Gay vs. Asexual

In the beginning of college, there was a club called "LGBT" which evolved until "LGBTA" meaning Lesbians, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender" and then "Asexual" was added.  I thought nothing of it at the time, but now I'm beginning to realize that it is true, even the LGBT don't seem to allow the asexuals amongst them.

I've been an asexual since 2005.  Since that time, I've constantly had to defend the position from everyone I know.  The thing that pops up most often is "You can't be heterosexual then become asexual" and various derivations of once finding women attractive (absurdly some examples come before 2005) and previously doing things sexual in nature with a girl.  The first point is easy, many people have tried to be heterosexuals before realizing they're not.  But it's more acceptable for LGBT than it is for asexuals, I argue in my book that sexual preference is exactly that, a chosen preference on what you prefer more.  The most absurd comment of all "You masturbate therefore you're not asexual"  In biology (where the term sort of comes from) an asexual organism is one that reproduces with itself.  The fact I masturbate, should be the most easily of the concepts to grasp given the primary defintion of the word.  Yet, constantly I hear this as an argument against, and I believe those people to be retarded. 

Now for the ranting part.  I'm going to substitute "gays" for LGB.  Since I don't know any transgenders, I can't fairly include them.  When gays come out, there is an automatic acceptance pretty much from all with the exception of their parents or religious leaders.  They extremely rarely, if not never, have to deal with people saying "You're not gay because you found a member of the opposite sex attractive one time"  or "You hooked up with a member of the opposite sex, so you can't be gay."  I've seen people be married to a member of the opposite sex, than come out, and nobody bats in eye.  A man can fuck hundreds of women and come out without any doubt from other people.  Suddenly their past is irrelevant.  But when an asexual does it, they are immediately questioned.  It is something they must maintain because if they ever admit a girl or a guy is attractive, automatically they lose their "Asexual" card.  Society has not accepted asexuals as they have gays and that is probably the reason that asexuals are the ones who actually suffer what gays pretend to suffer from.  I don't care what's said behind their backs, to their faces, almost everyone is nice and accepting.  To my face, I have to constanly defend my position and get attacked because they can name a time when I either found a woman attractive or I had a crush/hooked up with a girl.  I don't have any desire to have any sexual relations with either man or woman.  That is my definition of asexuality and that is extremely accurate, I don't find it hypocritical if I find someone attractive because I don't have the next though process of "I want to do things sexual in nature with them" it stops at "I think they're attractive."

I am not of what I call "the sophomore" mentality.  In that, I do not believe people are justified in discrimination just because they have been discriminated against.  I call it the "Sophomore" mentality, because in high school, it is normally sophomores who are are the meanest to freshman because, as they try to justify it, "I was harrassed for a year, so now I can harrass people."  Therefore, I do not give a rat's ass what someone's sexual preference is.  When people come out to me, I have no reaction.  I'm so non-reactive that I often do not realize that the person believes this is something we need to continue to talk about or needs reassurance.  I judge people on what type of person they are, which has absolutely nothing to do with your sexual preference.   I react the same way to someone telling me they're gay,than if they said that have dark brown hair and dye it black.  It never crosses my mind to discredit them because I may know they have had previous relations with a member of the opposite sex or have found members of the opposite sex attractive.  I don't think it's too much to ask for the same courtesy to be shown to me!

Copies of my book can be bought at the bottom of this page

Money is funny

One of my closest friends constantly says, "money isn't funny."  What she means is that money is extremely important to her.  I know that in this blog I try to offer non-cliche or standards of thinking but I will break from that today.  For money is funny, in that it really is overvalued by people. 

I grew up well-off.  I was never want for money, on seldom occassions my parents would say no if I wanted something but it was never unfairly done.  Unlike most rich kids, however, I never really wanted extravagent things.  Whereas my siblings craved fine things, I always had a notion to buy what I needed, things that serve a purpose, nothing more, nothing less.  Now that I work for myself and haven't asked my parents for a dime in years, I realized I didn't have to change much of my lifestyle.  Many kids growing up always dreamed of being rich and famous.  What I would always say is, "I want to make enough money so that I don't have to worry about money."  Which I have achieved.

Now for why this came up.  Someone I know has alienated almost all his friends and family because he was an entrepreneur and convinced them that his ideas for this business or that business would work.  When raising money, it is natural to go to friends and family first, so I see nothing wrong with it.  His ideas didn't pan out the way he'd hope and he couldn't give them the return of investment that they would like.  So, his friends and family got really mad at him and alienated him.  It never made any sense to me...you made a risky investment, as all investments into start up companies are.  The risky investment didn't pay off, it happens,  but that is the nature of the beast.  If any investment was a sure thing, I'd give all I had into it.  I'm not sure where the anger comes in.  If you can't handle losses, don't invest, especially in something as risky as start ups.  Now, it can be said, "Well it's easy for you to say because you didn't give him any money."

