Duck dynasty

[Guest]

Were you black, Jewish, and/or gay, it would.

 

I'm half black, my dh is a Christian Jew, and neither of us think it's even remotely similar.  The Bible does not say it's a sin to be black, or a Jew, or in an interracial marriage.

[HS Mom in NC]

I think if a network is willing to suspend people for answering honestly in a public way what they think religiously, politically, personally, etc. then it should be stated clearly in the contract what kinds of statements on which issues will result in which actions by the network BEFORE anyone agrees to be on their network. Full disclosure is the moral thing to do. Be up front and honest. After the fact is just playing up controversy for ratings sake and getting people who already agree with you to get all riled up (on both sides.)

 

A&E can't really be stupid enough to be surprised that the people on Duck Dynasty hold to those views.  They also can't be so stupid that they're actually surprised that at some point people in a show with high ratings might be asked about their views on religion, politics, etc. That's one thing I hate most about our American culture-thinking a celebrity's point of view on something other than their specialty (acting, singing, etc.) is worth any more than the view of the local cop, doctor, prostitute, bus driver, or drug addict.  It's not. I'm just as irritated and annoyed that groups who agree with me politically and religiously quote celebrities that agree with me. No one with a brain or a life cares what a celebrity has to say about politics or religion!

 

I have a low option of celebrities and of celebrity culture. No one who plays pretend (actors) for a living or plays music for a living are really worth what they make.  Think of all the truly valuable things other people do that don't get very good pay: medical researchers, scientists, doctors, teachers, etc.

[Slartibartfast]

I'm half black, my dh is a Christian Jew, and neither of us think it's even remotely similar.  The Bible does not say it's a sin to be black, or a Jew, or in an interracial marriage.

 

 

Not all churches teach that. I have never heard that it was a sin to be black but I have most certainly heard the others were wrong. I don't cotton to such nonsense but there are some real jerks who believe real jerky things.

[LucyStoner]

Not all churches teach that. I have never heard that it was a sin to be black but I have most certainly heard the others were wrong.

 

And at least one major church didn't allow black people to be members until after most WTM-ers were born (1978).  

 

And lest we forget, the Bible was widely interpreted at different times both as a defense of slavery and a rationale for anti-miscegenation laws.  That doesn't mean those interpretations were correct (I'd never argue for that), but it does show that the most widely accepted interpretation of Biblical passages and messages does change over time.  

[Slartibartfast]

And at least one major church didn't allow black people to be members until after most WTM-ers were born (1978).  

 

And lest we forget, the Bible was widely interpreted and different times both as a defense of slavery and a rationale for anti-miscegenation laws.  That doesn't mean those interpretations were correct (I'd never argue for that), but it does show that the most widely accepted interpretation of Biblical passages and messages does change over time.  

 

 

There are more passages supporting slavery than against homosexuality. :)

[justasque]

So celebrity means they aren't allowed the same freedom to share their opinions as anyone else?

 

And given the huge amount of money DD brings A&E it seem odd to claim getting rid of Phil will help their revenue.

 

I suppose if they want to claim their brand is anti-whatever the Robertsons believe, then they should cancel the show. I wouldn't agree with that action, but at least I could respect it.

 

But this doesn't seem about branding. It seems more like they are just ticked that GLADD is hassling them and want to give token to shut them up.

 

Does this rule apply to all celebrities? If a celebrity movie actor states an opinion, are people stupid enough to think that means the studio that produced a movie starring the actor must share the views of everyone on their staff?

 

 

I don't mean this rudely, but I'm not sure you're getting it. I worked in media for years. I completely understand that A&E is about profit: pure and simple.

 

A&E is terrified that the gay rights organization -- GLAAD -- will pulverize them. They feel bullied by GLAAD -- and that's why free speech proponents are so concerned. I'm from San Francisco. I know that the gay lobbies are powerful and have every reason to want to push their own interests with strength.

 

They are not cool with some popular old grandpa yakking against gay rights. They won't go for that.

 

A&E is more frightened of the gay lobby than they are of the Christian Conservatives. For now.

 

If the tide turns -- and it appears to be -- A&E will jump behind Phil Robertson. But, at the moment, they're scared of the gay lobby.

 

My point is that the gay lobby is bullying people into shutting their mouths and not talking. That's not right. Bullying people out of their rights isn't okay.

