Queerness sex.

Now really- Would you rather be stuck on a deserted island with a kinky man or a vanilla lesbian??

last modified Aug 12, 2002 at 14:52

[ add a comment ]

My ripe virgin arse, that's the sum of the question!
Are you a college kid or a sage?
If so what's the diff?
Would you understand the definition either way?

kinky kinky kinky.

37873 | posted by AussieAri on August 19, 2002 at 15:13

oh. and here i was, actually thinking in terms of depth and understanding - and the question/answer was off in terms of shallow lusty physical sex.
perhaps. i guess it depends on the person, ie - what did that lady mean when she said "good sex"? Was it good sex like college kids define good sex, or was it good sex like a sage would define good sex?

37632 | posted by Amata on August 17, 2002 at 7:35

The point though- is that either may not be your object d'affection but what you end up with by choice, default or pretense. Thus the ponderous question in which you must decipher WHY you'd chose one of the other.

It all came about really as i was reading Dan Savage's regular 'Savage Love' column. He asked why the title of 'Dyke' was so hard to keep when he considered all the women he know that had identified at one time (or for long times) as lesbian and gone on to be with men in various ways. One lady answered that for her the question of expressed sexuality was simply about the act of good sex, and QUEER sex at that, either way.

37497 | posted by AussieAri on August 16, 2002 at 0:20

*cough*
can i weigh in with some words of wisdom?
i've been stuck in the modern equivalent of a deserted island - Dallas- with a kinky guy *and* with a "vanilla" lesbian. At the time i was "stuck" with the guy, i considered myself straight; at the time i was "stuck" with the girl, i considered myself gay - thus, either way, each time i was interacting with an object d'affection.
To answer a couple points raised by other commenters -
no, a 'kinky guy' is not always lookin' for lustin'. but, yes, when a 'kinky guy' gets to it, the it that he gets to is ... kinky.
yes, the idea of 'corrupting' is pathetic - ditch it stoica1117, before you learn the hard way what love and sex can be about - especially if you play it "vanilla"
Ari, honey, Goddess bless you. I miss the heck out of you - can you come back to the island sometime and play tic-tac-toe in the sand?

and, finally, the real answer to this question is "there is no real answer to that question."

37471 | posted by Amata on August 15, 2002 at 18:33

Well we must assume that these are as they appear- sums of two people's sexualities and that is that for this question. A kinky guy isn't always going to be looking to bugger and a vanilla lesbian isn't always going to be looking for her sugar.

37437 | posted by AussieAri on August 15, 2002 at 14:46

Now she's Vanilla AND a flake! And what of the kinky guy? Is he really deep and otherwise interesting? If so, I'd rather spend my time with the guy. Well. Egh. I dunno. Pregnant on a desert island doesn't sound so good, either. Perhaps I'll stay with the Vanilla chick, sit around and have long conversations (if possible) and play tic-tac-toe in the sand.

37320 | posted by stoica1117 on August 14, 2002 at 15:12

And assumming you could not corrupt the Vanilla flake or (make innocent) the kinky guy?

37208 | posted by AussieAri on August 13, 2002 at 14:23

I like the company of women better. Even if I'd never have a chance, I'd rather spend my time with a woman I could at least admire the shape of than a man. Especially if the man were kinky and therefore probably either perenially horny, intent on recounting all his conquests, or both. I realize the question wasn't directed towards those of my persuasion, of course, but hell, I'll answer anyway.

37159 | posted by Martin on August 12, 2002 at 20:38

Certainly the Vanilla Girl, because one can always corrupt the milder flavors. Heh-heh.

37156 | posted by stoica1117 on August 12, 2002 at 19:26