gay, straight or bi, what is it.

Replies

• ST

  

  Steve

  Feb 16, 2022

  Gay and straight are OK names for sexual partnership, but awkward names for kinds of people. There are most certainly people who, during their lives, will have satisfying sexual relationships with both men and with women. Kind of a lot of people. And this can range from folks who are really turned on by the male-ness of the male and female-ness of the female, to folks who are indifferent to gender.

  The labels just get in the way.

  ReactReply
• SA

  

  Stone Andy

  Feb 16, 2022

  I too think labels work better for relationships or behaviors than people. Sexuality has always been complex and I see it more as a matrix that includes circumstance than a spectrum of pure attraction. In 1865 or so the term "homosexual" was coined and in the midish 20th century "gay" emerged to describe not just a sexuality but a lifestyle. I believe that hetero-, homo- and bisexual behaviors and relationships have always existed, but somehow the Industrial Revolution expanded the concept to people as well.
  New labels continue to emerge, such as sapiosexual for being attracted to people's minds rather than a specific gender. If sexuality is defined soley on behaviors not requiring relationships, I could consider myself solarsexual for getting aroused by the sun, especially after a long cold winter.
  I see the judgments the OP refers to as cultural biases used in defining tribes based on sexual orientation. Even groups who have been discriminated and persecuted against may define an orthodoxy: hence we have "true nudists" and perhaps GINOS too (gays in name only). I remember how we cycled through similar identification rules related to ethnicity when I was a kid. Tomorrow the focus may be on dividing people as right vs. left ass wipers. We need a convenient "other"out there.

  ReactReply
• JI

  

  Jim

  Feb 28, 2022

  [quote]I am surprised that few guys in here come out as straight. Observation has it that most men in here are either NA, bi curious, bi sexual or gay. NA leads me to believe that a straight guy does not want to admit that he is straight and has other tendencies. Being bi curious and bi sexual means there is an interest to suck another guys junk. In the gay world, a bi sexual is a guy who is afraid to come out as gay. Are there really guys that want it both ways with either a female or a male and is there such a thing as a true bisexual. I need to also add to this that most men whom try a same sex affair, usually end up liking it the best. Those that talk negative of gay men usually are considered as have gay tendencies themself. So, be careful whom you criticise.[/quote] I am by definition bisexual. I say I am gay to be an agent of positive encouragement for all those who admire or encourage male intimacy and bonding on any level to accept it and not seek shame or receive it neither but also to illustrate that despite my fervent belief that in the end orientation is immaterial before brotherhood and respect the fact that many who call for the end of labels are still hiding what they profess is unimportant.

  ReactReply
• ZE

  

  Zeke

  Feb 28, 2022

  I am of mind that what an individual identifies himself as is all about where he is at moment in his life from his experiences he has had. To say someone can't be a certain type is politely saying 'narrow minded'. To say a guy can't be straight is like saying a guy can't be gay. Really? Why can't a guy just like one type of sex? Then to say a guy can't like both? I'm not sure what you were trying to point out.
  
  I've learned from actually having conversations with guys, you learn that what experience they've had with their sexual life will determine where they seek at that moment in their life. As it has been pointed out, that will change as men seek to fulfill their sexual desires. Now that there are so many types of labels for so many different sexual pleasures and even individuals that change their sex gender, is a guy that desires to have a relationship with a transgender male, is he then straight or bi? Then some guys 'slip' slowly into having sex with guys from females. They will experience a sexual activity with a guy that they never knew would be so satisfying, then try something else and then be 'bisexual'. One individual I know never considered sex with guys until his wife died and found it was a lot easier to meet guys and females which lead to some fun now and then that eventually he found sex with guys acceptable. Years later he got a partner and hasn't looked back at going back to females. There are many reasons why we men have certain desires and to say it's wrong to say that you have a certain type of sexual desire. One last point, you, freedomatlast3, stated "Observation has it that most men in here are either NA, bi curious, bi sexual or gay. NA leads me to believe that a straight guy does not want to admit that he is straight and has other tendencies." You as I do, have NA....

