My new upstairs neighbor is gorgeous. I mean...wow. He is hot sex in a bottle. (Now, where on earth did I pick up that phrase?)
Alas, his girlfriend isn't bad, either.
I hate them so much.
I wish I could work my secret evil gay powers; in tandem with the combined force of Oregon and Washington's Domestic Partnership laws and California's legalization of same-sex marriage, according to the wing-nuts that should be more than sufficient to wreck this relationship and make him go gay. I mean, the government has clearly sent the message that it's okay; why is he still hanging out with this chick?
I mean, I know that this would mean the collapse of civilization as we know it (or at least, that's what I'm told), but honestly, for him I'd risk it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
21 comments:
This is a real pick me up post this morning! Loved it! And still chuckling. Wouldn't it be nice if it really worked that way??
Where's your pixie dust? Didn't you have a sizeable stock of it in NY?
How cute a girlfriend is she? I could be convinced to help you out.
i hope it works. that would be more women for me. :)
You mean your Gaydar doesn't come with some kind of reverse polarity switch to beam on to unsuspecting hot neighbors?
Other than the difference in sexual orientation, it appears your sex life is almost identical to mine. Non-existent.
I have a feeling that most fancies of attraction fail because we have some intuition that they are not what we really desire. If I really desired this girl in my speech class (who, by the way, has a boyfriend) I would not let anything get in my way- but how can I know if it's really what I desire? Perhaps we just fabricate such desires because society surrounds us with nothing but topics and images of sexual ideals and expectations. Maybe it's not just heterosexual sexuality that's imposed, but sexual desire in general, and in fact sexuality is just a mechanical process with rather pleasant side effect that have been over blown (chuckle).
What do you really want? I believe you've limited it to "men," but I'm curious (especially since homosexuality is such a new factor in the art of matchmaking).
I want picture proof.
Be sneaky. Get a shot. You're imminently capable.
Well, Tully (formerly known as LC) seems to have gone off on an unrelated tangent here. Only on Andy's blog could a frivolous post about sex turn into something philosophical.
Tully, you're complicating the idea of desire way too much. The body wants what it wants. Doesn't mean the brain follows through on it. But just because the brain doesn't follow through on it, doesn't mean your body doesn't want it. There's a difference between feelings and acting on those feelings.
Anyway, what smb said. Photos please.
Oh, my God, I remember the first time I saw the phrase hot sex in a bottle! I've never used it myself but maybe I'll have to start.
No, I won't be taking any pictures. It wouldn't be fair of me to compromise his privacy.
Andy, if you want to meet _gay_ men, you can't live in your part of town!! It makes one wonder if Tully isn't onto something, about your desires ;).
Tully, I count three chauvenist assumptions in your comment. Don't bother getting attached until you get over those, hey ;)?
An interesting side-thought re: Dobson et al.
There is a deeply believed tradition (more Western Civ than Christian) that Eve tempted Adam, that the woman is responsible for The Fall, precisely because she was so sexually irresistable--with attendent logical extensions that men can be and frequently are led around by their penises.
And of course, what with being brought up to believe they are weak--that 'real men' should expect to be weak this way--and without the social pressures that cause gay men to learn self-control (or be killed), conservative het Christian men are in fact often ridiculously easy to 'tempt' (control) ... not helped by secular society telling them for 50 years that sex should be constant and consequentless ... and increasingly making the logical extension that there's no real reason homosexual sex shouldn't be part of that picture.
So it's not unlikely that their life-experience has taught them that this 'evil power' is a real fear. Reference that sex-death Andy posted about, of the anti-gay activist. I have a friend divorcing her sex-addicted husband (a MSM, but not gay) ... 'I fell again,' clearly asking to be excused because the fall was so 'inevitable.' (You'd think the conservative Christians would clue that they are claiming magic can overcome the grace of God ... but whatever.)
Which is, of course, not to encourage you, Andy, to _try_ to work this 'power;' if he's not conservative Christian, very likely he would not understand himself to be too 'weak' to resist. And if he's got a hot girlfriend (and is in fact straight) of course you would lose to the girlfriend. And living downstairs from them sounds painful enough _now_ ... ;).
(Thank you for honoring his/their privacy.)
Ye Gods that WAS a tangent. My apologies- I find these questions interesting and they are often more clearly apparent on personal blogs than on philosophy blogs.
KR, I'm kind of worried, because this time I have absolutely no idea what chauvenistic assumptions you are referring to! You're a lot more finely tuned to such subtleties than I. Or perhaps you misread my comment...
Jeff, thanks for indulging my tangent! I have trouble accepting anything about "the body WANTING"- the body has no consciousness of its own. It releases a random series of hormones- for instance a sex hormone causing arousal. That hormone may cloud reasoning by making it seem as if we want sex at a given moment. Does that make for a distinct separation between the determinations of body and mind- I say the body is just making rather moronic contributions similar to those made on this blog by this "little cicero" to whom you refer. "There's a difference between feelings and acting on feelings" I say rather, there's a difference between feelings clouding judgement and feelings taking on a judgement of their own. The fact that Andy isn't pouncing on the hot guy upstairs is that his genitals haven't got command of anything.
The fact that Andy isn't pouncing on the hot guy upstairs is that his genitals haven't got command of anything.
"Tully," I think you're taking this post too seriously...certainly more seriously than was intended, LOL. The reason I haven't pounced is that, well, I'm certain he wouldn't be interested, it would be impolite, it would make our neighborly relations awkward, and, he could kick my ass (though, I have the sense that he'd just say, "Hey, whoa, sorry...I'm sure you're very nice, but I'm not on your team."
And for the record, my genitals are extremely commanding.
Sort of in the same way that explaining a joke ruins it, this comment thread has gotten way too deep.
It's only deep if you take my comments seriously!
Andy, I think you are the greatest. reading your post is like reading my life.
Tully--I also didn't mean to take up a serious pursuit of anything from this either (just recreationally tangenting), but since you asked:
If I really desired this girl in my speech class (who, by the way, has a boyfriend) I would not let anything get in my way
1) "girl"--you're at the beginning of being grown up, so is she (presumably--and if she isn't I'd hope you'd not 'want' her) ... so, "woman." Get used to thinking it as well as saying it. it makes a difference, I think you'll find, in all of your thinking about potential situations.
2 and 3) "anything get in my way"
--> female's chosen situation
--> female's desires
I suspect you knew 2 & 3, actually ;), but it is bothersome that you linguistically so implied it was all up to you--and probably indicates the degree to which you are correct, you are merely mentally playing the situation rather than really desiring it.
Mentally playing the situation is a useful excercise. But more useful, the more of the other person's reality you can incorporate ;).
Further tangents are too far afield (and too serious, striking at my activist issues) for this forum ;).
When I talk about "getting in my way" the thing in whose way anything would get would be the mere proposition of a relationship- not any propositions beyond a first date (breakfast or lunch, not dinner). Such is the level of my social maturity.
As far as calling her a "woman," I suppose it would be some consolation that I don't expect to be called a "man" at this point. The word "man" is one of reverence and maturity- I think we cheapen it by lending it to any male over the age of 18. My father is a "man," because he's lived up to that name- he is a "mensch" if you will. But, it's just a word!
girl= anything that catches my eye.
woman= her mother.
High-five!
oh, go away.
or ... never mind. I think I've decided to.
Buh bye.
Post a Comment