There’s nothing hotter than a fine-tip Pilot. Oh, baby…
Another choice that is yours to make…
Wouldn’t that be bicromantic?
As for me, I reject labels. Not because people should be measured as individuals, or any other philosophical reasons. I reject labels because there are too many of them in too many combination and it’s too damn confusing. I describe my sexuality thusly: Me like put man-part into lady-part.
Have you been to PenIsland.net?
snerk
Whenever I read “bigender” I think of Lilliput and wonder if there are opposite-gendered people on the other end who identify as “littleender”.
I don’t need your affirmation as to what choices are and are not mine to make.
See, I knew I was going to be offended by your response.
That’s odd.
There are a number of pilots on this board, but I think they might be offended as to having their manhood being described as having a fine-tip.
What, you don’t think they’d like hearing, “Oh baby, that tip is fine!”
I was born Pilot but identify as Uniball.
I’ve said that pretty much vertabim more often than I wish I’d needed to.
To be clear my mocking posts are not based on an actual belief that all people who don’t fit simple conventional models of gender and sexuality are deserving of mockery; far from it. I have nothing but respect for several posters on these boards who are genderqueer or of otherwise non-conventional sexuality*. My mockery is reserved for the usual brigade of trendoids who seem to have latched onto this whole thing as if it were the latest fashion and seem to be trying to outdo each other with ever more complicated, attention-grabbing and precious descriptions of themselves.
*… and some of my best friends are black.
I agree. There does seem to be a lot of one-upmanship and a whole lot of bullshit thrown into the mix. I am fully aware that there are real conditions that cause homosexuality and even gender dysphoria. However, the biological conditions that cause those are fairly rare. I do find it hard to believe that everyone is “on the spectrum” of some made up idea of the month. I know for a fact that I am not and I don’t believe the vast majority of men are either.
I couldn’t be more straightforward in my preferences. If you are a pretty woman without any tattoos between the ages of 23 and 35, we can talk because I will be attracted to you. If you fall outside of that of that category, we can have many types of relationships but none of those are going to based on attraction by my vote. That is just the way it works unilaterally.
The “PC police” didn’t come up with it. It just comes from the idea that people who are externally gendered one way want to transition to be externally gendered another way. It’s a psychological term, like homosexual.
(Externally gendered being how society sees you. There may be a better term for distinguishing that from one’s internal gender identity, but I haven’t found it.)
There’s no value judgement, just the idea that you wish to go through a change that cis- people don’t. Or that you’ve already gone though said change that the other person doesn’t want to go through.
In fact, this is a good example of how the “PC police” filter for looking at the world is incorrect. People who are merely looking to be offended do not have all that much pull in society. The reason why “looking to be offended” is such an insult is that we all pretty much think it’s a bad thing to do.
I’ve still yet to meet anyone who thinks they are looking to be offended. And I very rarely encounter people who truly are looking to be offended. At least, every time I’ve accused them of such, I’ve been shown that I was wrong. I just disagreed with them.
You’re a pharmacist who refuses to dispense Plan B?
Repeated monogamous and, much more rarely, occasionally non-monogamous heterosexual cisgender cissexual male who is attracted to adult females of the homo sapiens species.
tl;dr - a straight guy
You’re Hitler!?! :eek:
Male, heterosexual, non-practicing for a long time.
No, no. That was Göring.
When in Pamplona, run faster.