 

Alley

 

 

I don't think it's accurate to assume that  "A&E" and "GLADD" / "the gay lobby" are separate groups with no overlap.  I think it's reasonable to assume that many folks who work in the entertainment industry for/with A&E are either gay themselves or have much-loved gay family members or close friends, (and/or are African-American, etc.) and that therefore they may have taken the comments that Mr. Robertson made rather personally, and not just theoretically.  That is, they may not be responding to lobbying from an outside group, but rather their own sense of the right/appropriate way to address Mr. Robertson's remarks.

 

The GQ article is an interesting read.  The link is here.

[Mrs Mungo]

I think if a network is willing to suspend people for answering honestly in a public way what they think religiously, politically, personally, etc. then it should be stated clearly in the contract what kinds of statements on which issues will result in which actions by the network BEFORE anyone agrees to be on their network. Full disclosure is the moral thing to do. Be up front and honest. After the fact is just playing up controversy for ratings sake and getting people who already agree with you to get all riled up (on both sides.)

They seem like pretty savvy business people. You don't think Willie (who seems to be a large part of the business brains), Phil Robertson and the rest aren't aware that controversy breeds profits?

 

A&E can't really be stupid enough to be surprised that the people on Duck Dynasty hold to those views.

Am I surprised that they hold bigoted views? Not really, but then that also means that I'm stereotyping. You can't really tell by looking what random crazy views people hold.

 

They also can't be so stupid that they're actually surprised that at some point people in a show with high ratings might be asked about their views on religion, politics, etc. That's one thing I hate most about our American culture-thinking a celebrity's point of view on something other than their specialty (acting, singing, etc.) is worth any more than the view of the local cop, doctor, prostitute, bus driver, or drug addict.  It's not. I'm just as irritated and annoyed that groups who agree with me politically and religiously quote celebrities that agree with me. No one with a brain or a life cares what a celebrity has to say about politics or religion!

You certainly don't have to answer. I've seen actors asked about the war in Iraq or other hot button topic and they answered, "nobody cares what I think about that, I'm just an actor!" Or you can flat out decline or you can set interview ground rules up front or you can give an answer that prevaricates OR you can say whatever you please and face the possible consequences.

[Vida Winter]

It will be a win-win all around. Publicity is good, even when it is bad publicity. If A&E actually fires him it will be their loss (how can they fire him? they can't - it would cost them too much). I would love to be a fly on the wall of their boardroom. Kudos to Phil for speaking his mind. This is America - we are supposed to have free speech for every citizen - that is what it means to be American. Free speech is not just for leftists.

[Slartibartfast]

nm

 

[Word Nerd]

A friend posted this on Facebook: http://duckcommander.com/news/robertson-family-offical-statement

 

"We have had a successful working relationship with A&E but, as a family, we cannot imagine the show going forward without our patriarch at the helm. We are in discussions with A&E to see what that means for the future of Duck Dynasty."

[Slartibartfast]

A friend posted this on Facebook: http://duckcommander.com/news/robertson-family-offical-statement

 

"We have had a successful working relationship with A&E but, as a family, we cannot imagine the show going forward without our patriarch at the helm. We are in discussions with A&E to see what that means for the future of Duck Dynasty."

 

I think that makes perfect sense. I would do the same in their situation.

[Slartibartfast]

I'm still confused. Is it something he has said, publicly, or something his ghost writer made up ?

 

Herm...not sure.

[Mergath]

"I am interested in receiving intelligent and insightful social and political commentary. I think I'll go see what a reality TV star has to say," said no one ever.

 

To hear the discussion on this guy, you would think he has vast influence and power. He sounds like a narrow minded guy that was asked a question designed to make him look bad. I believe this reporter fully knew what he was doing. I can't imagine anyone is surprised that this guy actually holds these views, are they?

 

Why is it the reporter's responsibility to make him look good?  I usually assume that people are responsible for not looking like a**holes all by themselves, and if they can't manage it, they should probably shut up.

[LucyStoner]

If anyone is curious as to how a gay married man (and not one married to a woman) can be a Christian, my brother sticks to the words attributed to Jesus.  The words in red.  There is nothing there, good or bad, about gay people.  Nothing.  

