No gay sex for me yet

My lack of having had sex with a man tells me that it is probably not to be. Never say never, of course, but if it was going to happen I guess it would have happened by now.  Instead, I seem to have had sex with women.  This must lead to me concluding that I’m heterosexual.  Fair enough.  It wouldn’t bother me if I was bisexual or homosexual, as long as I was me.

(Love is wearing matching underpants)

Likewise, it doesn’t bother me what your orientation might be.  As long as you are happy, have given informed consent, and those you are having sex with are happy and have given informed consent, what’s it got to do with me? Why should I take any interest whatsoever? I shouldn’t.

I mean, you might like to play Connect 4 or have a rabid interest in collecting porcelain fish.  Why would I want to make rules about you and control your Connect 4-ing or tut-tut about your porcelain fish?  I wouldn’t.  Even if you pinned me against the wall at a party and decided to tell the tale of every porcelain fish you’ve collected, then, yes I might want you to shut the fuck up, or I might even want to feed you your damn porcelain fish to shut you up, but outside of that, what’s it got to do with me?

Yet, there are people, mainly those controlled by very obscure and irrelevant religions, who seem to think that what you do sexually is somehow something to do with them.  Even though they don’t know you, they believe that you must only have ‘straight’ sex with somebody of the opposite sex to whom you are married.

Why?

What’s it got to do with them?

They get uncomfortable with any kind of sex, but they seem to get the most uncomfortable with homosexuality. They act as if it somehow threatens them directly.

Even though they don’t know you and have never met you, they judge you and want to control you, and, if it was up to them, they would forbid you from having sex, even if that sex was within a long term loving relationship.

Why?

What’s it got to do with them?

It is a mystery to me that one of the major things that religion and religious people try to control is sex.  It’s almost like some kind of fetish or part of the BDSM scene, because if it isn’t it makes no logical sense.  It’s even a little bit insane.

I mean, if somebody kept obsessing about a neighbour’s collection of porcelain fish, really going on and on and tut-tutting and saying it was immoral, you’d want to get them Sectioned and locked up, wouldn’t you?

So, isn’t it about time we rounded up all those who are obsessed in this way with other people’s sexual activity, and kept them locked away from the public? 

One comment

  1. Thing is Chris,
    A lot of religious doctrine once had a practical purpose. The things that Jews will not eat today were once items liable to poison you if eaten thousands of years ago. Even today you eat shellfish at your risk. But with the passage of time the real reasons for not doing things get forgotten.
    The primary purpose of sex was to create offspring. Obviously, sex between two men does not achieve this, nor between two women ( Yum ! ). The animal kingdom has a need to reproduce, so do humans, but we have turned sex more in to a leisure pastime. Now that it is primarily for enjoyment, there are endless variations on the original theme.
    For an ordered society what is ideal is one man, breadwinner and protector, one woman, carer and nurturer and some children brought up in a balanced way so as to themselves repeat the process.
    Your regular observations about the collapse of society in the area you inhabit is clear evidence of what happens when the family unit breaks down.
    But yes, let people do whatever they wish that does no harm and let neither they or anyone else make a drama out of it.

    Peter Moore.

    Like

Comments are closed.