Not a lot of room for male-female interactions that might be merely friendly, funny, interesting or time-killing on this model. I suppose you mean something specific by 'checked out'? Is it a look? A way of speaking? Is all interaction at base sexual?
It's ok, therefore, to engage in homosexual dalliances if the question of property is not in play?
-
-
Go gay R/acc Not Allow.
-
I do not understand your strange language, but ok! But why not? Is there a good argument?
-
Dysgenic, feminising, maladaptive, vectors of disease, product of decline, warning sign of decadence, produces nothing of value. This is as a sexuality, not as a judgment on individuals who ascribe / succumb to that sexuality. I'm more tolerant than most R/acc, though.
-
Sapphism subtly different, it might be suggested.
-
'‘Public sex’ is the performance by men of multi-partner sex acts in supposedly public space, traditionally toilets and parks. Lesbians are not, any more than any other women, demanding the right to act out sexually in public. This is a quintessentially male demand.'
-
Lesbians are the absence of sex. The anti-sex Void.
-
and to be attacked for doing so. But these voices were silenced. The dogma that won out in AIDS activism, as Gabriel Rotello (1997) points out, was that AIDS accidentally targeted gay men and had nothing to do with their sexual practices.'
-
I'm LOLing at this.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.