[justasque]

 

...I was confused about this:

 

Phil On Growing Up in Pre-Civil-Rights-Era Louisiana

“I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once. Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I’m with the blacks, because we’re white trash. We’re going across the field.... They’re singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, ‘I tell you what: These doggone white people’—not a word!... Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues.â€

Did he say that, or is that from his unauthorised biography ?

 

...

 

I believe it, and the other quotes, are directly from Mr. Robertson, not from the ghost-written bio.  

 

I am younger than Mr. Robertson, and grew up in the North.  It is hard for me to comprehend how someone who grew up in the Jim Crow south "never ... saw the mistreatment of any black person".  Because I've certainly seen it.  

[Slartibartfast]

I believe it, and the other quotes, are directly from Mr. Robertson, not from the ghost-written bio.  

 

I am younger than Mr. Robertson, and grew up in the North.  It is hard for me to comprehend how someone who grew up in the Jim Crow south "never ... saw the mistreatment of any black person".  Because I've certainly seen it.  

 

 

The phrasing in the article is odd following that quote and I think that is where the confusion lies.

 

There is that quote and then 

 

"According to Phil’s autobiography—a ghostwritten book he says he has never read—he spent his days after Tech doing odd jobs and his evenings getting drunk, chasing tail, and swallowing diet pills and black mollies, a form of medicinal speed."

 

But I don't believe that is intended to imply that the quote comes from the book.

 

 

[Cricket]

He made comments that reduced love to sex.

But isn't the nature of homosexual love *sexual*? As a woman, I prefer the companionship of women rather than men. I can love my female friends without being a lesbian. The difference is I don't love them in a romantic, sexual way. What makes people homosexual is that they are *sexually* attracted to the same sex. I guess I don't understand what you mean?

[justasque]

The phrasing in the article is odd following that quote and I think that is where the confusion lies.

 

There is that quote and then 

 

"According to Phil’s autobiography—a ghostwritten book he says he has never read—he spent his days after Tech doing odd jobs and his evenings getting drunk, chasing tail, and swallowing diet pills and black mollies, a form of medicinal speed."

 

But I don't believe that is intended to imply that the quote comes from the book.

 

 

I agree.  That's how I read it also.  And the text near the other boxed quotes doesn't mention the biography.

 

(And it's not ideal, from a branding point of view, to have him publicly saying he hasn't even read what purports to be his own autobiography - not a biography, mind you, but an autobiography.)

[albeto.]

What makes people homosexual is that they are *sexually* attracted to the same sex.

 

Only according to heterosexual people.

[albeto.]

Uh-huh. Cause those gays are just all about LUST not LOVE like us normal people.

 

Speak for yourself, woman!

 

:drool5:

[Word Nerd]

Only according to heterosexual people.

And Merriam-Webster.

[LucyStoner]

But isn't the nature of homosexual love *sexual*? As a woman, I prefer the companionship of women rather than men. I can love my female friends without being a lesbian. The difference is I don't love them in a romantic, sexual way. What makes people homosexual is that they are *sexually* attracted to the same sex. I guess I don't understand what you mean?

 

Is being  heterosexual just about sex?  My brother's marriage (in so far as a sibling should ever even know about their brother's sex life!) is no more or less sexual than my own.  He is in a same sex marriage and I am in a heterosexual marriage.  We each have kids, hopes and dreams, grocery lists and whatnot.  

 

 If we took the sex out of a straight marriage is it really just a friendship or companionship like any other friend?  For most, generally not.  My husband is more to me than what he is between the sheets.  My brother has that same bond and affection with his husband, they are not merely friends who share a bed.  

[Jenny in Florida]

If anyone is curious as to how a gay married man (and not one married to a woman) can be a Christian, my brother sticks to the words attributed to Jesus.  The words in red.  There is nothing there, good or bad, about gay people.  Nothing.  

 

There's a quote circulating on Facebook that pretty much sums up why I was attracted to Christianity for a while:

 

Jesus was a radical, nonviolent revolutionary who hung around with lepers, hookers and crooks; wasn't American and never spoke English; was anti-wealth, anti-death penalty, anti-public prayer (M 6:5); but was never anti-gay, never mentioned abortion or birth control, never called the poor lazy, never justified torture, never fought for tax cuts for the wealthiest Nazarenes, never asked a leper for a co-pay and was a long-haired brown-skinned homeless community organizing anti-slut-shaming middle Eastern Jew.