  ReactReply
• JI

  

  Jim

  Mar 1, 2022

  [quote]I am of mind that what an individual identifies himself as is all about where he is at moment in his life from his experiences he has had. To say someone can't be a certain type is politely saying 'narrow minded'. To say a guy can't be straight is like saying a guy can't be gay. Really? Why can't a guy just like one type of sex? Then to say a guy can't like both? I'm not sure what you were trying to point out. I've learned from actually having conversations with guys, you learn that what experience they've had with their sexual life will determine where they seek at that moment in their life. As it has been pointed out, that will change as men seek to fulfill their sexual desires. Now that there are so many types of labels for so many different sexual pleasures and even individuals that change their sex gender, is a guy that desires to have a relationship with a transgender male, is he then straight or bi? Then some guys 'slip' slowly into having sex with guys from females. They will experience a sexual activity with a guy that they never knew would be so satisfying, then try something else and then be 'bisexual'. One individual I know never considered sex with guys until his wife died and found it was a lot easier to meet guys and females which lead to some fun now and then that eventually he found sex with guys acceptable. Years later he got a partner and hasn't looked back at going back to females. There are many reasons why we men have certain desires and to say it's wrong to say that you have a certain type of sexual desire. One last point, you, freedomatlast3, stated "Observation has it that most men in here are either NA, bi curious, bi sexual or gay. NA leads me to believe that a straight guy does not want to admit that he is straight and has other tendencies." You as I do, have NA....[/quote] And I agree with you because its not really cool to go around telling people what they are, or are not. But you are (in your formulation) also assuming honesty and integrity in the process of self definition (for the record I think most guys are not deliberately lying), and even when they are, if I don't notice it right up in my face, why do I care to check out a story or not? I don't. I think its ok to generally cast shade on people who lie without going after anyone in particular., becaise ,my experience is some spaces have more of that than others and you want a baseline of connections and trust not the other way around. LSPG one post there was the straw that finally broke my silence. Buddy posted a thread with the title "How come gay guys are growing beards to look butch and steal straight guys away from other straight guys who want to have straight s.x not gay s.x". He was defending the whole thing and I had to shut it all down. I didnt think it was serious at first, but oh no, he was mad... (and for the record the issue for me is a) taking gay s.x for which some of us have died, claiming it is straight, and the suggesting we are adding extra masculinity duplicitously and stealing their men was a bridge too far).... it was also kiling me with laughter but dude was clowning hard.

  ReactReply
• JI

  

  Jim

  Mar 1, 2022

  [quote]Gay and straight are OK names for sexual partnership, but awkward names for kinds of people. There are most certainly people who, during their lives, will have satisfying sexual relationships with both men and with women. Kind of a lot of people. And this can range from folks who are really turned on by the male-ness of the male and female-ness of the female, to folks who are indifferent to gender. The labels just get in the way.[/quote] That last part. For you this may be true, but you can't decide for others, and there are so many people for whom the words matter (if you spend time reading the theory the idea that they are labels is long gone and people, especially young people have a really complex and nuanced take on identity and what the meaning of a noun entails conceptually)... does it get tedious sometimes? Well hell yes it does. I am going to rather go after the idea of kinds of people. Are there not just people? But sexuality like race suffers from a history of erasure and a history of oppression. And the use of the words to do harm is never from within said community but external. The difference between being called Q///r by a bully and calling oneself the same thing is night and day different. Also, I consistently call myself gay and it has never gotten in the way of anything I wanted and I spend zero time complexing about any of it. I keep the word because I earned it, fighting for rights and doing the work of liberating people from oppression by hand to hand fighting with cops, bullies, skinheads, and bashers in the streets for one glorious summer. Longer in the redux and the public relations. We are often asked to identify ourselves as such and such and so on and I use the word to add to a statistic or set thereof (they all get counted and impact policy) but I hate the race one cause I dont want to choose any lol.

  ReactReply
• JI

  

  Jim

  Mar 1, 2022

  But I don't buy that notion that "bisexual" or "bi-curious" means "gay but too afraid to come out of the closet."

  Well, in my experience here even, sometimes it does and that's not my evaluation it's what the person who had the experience has been through and advocated as their authentic path. You don't have to accept it for you, but that isn't everyone else's experience nor should we proscribe what that is for others. I want to point out that depending on where you live, what community you are from and what language you speak, the closet is much tighter and much more dangerous, so just because some of us have been carried by the sexual revolution doesn't mean we all have. I think it is also important to highlight how real that fear is, how valid it is, and how its important to support men who are that afraid because it ranges all over the guys into both women and men and has lots of effects. Focusing on the idea that it's a mistake or dinosaur from the past skips over the question it raises about fear, and what that does to us all. And that kind of shame laced fear was spread all over the place throughout our lives. More than anything else, the speaking for yourself unless you're using data or a reference (its ok to say 80 of 100 when you counted actual examples) will always be a good approach. I do it too slipping into generalization or claiming extra disney cast of characters sized support when its just me.

