vice versa.)
In some Latin American countries, the disparity between top and bottom is coterminous with the country's more fluid definition of sexuality. In Cuba for example it is not uncommon for men (married or single) to have sex or sexual contact with other men and still retain their heterosexuality. The person performing the "top" role is considered the active partner and therefore can remain heterosexual whereas homosexual is defined as the "bottom" or the passive role. Reinaldo Arenas writes about this extensively, including in his popular novel, Before Night Falls.
Anyway I'm surprised you find this so surprising. Do you travel in ANY gay or queer circles in the U.S.? It's a pretty common (if unsettling) conceit.
Is Republican sex bad sex? I wouldn't know. I haven't been with anyone who has declared themselves to be Republican, but I have had a couple of guys over the years who told me I was their first Republican. However, you may be right -- faith or not. I've had good sex and bad sex (which equates to boring, usually).
I'm not surprised by the connection to the heterosexual equivalent to gay sex: man on top, woman in submissive role, but I do not view gay sex as being the same. Two guys having sex is not necessarily role playing as the "man" and the "woman." I view gay sex as two men having sex, which is why I brought up the question about bottoms. I am what is known as versatile (and I'm not adverse to declaring this stuff publicly, as you can tell), so I do sometimes assume the bottom positions. I asked the question because it seems strange to me that I would be perceived as the feminine part of this arrangement, when I do not view myself in this way. On the site, okcupid, they have surveys about things like "what kind of gay man are you" or some such things and I think one of the surveys found me to be an "assertive sub" or something to that effect.
Anyway, I want cam to know that I am sorry if he is offended by openly sexual conversation. I enjoy joking around and talking about sex. My str8 friends (who know I am gay) sometimes indulge in such conversations, so I didn't think anyone would be offended by my comments and questions.
As for hanging out in gay circles, it's been a while for me. I used to go to a community center for gay youth, but I could only stay for a few years as I was in the older age bracket (early twenties). Their 20-something group is about the dullest thing going, with a bunch of young men sitting around with a counselor discussing depressing stories about family and friends who were dying of AIDS. Though my heart goes out to them, I was not about to spend every other week going through the same conversations. I wish they had a group for people like me to meet new friends and, maybe, a boyfriend. Things would be easier for me if I wasn't attracted to men, I think. But I'm not so down about being gay that I would want to change. If they had a cure, I'm not so sure I'd go for it. It's part of what makes me "me."
Posted: Thu Dec 28, 2006 12:59 am
by 99-1100896887
I should add, for criddic's benefit: that is the trouble with the Republicans: they see thimgs in black and white, when we are all gray.
Posted: Thu Dec 28, 2006 12:33 am
by 99-1100896887
Extremely fine reply, Akash. Criddic DOES get off on our attacks, doesn't he? Imagine forgetting there are bis in the world. We are ALL homosexual and heterosexaul--and we tip the line either way. Surprised that he does not know this. But he gets off on Josh Hartnett, so what can I say?
Posted: Thu Dec 28, 2006 12:13 am
by anonymous1980
Akash wrote:ITALIANO wrote:Well, let's face it, on this board there are only three heterosexuals among the regular contributors (I counted them!) so it HAD to happen... and it's not a bad thing.
Don't forget bisexuals. Gotta represent 
Some people think we don't exist, Akash. :p Uh oh.
Umm, back to topic: I have a feeling in the unlikelihood that Hudson doesn't win, one of the Babel women will. (Kikuchi or Barazza).
Posted: Wed Dec 27, 2006 11:33 pm
by Akash
ITALIANO wrote:Well, let's face it, on this board there are only three heterosexuals among the regular contributors (I counted them!) so it HAD to happen... and it's not a bad thing.
Don't forget bisexuals. Gotta represent
Posted: Wed Dec 27, 2006 11:32 pm
by Akash
Criddic,
I think some of us just suspect that Republican sex (hetero/homo/what have you) is bad sex. Not a fact mind you, just something we believe. An article of faith if you will....you're familiar with faith, right?
As much as it pains me to answer this because I suspect you will either a) dismiss it entirely or ignore parts of my post b) become easily offended and defensive and/or c) take it far more seriously than most of us ever would, I will still try to answer your question.
In many countries (the U.S. and most of the Western World especially) sexuality = heterosexuality in terms of public perception. With the male/female sexual dynamic as the prototype, it has become fairly common to conflate the "bottom gay" position with the "feminine" position because traditonally this was the sexual role of the woman. Of course this is completely sexist and heterosexist (bottom = woman and woman = passive/weak/inferior) but it is a perception that exists for many. (Many of us obviously know very "masculine" men who enjoy being bottoms and vice versa.)
In some Latin American countries, the disparity between top and bottom is coterminous with the country's more fluid definition of sexuality. In Cuba for example it is not uncommon for men (married or single) to have sex or sexual contact with other men and still retain their heterosexuality. The person performing the "top" role is considered the active partner and therefore can remain heterosexual whereas homosexual is defined as the "bottom" or the passive role. Reinaldo Arenas writes about this extensively, including in his popular novel, Before Night Falls.
Anyway I'm surprised you find this so surprising. Do you travel in ANY gay or queer circles in the U.S.? It's a pretty common (if unsettling) conceit.
Posted: Wed Dec 27, 2006 10:54 pm
by criddic3
cam wrote:Now, with TMI( Too Much Information) from criddic, is a good place to stop this.
sorry cam. I figured if others were willing to admit there sexual preferences, I would jump in. Guess it was too much to ask if being a bottom is feminine, but no one jumped on flipp for saying he was a bottom. So I guess my admission wasn't a bad thing, but the question was? Or was it admitting that I'd like to be in the middle of a three-some with Josh and Ryan?
:laugh:
I should think these admissions from a Republican would be more amusing to you cam. No sense of humor?
Posted: Wed Dec 27, 2006 10:09 pm
by 99-1100896887
Now, with TMI( Too Much Information) from criddic, is a good place to stop this.
Posted: Wed Dec 27, 2006 9:51 pm
by criddic3
I get a kick out of people debating the merits of gay men vs. str8 men, and people declaring they are a bottom! This is not what you'd expect from a movie discussion board (although joblo has whole threads on the subject of which stars you'd like to take to bed with you -- Josh Hartnett and Ryan Phillippe top my list, being mostly a bottom myself :;): )
By the way, is being a bottom generally considered feminine? I never thought of it quite that way, since I do not consider myself feminine -- and neither does anyone else I know. :laugh:
Posted: Wed Dec 27, 2006 9:32 pm
by VanHelsing
Umm... somebody called my name?
Oh, you guys can continue with whatever conversation you're having. I won't interrupt. Maybe in January, I'll come out with my new set of predictions. Till then, happy discussing! :p