 

The quote is attributed to someone named John Fugelslang, who is apparently a comedian. I've never heard of him before (and I am not entirely happy with the way the quote above is punctuated), but these words grabbed my attention.

 

Jesus is actually on my list of historical figures I'd like to meet, if I had a magic time machine and universal translator, at least in part because I'd love to know how he feels about the religions that have been built in his name.

 

On the specific subject of same-sex relationships and marriage, I recommend a little book called "God Believes in Love: Straight Talk About Gay Marriage," written by Gene Robinson, former bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of New Hampshire. It would, I think, be impossible to read Robinson's book and walk away thinking that being opposed to same-sex marriage is always a part of the Christian belief system.

[LucyStoner]

And Merriam-Webster.

 

I can't say that the dictionary definition of "heterosexual" fully captures the awesomeness of my loving marriage.  

[Jenny in Florida]

 

 

Maybe we all need to remember that here in this WTM community there are gay moms, mothers and sisters of gay and lesbian teens and young adults.

 

You really think it's OK to carry on about 'disgusting' gays choosing to sin ?

 

Yes, there are some folks who really do think it's okay. After all, it's not personal, not really "hateful.' They are simply expressing their own beliefs. They still love the sinner and all of that. They just wouldn't want to be friends with any of "those people."

 

But, no offense meant  . . .

[Slartibartfast]

But isn't the nature of homosexual love *sexual*? As a woman, I prefer the companionship of women rather than men. I can love my female friends without being a lesbian. The difference is I don't love them in a romantic, sexual way. What makes people homosexual is that they are *sexually* attracted to the same sex. I guess I don't understand what you mean?

 

But don't you love your partner outside of sex?

 

If some sort of horrible accident occurred and we could not be intimate I would still care about my husband.

[AlmiraGulch]

But isn't the nature of homosexual love *sexual*? As a woman, I prefer the companionship of women rather than men. I can love my female friends without being a lesbian. The difference is I don't love them in a romantic, sexual way. What makes people homosexual is that they are *sexually* attracted to the same sex. I guess I don't understand what you mean?

 

I love my husband.  It's about sex, but it's also about romance and trust and respect and lifelong companionship.  Sex is one component, but certainly not all of it.  Just as there is more to my own marriage than sex, there is more to every homosexual relationship than just sex. 

[I.Dup.]

what makes someone gay then, if it isn't sexual attraction that is the defining factor?

 

I don't think Phil was trying to be a jerk. I think he's just a simple-minded, down-home guy who speaks what he thinks. I don't think he has any clue how he comes across in today's society, not that he would care all that much, but I don't think he meant to hurt anyone. He just simply cannot fathom how anyone would want to have gay sex, lol.

[LucyStoner]

But don't you love your partner outside of sex?

 

If some sort of horrible accident occurred and we could not be intimate I would still care about my husband.

 

Exactly, my marriage will go on even if one or both of us becomes unable to, in WTM parlance, brew teA.  

[mommymilkies]

It will be a win-win all around. Publicity is good, even when it is bad publicity. If A&E actually fires him it will be their loss (how can they fire him? they can't - it would cost them too much). I would love to be a fly on the wall of their boardroom. Kudos to Phil for speaking his mind. This is America - we are supposed to have free speech for every citizen - that is what it means to be American. Free speech is not just for leftists.

Ah, yes. I forgot about the vast liberal leftist conspiracy that keeps anyone to the right of the spectrum from ever having an opinion.

[AlmiraGulch]

But don't you love your partner outside of sex?

 

If some sort of horrible accident occurred and we could not be intimate I would still care about my husband.

 

Right.  And in a way that you could not equate to the way you love your female friends.  It's still romantic love.  That's the part people are not getting.  

[Mergath]

what makes someone gay then, if it isn't sexual attraction that is the defining factor?

 

I don't think Phil was trying to be a jerk. I think he's just a simple-minded, down-home guy who speaks what he thinks. I don't think he has any clue how he comes across in today's society, not that he would care all that much, but I don't think he meant to hurt anyone. He just simply cannot fathom how anyone would want to have gay sex, lol.

 

You really can't look at your own relationships and figure that out?

[Slartibartfast]

Ah, yes. I forgot about the vast liberal leftist conspiracy that keeps anyone to the right of the spectrum from ever having an opinion.