  ReactReply
• PA

  

  Paul

  Mar 1, 2022

  There is another option that is rarely (if ever) mentioned: g0y.

  A g0y relationship involves two men who consider themselves to be equals. The men may be married (to women), or single -- in any combination. No top/bottom. No dominant/submissive. g0y relationships follow Biblical standards -- what the Bible really says and not what so many people what it to say. The Bible only prohibits anal sex (even for m/f married couples). Men in a g0y relationship may exchange frottage, handjobs, and blow jobs.

  g0y rejects casual anonymous no-strings-attached sex. A g0y relationship is a committed relationship.

  ReactReply
• JI

  

  Jim

  Mar 1, 2022

  [quote]There is another option that is rarely (if ever) mentioned: g0y. A g0y relationship involves two men who consider themselves to be equals. The men may be married (to women), or single -- in any combination. No top/bottom. No dominant/submissive. g0y relationships follow Biblical standards -- what the Bible really says and not what so many people what it to say. The Bible only prohibits anal sex (even for m/f married couples). Men in a g0y relationship may exchange frottage, handjobs, and blow jobs. g0y rejects casual anonymous no-strings-attached sex. A g0y relationship is a committed relationship.[/quote] I have only experienced it through the man who created it and some of the followers and... on the basis of that experience it is lovely for someone else but utterly not anything for me. The problem here is that a) BDSM relationships in the traditional way they are structured do not proscribe that there is a power imbalance, except possibly skewed to the bottom. The goal of the roles in classic BDSM is to create a system that allows for free power exhange and therefore equality and the catharsis of one being, two men at the end. So the terms top/bottom and dom/sub don't refer to anything like what they are assumed to. b) the bible doesn't forbid anal sex. This information comes from Rabbi Rutenberg who is an expert on the Levites (one of the tribes) and whose book of social rules, Leviticus has been a source of persecution of men for a long time. First, let's deal with the sin of "abomination". It's not a sin, its a social infraction and it's the lowest on the rung. Shrimp, polycotton, both abominations. So whatver it is that "thou shalt not lie down with a man as with a woman" means the worst thing this could be is social stigma and a wee bit shun from your circle. The important part here, and this is the same as with Onan, is the waste of semen in a socitey that believed that male sperm + intent to make a baby is how babies are made. So to lie down with a man as with a woman means you tried to make bum babies and that is wrong. Since heterosex at this time was so incredibly controlled by social stricture the rabbis and leaders came up with (she gets married and dies and makes a certain number of babies and they watch the birth, etc the fight is over the survival of the entire Jewish people. She does the whole book and finds that all of the bad translations were either made or made worse in the 19th century. The things people think that book says about gay people or bi men or MSM it doesnt reflect the times of ancient Judeans... it represents 19th century Calvinist clap trap at its funky bunga best. The reality is that males in these conditions are going to massively be gay in deed cause no sex any other way. The prohibition for M/F anal is along the same lines. The notion that anonymous or casual sex cannot have commitment and is somehow morally inferior to this version of a relationship (obviously temporal reasons alone), fouls up the process and implies a result for the goy monogamy that isn't realistic, success rate long term in this option is still 50%. The issue I have is that the prohibitions they latch onto are suspiciously the ones that are the classic sources of homophobia, complete with the same mistranslations and misinterpretations. On either count this is bad theology and then bad moral philosophy. Maybe that makes happy people? Also, the problem of partiarchal society is that we are stratified in our power base and men end up in competition against each other and have been for years. Men do not arrive as equals and just saying it is so doesn't make it real. Funny enough, one of the reasons BDSM exists is to help men work through power dynamics in their lives and let go of them. At the very bottom of my interaction was the kicker, a discussion about HIV that bordered on the completely unhinged. The structure of this way of life is based in part in extreme serophobia. and at a time when if you don't want HIV, you won't get it, gay men are no longer the highest demographic for infection and even less so active and communicable infection and have not for a decade, and the belief that if you just made yourself something other than a gay, none of the curses and sins that made them suffer would have happend. I would entertain it and will not get in the way, but at the same time there is a larger responsibility.

