Everything I said is true, and if I went up to every pregnant woman who made bad wardrobe or makeup choices (due to her vanity, her hormones, or that feeling many pregnant women get that they just aren't pretty anymore) and called her fat, I'd deserve the beating I'd get, and I'd hope that others would step in and spare said pregnant woman the trouble of kicking my ass. And hell, tselson, just tryin' to live up to my name.
Androgynous traits are those that have no gender value, or have some aspects generally attributed to the opposite gender, which, to me, he seems to be saying something of the sort, or referring to BI-sexuality, but forgive me if I am slightly confused, I understand only heterosexuality, and my grasp of that is tenous at best. (Trying the 'ol self deprecation thing again.) But, just because a man doesn't have sex with other men, doesn't mean he isn't gay. ???? I think that, yes, that is a pretty damn good indicator that he ain't gay, or interested in whatever you wish to call it. I guess some folks CAN have their cake, and eat it too. Funny thing, too. My wife enjoyed being pregnant, and was quite able to joke around about being "fat" as did her sister who was pregnant at the same time. Some people aren't so sensitive about every little damn thing that is said.
And hell, tselson, just tryin' to live up to my name. Classic. You almost made this list, last name Jass. Ah, maybe we could have one beer...wait a minute...
Being gay or straight isn't about who you have sex with; it's about who you're attracted to. Plenty of straight guys have sex with men in prison and never look back once they're released (that's a bad example because of the coercion and isolation involved, but you should get the point), just as there are plenty of gay men who are married, have functional families who they love, and unrequited love for other men. It's true. If it's all about sex, then virgins of either persuasion are neither gay nor straight, even if they've made it to third base a hundred times.
Being gay or straight isn't about who you have sex with; it's about who you're attracted to. True, my son knew he was attracted to men from the time he hit adolescence, which caused him no small amount of confusion considering most of his friends were straight. I'm glad he found his way though and is happy now On the other hand one of my oldest and closest friends was gay, but in his 30's he got married to a woman (sweet girl) and tried to live the straight life. After 10 years he drank himself to death (liver failure). I'm sure his lifestyle change wasn't completely at fault, but I have no doubt it contributed.
Being gay or straight isn't about who you have sex with; it's about who you're attracted to. I have to ask... who has sex with someone that they are not attracted to? Or let me rephrase, why would they have sex with someone that they aren't attracted to?
Two words, drunk and horny.
Two words, drunk and horny. Been there, done that. Almost even got married once that way. (shudder)
John Rocker, who knows a thing or two about sensitivity, weighed in on Ozzie's sensitivity training. "This is a free country. If he wants to use a lewd term, he should be able to use a lewd term," Rocker told the newspaper. "Can't you use a lewd term in America if you want?" Hats off to the reporter that thought to go to Rocker for comment.
Hats off to the reporter that thought to go to Rocker for comment. He also said: "[The sensitivity training] was a farce, a way for the scared little man, Bud Selig, to get people off his (backside)." At which point said reporter probably started drooling uncontrollably.
At which point said reporter probably started drooling uncontrollably. Which Rocker probably misinterpreted as a leer, to which he probably responded with a nasty slur in reference to the reporter's sexuality and told the reporter to go back to Queens. Which, weird, that, the reporter being from Chicago and all. Here's an op-ed that sort of defends Ozzie. Most Chicagoans, I bet, would say that all this fighting over what Guillen can or cannot say sounds too much like manufactured news. Which I can buy, but: Losing a job for exercising a constitutionally protected right is a sanction that Guillen, and even Mariotti, should not suffer. This mentality that getting fired is the same as getting arrested is widespread and ridiculous. The government, not your employer, protects your rights in this case -- if you are a public representative of an organization, and you publicly embarrass the company, you better believe they have a great reason to dismiss you.
"Can't you use a lewd term in America if you want?" *uses lewd term to describe John (off his) Rocker*