 

 

If that was true then Sarah Palin would still be in Alaska. :lol:

[I.Dup.]

I love my husband.  It's about sex, but it's also about romance and trust and respect and lifelong companionship.  Sex is one component, but certainly not all of it.  Just as there is more to my own marriage than sex, there is more to every homosexual relationship than just sex. 

 

but earlier, you said this:

 

The lie of pretending to sexually desire your spouse when really you're just going through the motions.  In my opinion, sex is a huge part of a marriage.  It should be more than just the physical act.  If I weren't genuinely attracted to my husband, (at a cellular level, I mean, and not just at that moment), I think my entire marriage would be a lie.

 

 

I cannot imagine a marriage where people feel that way about each other all the time, or even most of the time. I cannot think of one couple I know who has been together for 20+ years who radiates sexual energy like you are describing. *shrug*

[I.Dup.]

You really can't look at your own relationships and figure that out?

 

 

I'm really asking. Why are you being vague?

[Mergath]

Ah, yes. I forgot about the vast liberal leftist conspiracy that keeps anyone to the right of the spectrum from ever having an opinion.

 

With all these conspiracies we're all apparently keeping up, it's a miracle we have time for anything else. ;)

[LucyStoner]

what makes someone gay then, if it isn't sexual attraction that is the defining factor?

 

 

what makes someone straight then, if it isn't sexual attraction that is the defining factor?

 

Love.  Care.  Devotion.  Connection that goes beyond just the physical body.  You know, that new fangled invention of romantic love and marrying for romantic love.  

 

 

[NicAnn]

what makes someone gay then, if it isn't sexual attraction that is the defining factor?

I guess I don't know either. Because my BFF now considers herself a lesbian, which is a change from identifying as asexual most of her adult life. She is in a friendship only marriage with her husband (a man) who also identifies as asexual. Both of them would consider the sexual attraction they feel for the same sex as what defines them as gay. Obviously, they don't speak for the gay community as whole, but it does show that it's the defining factor for them.

[Mergath]

I'm really asking. Why are you being vague?

 

Because people have answered this half a dozen times now.  And it's not "vague" to try to understand gay people in the context of your own romantic relationships.

[I.Dup.]

what makes someone straight then, if it isn't sexual attraction that is the defining factor?

 

 

I thought that was the defining factor of identifying either "gay" or "straight?"

 

Love, care, devotion are necessary in any intimate relationship, I don't see how that separates gay vs. straight at all.

[I.Dup.]

Because people have answered this half a dozen times now.  And it's not "vague" to try to understand gay people in the context of your own romantic relationships.

 

My apologies, I'm sure you're right, I've skipped around and haven't read anything near to all of the comments.

 

But okay.

[AlmiraGulch]

what makes someone gay then, if it isn't sexual attraction that is the defining factor?

 

I don't think Phil was trying to be a jerk. I think he's just a simple-minded, down-home guy who speaks what he thinks. I don't think he has any clue how he comes across in today's society, not that he would care all that much, but I don't think he meant to hurt anyone. He just simply cannot fathom how anyone would want to have gay sex, lol.

 

I disagree with your assessment of Phil.  He has a Master's degree in education, of all things, and is at the helm of a self-made, multi-million dollar corporation.  He is anything but simple-minded.  He believes what he believes and puts forth that "I'm just a simple, down-home guy" persona because a) it's easy to hide behind, and b) it appeals to his target audience.

 

I do believe that he cannot fathom how anyone would want to have gay sex.  Big deal.  I don't want to have gay sex, either.  I imagine that my gay friends cannot fathom anyone wanting to have heterosexual sex.  

[Cricket]

what makes someone straight then, if it isn't sexual attraction that is the defining factor?

 

Love. Care. Devotion. Connection that goes beyond just the physical body. You know that new fangled invention of romantic love and marrying for romantic love.

I know people who have love, care and devotion, relationships with people of the same gender and do not identify as gay because sexual attraction is not and never has been involved. They are sexually attracted to members of the opposite sex but for whatever reason have not been involved in romantic relationships.

[LucyStoner]

I thought that was the defining factor of identifying either "gay" or "straight?"

 

Love, care, devotion are necessary in any intimate relationship, I don't see how that separates gay vs. straight at all.

 

Exactly.  Gay and straight people aren't really all that different from one another.  They are the same except for one small, piddly little difference.  The sex of the person they are able to fall into romantic love with.  