  ReactReply
• JI

  

  Jim

  Mar 1, 2022

  [quote]I am surprised that few guys in here come out as straight.Observation has it that most men in here are either NA, bi curious, bi sexual or gay.NA leads me to believe that a straight guy does not want to admit that he is straight and hasother tendencies. Being bi curious and bi sexual means there is an interest to suck anotherguys junk. In the gay world, a bi sexual is a guy who is afraid to come out as gay.Are there really guys that want it both ways with either a female or a male and is theresuch a thing as a true bisexual. I need to also add to this that most men whom try a same sexaffair, usually end up liking it the best. Those that talk negative of gay men usually are consideredas have gay tendencies themself. So, be careful whom you criticise. As a bisexual guy I find most of this to be complete nonsense and a fair bit of it outright offensive. If this is what you've determined from observation, damn, look again and make less assumptions. If this is what you've experienced because you're gay or bi yourself, damn, I'm sorry, because yikes, you must have had some pretty bad experiences or are still very confused about yourself. This post actually kind of pisses me off a bit.[/quote] Why though? You are not the person being referred to in this post. And just like every straight man in my department is "bi" so the women will speak to them (actually not, but i speak to the women), so do I have essentially gay friends who are "bi" for a whole bunch of reasons that are valid. You are not either of these men, So why get offended by what you are not being accused of? Here's the other thing. Being in the closet, unsure of your sexuality, and all the rest aren't bad things. We have all been through some aspects of most of them. I assume it was the tone of the post that set you and others on edge, I ignore incendiary tone becausen it is designed to pop a lid, and let's be very honest here, the number of men who lie to their sex partner or spouse or GF/BF all the time is not small. There are lots of people online who are leading a secret life and this place is no different. I am not remotely interested in making it a problem. That's what he was referring to, albeit rather bumpily, and I see the guys who are 100% on that tip all the time here. But its not my job to worry about that. It takes courage and honest to accept who you are. It takes even more to see that those like you, right next to you, and beside you are the men you need. But that as well ends up blurred in the rearview. And remember I did not make any accusations about anyone in here, nor is any of not knowing, being a work in rpogress or full on king kamehameha gay a bad thing or bad things.

  ReactReply
• PA

  

  Paul

  Mar 1, 2022

  [quote] The problem here is that a) BDSM relationships in the traditional way they are structured do not proscribe that there is a power imbalance, except possibly skewed to the bottom. The goal of the roles in classic BDSM is to create a system that allows for free power exhange and therefore equality and the catharsis of one being, two men at the end. So the terms top/bottom and dom/sub don't refer to anything like what they are assumed to. [/quote] It's my understanding (and I've never seen this actually spelled out) that the g0y prohibition on top/bottom dom/sub is that the men take masculine/feminine roles -- a rough definition being something similar to: the male penetrates, the female is penetrated. Even flip/flop sex doesn't resolve that issue. Taking turns isn't the point. And although penetration does occur during oral sex, that somehow doesn't count as "penetration." [quote] b) the bible doesn't forbid anal sex. [/quote] It does forbid contact with human feces. Douching doesn't resolve this. [quote] The important part here, and this is the same as with Onan, is the waste of semen in a society that believed that male sperm + intent to make a baby is how babies are made. So to lie down with a man as with a woman means you tried to make bum babies and that is wrong. [/quote] People used to believe that an entire fully-formed but microscopic human was contained within the head of each individual sperm. That was disproved a long time ago and it didn't even arise until thousands of years after scripture was written. That was the motivation behind the Church's prohibition on masturbation -- not even vaguely related to scripture. [quote] She does the whole book and finds that all of the bad translations were either made or made worse in the 19th century. [/quote] Victorian Era. [quote] The prohibition for M/F anal is along the same lines. [/quote] Involves contact with human feces -- has nothing to do with wasted microscopic people. [quote]The issue I have is that the prohibitions they latch onto are suspiciously the ones that are the classic sources of homophobia, complete with the same mistranslations and misinterpretations.[/quote] This is one area where I am in complete disagreement with g0y. The g0y movement is not merely homophobic -- but openly state that they hate gays.

