English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

As if every one of us walks around flaunting our promiscuity.

I think I've seen and know about the same amount of homosexuals in serious loving relationships as heterosexuals. Well, I mean after the ratio is taken into consideration, so more like an average.

But this generalization seems to me incredibly hypocritical. How can they justify it, what are they using to back it up?

2007-08-24 17:33:56 · 4 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture Cultures & Groups Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender

I know, but I want to know what small minded ignorance they use.

2007-08-24 17:41:39 · update #1

Garret recheck your definition of rake. A rake is a man who is extremely promiscuous, who wastes all his money, and has multiple one-night stands. Typically, the word is used more to connotate someone from the 17th or 18th centuries, but it can be used in modern-times to describe extreme promiscuity.

2007-08-24 18:31:33 · update #2

4 answers

They can't back it up. It's uncommon, so it stands out. But if they were honest, they would take a look around and see sexuality being flaunted everywhere - by heterosexuals. Our culture is steeped in it.

Their only justification may be in Pride parades, where men do parade around in leather butt-less chaps and thongs, that kind of thing. But rank-and-file, day-to-day behavior - we're no worse than they are.

2007-08-25 06:20:36 · answer #1 · answered by Clint 7 · 0 0

Maybe I'm just too naive to know if there is a negative connotation with calling someone a rake but...

If someone called me a rake trying to be insulting, I'd probably laugh really hard and say that they need to pick something other than a garden tool...

EDIT: Hm, I apologize then. Ignorance certainly is bliss if it means all that...there's nothing to do but ignore them though.

2007-08-25 01:20:55 · answer #2 · answered by The Smile Man 6 · 3 0

It's the male version of "hoe" and it's probably being used by someone who's still in high school having identity issues.

2007-08-25 10:48:53 · answer #3 · answered by Ama29 for Da Ben Dan 1 · 0 0

They can't justify it, Enough said. They back it up with small minds and ignorance.

2007-08-25 00:40:26 · answer #4 · answered by ? 3 · 1 0

fedest.com, questions and answers