 

And while I love and care for my friends, it's a mere shadow of the fierce love and dedication I have to my husband.  Wanting to have sex with a man is not, for me, all that being heterosexual is about in an era that accepts romantic love.  My marriage exceeds the connection of a friendship, by a huge factor.  

[Joanne]

I'm really asking. Why are you being vague?

 

Because who you are attracted to isn't about their penis or vagina.

 

Who you are attracted to isn't exclusively about sex. But that tends to be what religious-backed folks talk about and focus on when discussing the issue. They talk about "nature's design" and "procreation" and, as evidenced by Phil, the parts.

 

But that is not attraction.

Frankly, I think junk of both genders are oddly shapped and designed and I am not a fan of Nature's efficent multipurpose design in that regard.

 

But, whatever. It's all I have to work with.

[Scarlett]

OK, cased closed then. Happy blacks and disgusting gays.

 

People here really want to align themselves with that ?

 

Maybe we all need to remember that here in this WTM community there are gay moms, mothers and sisters of gay and lesbian teens and young adults.

 

You really think it's OK to carry on about 'disgusting' gays choosing to sin ?

 

Shame.

I for one never said 'disgusting gays'. I don't recall anyone else using those words either. Not even the DD guy. And further I have never watched the show much less claim to align myself with them. Seems few people in this thread watch the show.

 

I have had my words twisted repeatedly in this thread and I feel like there is a lot of mockery going on toward anyone who believes the practice of homosexuality is wrong. Feels very much like being bullied except I am not in 7th grade so I think I will just go to bed now.

[LucyStoner]

I know people who have love, care and devotion, relationships with people of the same gender and do not identify as gay because sexual attraction is not and never has been involved. They are sexually attracted to members of the opposite sex but for whatever reason have not been involved in romantic relationships.

 

That is bully for them.  But most people fall in love with the people they want to roll in the hay with, no?  In our culture and era?  I see nothing wrong with your friends who do not, but is it that hard to see that when a gay person wants to get married, it isn't just because they have sex with that person?  That it just might be for the same reasons you wanted to get married (excuse me if you are not married, rhetorical flourish alert)?

[Dory]

Exactly.  Gay and straight people aren't really all that different from one another.  They are the same except for one small, piddly little difference.  The sex of the person they are able to fall into romantic love with.  

 

And while I love and care for my friends, it's a mere shadow of the fierce love and dedication I have to my husband.  Wanting to have sex with a man is not, for me, all that being heterosexual is about in an era that accepts romantic love.  My marriage exceeds the connection of a friendship, by a huge factor.  

 

I think that's what she was asking. The differences might be a "small, piddly little difference", but the sexual attraction is still what makes the difference between gay and straight by most peoples definition. The relationship beyond that is going to differ from person to person regardless of them being straight or gay.

 

Now for someone like me, that actually finds women much more attractive, and yet has chosen to marry a man, and call myself heterosexual, that definition wouldn't work so well.

[NicAnn]

I for one never said 'disgusting gays'. I don't recall anyone else using those words either. Not even the DD guy. And further I have never watched the show much less claim to align myself with them. Seems few people in this thread watch the show.

 

I have had my words twisted repeatedly in this thread and I feel like there is a lot of mockery going on toward anyone who believes the practice of homosexuality is wrong. Feels very much like being bullied except I am not in 7th grade so I think I will just go to bed now.

Scarlett, as usual, you are a good example of grace. I've never seen you get ugly and I appreciate that. Have a good night!

[I.Dup.]

Because who you are attracted to isn't about their penis or vagina.

 

Who you are attracted to isn't exclusively about sex. But that tends to be what religious-backed folks talk about and focus on when discussing the issue. They talk about "nature's design" and "procreation" and, as evidenced by Phil, the parts.

 

But that is not attraction.

Frankly, I think junk of both genders are oddly shapped and designed and I am not a fan of Nature's efficent multipurpose design in that regard.

 

But, whatever. It's all I have to work with.

 

Agreed. Honestly, if it weren't for the "ick" factor I could be bisexual, I think. Except for me being Catholic and that being wrong. :/ I can feel "attraction" toward either gender, I could cuddle/be intimate with either gender, it's the sexual organs where I identify myself as straight. So I dunno.