  ReactReply
• FR

  

  freedomatlast3Original Poster

  Mar 1, 2022

  Did not mean to upset anyone by posting a thought on my observations which at this point in time my reading glasses are
  still working. Just take a look for yourself and what do you observe?
  I love gay people as well as those that are bi cause that is all I really know at least in this lifestyle.

  In my conclusion, we usually see the comments from the same people. Boy it would be nice
  to see them from younger gay and bi people.

  ReactReply
• GU

  

  Guzzi27

  Mar 1, 2022

  [quote]I am surprised that few guys in here come out as straight. Observation has it that most men in here are either NA, bi curious, bi sexual or gay. NA leads me to believe that a straight guy does not want to admit that he is straight and has other tendencies. Being bi curious and bi sexual means there is an interest to suck another guys junk. In the gay world, a bi sexual is a guy who is afraid to come out as gay. Are there really guys that want it both ways with either a female or a male and is there such a thing as a true bisexual. I need to also add to this that most men whom try a same sex affair, usually end up liking it the best. Those that talk negative of gay men usually are considered as have gay tendencies themself. So, be careful whom you criticise.[/quote] Or people out NA because they believe that their sexuality isnt relevant to their interest in naturism. After all I dont asked about my sexuality on the photography and other groups I am on. So why should it be important just because I am naked?

  ReactReply
• PA

  

  Paul

  Mar 1, 2022

  For me, someone's sexuality is more a matter of curiosity. That is, I don't bother even asking until I've known the person for a while. [quote]Or people out NA because they believe that their sexuality isnt relevant to their interest in naturism. After all I dont asked about my sexuality on the photography and other groups I am on. So why should it be important just because I am naked?[/quote] Regardless, I cannot see any relevance or association between nudity and sexuality. Certainly, it makes sense on the sister site: [url][link]https://www.trueswingers.com[/link]True Swingers[/url]. But that site is about sex, not nudity.

  ReactReply
• JI

  

  Jim

  Mar 1, 2022

  The issue I have is that the prohibitions they latch onto are suspiciously the ones that are the classic sources of homophobia, complete with the same mistranslations and misinterpretations. This is one area where I am in complete disagreement with g0y. The g0y movement is not merely homophobic -- but openly state that they hate gays.[/quote] Yeah I just made fun of them when they tried to bust out the unvarnished homophobia. To me, what really defines a man's character is his willingness to step away from the petty and the puerile and invest energy in things that deliver positive results from building people up. And in this case, they were going full homophobe and I was just dropping hot potatoes in their laps. Here's the thing about human feces

  ReactReply
• ME

  Member

  Mar 1, 2022

  [quote]Gay and straight are OK names for sexual partnership, but awkward names for kinds of people. There are most certainly people who, during their lives, will have satisfying sexual relationships with both men and with women. Kind of a lot of people. And this can range from folks who are really turned on by the male-ness of the male and female-ness of the female, to folks who are indifferent to gender. The labels just get in the way.[/quote] Oh how true is your last sentence as I only like to be with males, both sexually, nude and in general company, so I'm labelled as gay, I'm fine with that, but it's labels in general that get in the way of some who bounce around both sexes and aren't sure where they lay in the label game.

  ReactReply
• TR

  

  Troy

  Mar 5, 2022

  [quote]No more labelling, if one feels they have in interest in of a person of their same gender then that should be it, No need to label others or yourself if you are gay or straight or anything. Just go with the direction.[/quote]
  Such labels didn't exist until the1800s when science decided to study sex. "Sexuality" got categorized.
  Before science, there was religion... I'll spare everyone the rant on the damage done there.
  
  Since Stonewall, Gay is a label worn by some of us in Pride. As ActUp took the Nazi triangle and literally turned it on its head, so too the rest of the Community has taken the stigma to wear proudly.
  
  The OP dances around the misconception that bi is a transition or less stigmatized version of gay. Of course, this is nonsense. Without buying into all the flaws of the Kinsey studies (research since has clarified things nicely in a perfectly muddied fashion) the basic points remain. Sexuality is fluid. Frequency, intensity, and priority of sex in a person's life fluctuates moment to moment. Basically, all men are bi. The placement of a man on the grey scale of 1 through 6 is constantly changing. It's the general, cumulative, overall placement on such a scale that creates the label... if one wants to have a label in the 1st place.
  
