this is another letter of complaint from my website of (homo)sexual assault that is
WWW.JAGGEDLITTLEDYL.COM and WWW.ANTI-GAY.COM
"When I'm hungry, I eat. When I'm thirsty, I drink. When I feel like saying something, I say it." - Madonna
back to the menu
dear sir or vagina:



as a nation, i think we should stop referring to sex as "fun".

as stated on the website masculivoids.com, people who have sex with men are masculivoids who are curious enough of the masculine gender to want to do a "touchy-feely" kind of experimentation in order to become experienced. anyone who is so out-of-touch with a specific gender shouldn't be made to believe that it's all a matter of "fun". the cause of sexual curiosity is a matter of gender-naivete; you can't get a sense of fun just by stripping a man naked - a naked man is only a fun "discovery zone" to those who have not fully discovered masculinity. now, i can understand the reasons why gender-naivete is not regarded as naivete but as "fun". i understand how it's important to maintain peoples' self-esteem by not calling them naive or stupid, but i don't believe that making people believe lies is the right way to do it. gay people are clueless of their own gender, homosexuality does reek of a certain self-ignorance and self-naivete, but i don't think that psychological gender-dysfunction should be regarded as "fun" when it's really a mark of blindness.

as a nation, i thihk we should stop referring to sex as "fun". i can tell you that, as a gay "man," i may feel excitement when a real man is near me and removing what covers his strong and manly body...but the fact that i am excited to discover masculinity (both physically dis-covering with a removal of clothing, and mentally/emotionally discovering with an enlightenment of mind) is apt to slap me in the face. this is not fun. gawking at and therefore praising a perfect specimen of manhood just leaves me feeling like a small masculine slight with the word "masculivoid" written in scarlet lettering across my forehead. whether or not any other gay "men" acknowledge this "masculivoid" type of feeling shouldn't matter, because anyone who is both masculine and sexually attracted to masculinity cannot think of himself as legitimately masculine if he is not sexually attracted to himself. whether he FEELS like a small masculine slight or not makes no difference. anyone who is both masculine and sexually attracted to masculinity would have to at least subconsciously think of himself as a masculivoid of sorts if he is not sexually attracted to himself. nobody is sexually attracted to themselves, this is why homosexuality is a self-image problem. a self-image problem that is being marketed as "cool" and "genetic".

"and he said to her, right in front of me, 'what does he have that i don't have'...and she said 'two hotels'". this line from "dirty dancing" relates to what i ask my penis when it's confronted by perfect specimens of manhood like football-greats matt muchnok and tim tebow. i ask my penis this question: "why do you grow when i look at them and you don't seem impressed at the sight of me". in my heart-of-hearts, i know that the answer is because i don't feel that i possess physical manliness like that of matthew muchnok and tim tebow...and that's why i regard these football greats as supermen. this is why homosexuality is a self-image problem, a gender-identity issue. not just for me, but for every man who is more attracted to other men than he is to himself.

this point is exemplified by a memory of a schoolboy who said, "i love girls so much that if i was a girl, i'd be a lesbian".

like homosexuality, heterosexuality is a gender-identity issue - a little more easily understood with the words "opposites attract"...but "opposites" is what you feel inside about yourself, it's not strictly male/female on the outside. that is a quote, actually, taken from one of the screenplays i have written and posted online at my website of (homo)sexual assault, www.anti-gay.com. the fact remains, though,that if one can honestly sing "man! i feel like a woman" then one has the gender-identity of a female and would therefore not be sexually attracted to the lesser gender because there would be nothing about females that would warrant a curiosity of the mind. enter chastity bono, who conformed her body to her state of mind (her gender-identity). her mind told her that her body was of the wrong gender, so instead of working to accept herself and to accept reality, she embraced her hatred of the reality of herself and had a man's body fabricated and assembled onto her. opposites attract...but "opposites" is what you feel inside about yourself, it's not strictly male/female on the outside.

i know what it feels like to revere the masculine body as if it's some kind of taboo opposite, i know the power that manly bodies hold over me, and i know that i am not overtaken with the same reverence when i look at myself in the mirror. i will state again that we should not be embracing anyone's gender-identity issues with the word "fun," as if to suggest that these issues are nothing to be taken seriously. madonna said "it's just something that we do," but there's so much more to it when you take her late-1990 hit entitled "justify my love" and apply it to "it's just something that we do". it's not "just something that we do" when the reasons for doing it are justified. it's not just something that two people do if gender dictates whether one person would "do something" with another person. or get any psychological pleasure from it.