  Personally, I choose & proudly accept the label of Gay as an active participant in this society. Politically & legally, there are inequalities that need addressing - this "bi isn't real" is one of them. Blaming gay men for HIV is another (37 states makes it a felony to knowing transmit HIV. No other virus or disease... just HIV). The masculine/feminine, dom/sub, top/bottom dichotomies are others that need to be addressed.
  
  Sex is an activity, not a relationship. These labels, if they're good for anything, need to be used to describe relationships - romances, bromances, and others within the confines of whatever ethical structure a man lives. There is no need to use these labels to describe one's identity, but rather their relationships. A married "straight" man could have a gay relationship (with the wife's knowledge & agreement, of course, cuz I believe romance is based on transparency) without needing to describe himself as "bisexual." He could enjoy some healthy sessions of sex with both of these people in a 3-some and still need not change the label to his identity - though that was obviously some bisexual sessions he enjoyed. Maybe he never again has any desire to repeat the encounter or it is so infrequent and unimportant to him that he can rationally hold his identity as "straight."
  
  Ooops, a bit side-tracked there.
  
  Ideally, there would be no need for labels. Next best thing is men just accept they are all bi- and separate love & sex in their head since they are not the same thing - though experienced together is quite nice. Currently, labels are used to identify a self for social clarification of all sorts of things - things so no two people would be able to define the same way (so much for clarification).
  
  I'm on board with you that ridding ourselves of labels as an ideal. However, they do still have their uses to the benefit of society. Until society gets over itself and all the restrictive mythologies we cling to, labels can be as helpful as harmful.
  
  [quote]Just I ask you all. am i making sense on what i just posted?[/quote]
  Of course. Just needed to tip my head to one side to read it correctly.
  
  Did I?

  ReactReply
• M

  

  M

  Mar 8, 2022

  There are many interesting and valid points of view in this thread as well as on the website mentioned. I believe labels should not be used as an identity. However you identify you are still a sexual being. Some broader than others but that really none of my business. I agree there is a huge difference between Sex and Love. I have a few close friends that I love deeply, in fact I consider them Brothers but that doesn't mean I'm interested in having a sexual encounter with them. From that website, the whole notion that if you are not penetrating, you are not having homosexual sex is confusing. Kind of splitting hairs isn't it? I've read the bible and lots of passages can to interpreted to mean anything you want. So I'm not certain their claims to be accurate. That's my 2 cents worth and that's probably overcharging. In any case it is very interesting to read all the different points of view.

  ReactReply
• BA

  

  bare_lee

  Mar 9, 2022

  [quote]I am surprised that few guys in here come out as straight.[/quote] I dont believe this site is representative of the general public or of nudists in general either. Men that are more comfortable with talking about it and sharing pictures of themselves are expected to be more open or honest in other areas as well. With that in mind and the belief that most men have some level of attraction to other men (no matter in what way or how well suppressed) it shouldnt be surprising. Men who dont subscribe to the social mores regarding nudity are more likely to reject a similarly narrow societal view of sexuality. But never mind all of that, there are still plenty of men here who claim to be 100% straight.

  ReactReply
• JO

  

  John

  Mar 9, 2022

  And it also depends on your definition of "bi." Some might include "bi-curious" meaning a person who has not had a real sexual experience with someone of the same sex and is not actively seeking one, but might not turn down an opportunity if it presents itself. I think that a lot of the people who identify as "bi" on this site fall into that category.

  FWIW, I identify as "straight" because I have actually had invitations for sex from other men, and I courteously turned them down, as the erotic content simply wasn't there for me. Of course, that was many years ago. Would I have the same response now? I don't know.

  I have to wonder how many of the people who identify as "nudist" on this site have actually participated in nude activities with other people, or whether they simply like the idea of being thought of as a nudist or enjoy being naked in private. Again, it's a matter of definition.

  ReactReply
• AN

  

  anthony8863

  Mar 10, 2022

  so true

  ReactReply
• AV

  

  Art Vernon

  Feb 5, 2023

  I have always been bi-curious, but I was married to a woman with no interest in exploring. Divorced a couple of years ago, had a few male encounters, still interested. I think for me, sex is sex, with whatever willing partner there is. Relationships are another matter. At my age, I am not sure about a long-term relationship, with either a female or male. Casual relationships with both would be OK. Still figuring out where I fit in most comfortably.

  ReactReply