i think it's time to start calling a spade a spade, a negro a negro, and a gender-identity issue a gender-identity issue. i think it's time to start knowing ourselves and justifying ourselves, instead of exclaiming the ever-simplistic panacea of "eureka, i was born this way".

girls are BORN WITH bodies which are physically the lesser bodies when compared with boys' bodies. girls' lesser appetites and lesser heights, paired with their broadening hips (no broadening shoulders), are only proof of there being a lesser gender. lesser heights/weights/widths certainly cannot justify femininity as the greater gender. females are born physically lesser; men are bigger and taller and stronger because they were born with "the right stuff" to turn out that way. anatomies are physical, people are born with a human anatomy.

people are born with a brain - a clean slate - nobody is born with thoughts and opinions already formed in that brain. people develop opinions and knowledge of things through experience. robots may be able to " feel," or at least show signs of having feelings, but they were programmed to "feel" and they were born with "artificial intelligence" that was put into their brains by humans. whether gay or straight, people are not pre-programmed robots with thoughts and opinions already formed in their brains. i was not born with a sexual attraction to big and strong football players - one could make the case that genetics made me go through childhood as a skinny and weak slight of masculinity, but the jealousy i felt towards "real men" wouldn't come into my life until i knew what "real men" had over me - why "real men" were better than me. men were big and strong, i was little and weak, i was a small masculine slight, there was nothing genetic about the masculine insufficience that i felt. self-image is not genetic, one acquires self-image through living life.

though it is a justifiable fact that masculinity is a mark of the bigger and stronger gender, i was not born with this knowledge. i wasn't born knowing anything about men, i had to experience men enough to warrant an attraction to them. likewise, i had to experience the lesser gender enough to know which gender peaked my curiosity enough to warrant an attraction. for crying out loud, i had to experience both genders to know if ANY gender was mysterious enough to warrant an attraction.

"fun" is a feeling one gets through an experience. "how do you know you don't like it if you've never tried it" also points to experiencing things. though many people, straight and gay, have not "tried" the gender that does not excite them, they already know that they don't like it because - well, i didn't have to "try" the masculine gender before i knew i liked it...but how did i know i'd like it if i'd never tried it? how do you know you're gay if you've never tried it? how do you know you're not straight if you've never tried being straight? the whole concept of "how do you know you don't like it if you've never tried it" when it's relating to sex, well, it's just a stupid argument spoken by simpletons with something to prove or with an agenda to legitimize.

"how do you know you don't like it if you've never tried it," well, this is quite a simple-minded thing to say. with such a philosophy, people would be in college for four years...just to decide on a major. how do you know you don't want to major in history if you've never done it? you may have been exposed to calculus, but how do you know you don't want to immerse yourself in it if you've never been immersed? you may have been exposed to girls, but how do you know you don't want to immerse yourself in femininity if you've never been immersed in a harem of whores?

people who are in-touch with themselves and who know themselves don't need to try different lifestyles (or majors) in order to determine which suits them best. "how do you know you don't like it if you've never tried it," it's like people who say this are expecting a "EUREKA!" moment and a switch to a gay lifestyle in the life of a straight man. "EUREKA, i was BORN this way, my concept of FUN was as predetermined as the color of my eyes".

again, FUN should not be used to describe activities done by anyone who's blind enough (with regards to either gender) to want to discover (both physically and emotionally) that gender. DUMB kind of rhymes with FUN, and NAIVE is somewhat synonymous with DUMB. people who celebrate the enlightenment given to them by naked bodies (and who take pride in sexual experiences) are quite naive and sheltered - living with a plethora of question marks over their heads, be them rainbow-colored marks or a straight black-and-white set of questionings.

actually, the rainbow question marks reveal a lack of self-knowledge and self-acceptance, and therefore make gay people a little less in-touch with reality - given that body parts which they should regard as commonplace get their mouths gaping open in astonishment.

thank you,
dylan terreri, i
sheldon cooper, ii
--------------------------
"When I'm hungry, I eat. When I'm thirsty, I drink. When I feel like saying something, I say it." - Madonna
www.jaggedlittledyl.com/essays

check out my site, www.jaggedlittledyl.com , unless you're there now