To answer that, I tried it.  One of my friends had a very risky idea.  I saw nothing wrong with it except for her best friend, who probably has more disposable income than I make in a year, refused to invest in her idea. I calculated how much money I could risk so that if I lost it, I wouldn't be too hurt, and set that aside.  I gave her a little bit to see how she did....it paid off pretty well, so I gave her the rest.  This seems like a classic scam, and in the back of my mind I saw it as such.  It relied on trust, something I don't do.   As soon as she received the rest of it, suddenly her performance took a turn for the worst.  I now have no faith that I will see my money returned.  It follows all the classic tales of a scam, but the odd thing is, I don't feel any sense of anger.  I knew it was a risky investment, the details of the loss are irrelevant....if she scammed, me, she scammed me, if not, and she really failed in her idea, then that's fine too.  The result is the same, I will not see the money again.  She didn't steal the money, I gave it to her. 

I guess what I was really paying for wasn't a gamble to see if I could make some money, but it was paying to see if I had a loyal friend.  If the answer was yes, then that's worth more than any amount of money could ever be.  If the answer is no, that is also information more valuable than the money I lent.  Either way, it doesn't affect my opinion of her, nor does it affect the friendship on my end.  After all, ending a friendship over money, is grossly overvaluing money.  Friendships should never end over something as insignificant as money; after all, money is funny. 

the link to buy a copy of my book can be bought at the bottom of this page

Is isolating yourself disrespectful?

I've always been someone that prided himself on always being themselves.  If people don't like me for me, then I want nothing to do with them just how they don't want anything to do with me, so we're good. But what if there is one thing different about your personality that offsets people.  Can you make any concessions?

To be more specific, I do not like being in large groups of people.  It's not something I'm comfortable with regardless of who the people are. I just spent Christmas with my first cousin once removed and his family.  Since they usually assume I'm returning to Cleveland for the holidays to spend with my immediate family, their invitations normally come late.  This one on December 22...prior to that date, I planned on being alone in my apartment watching the NBA.  Most people consider this sad, in fact two other people invited me to their Christmas parties because they felt bad, but I turned them both down.  I would have been content watching the NBA alone for Christmas but with my extended family, I can watch the NBA and hang out with people I truly enjoy spending time with, so I agreed. 

To be clear, I love hanging out with them as I have watched my second cousins grow up and have gotten closer and closer with them.  I went over to their house while they hosted Christmas.  I was social and hung out with them but then I reached a point in the night where I just wanted to be by myself.  This happens almost every time I'm in a group of people.  A lot of times it gets me into trouble.  I have another first cousin once removed who refuses to invite me to parties she hosts because I do this.  What I realized this time, is that Arty, my first cousin once removed, and his family has always respected my privacy when I do this.  Normally I wait until everyone is occupied than I slip into an area where nobody is and just stay by myself.  This time, my cousin was asking me to play pool, and I looked at him and said, "Honestly, no, I just want to watch basketball" I had already played a lot of games throughout the night so saying I don't like playing pool would not have been believable.  He said, "That's all you needed to say" he put the stick down and left the room.  I found this odd, because I thought naturally he'd just ask someone else to play, but he and his brothers walked out of the room.  It was as if they knew I had hit a moment where I wanted to be myself.  As I watched the Lakers/Chicago game, Arty came in and asked me if I was okay or just chilling.  I said I was just chilling and he left it at that. 

At halftime of the game, after about 45 minutes of being alone, I rejoined the party and carried on without a hitch.  Now, I know how I am when I'm in an uncomfortable environment, I lash out and before I say things, I ask myself if there is a more offensive way to say it and that's what I'll go with.  This alone time stops me from doing this.  As I reflect on this, I wonder why others don't have the reaction that Arty did.  What is so disrespectful if a guest just wants to be alone for a little while?  Why am I banned from houses for doing this?  This doesn't go only for parties, I want to live alone, my roommate now is offended by that becuase he craves people. I'm more of an introvert, I don't like big groups of people....why is it so hard for people to just leave you alone?  It hasn't affected my relationship with Arty or his family, and he's not like that at all.  He loves groups of people, hosting and public speaking....yet even though it's not a trait he possesses, he understands my needs.  But even if you don't understand it, why would you be offended by it?  So no, I don't think you should ever make concessions, If you need to do something for your own sanity, you should do it.  If the people you think care about you truly care about you, they'll understand. 

Hating Christians

I do not understand why people hate Christians who wear their religion on their sleeves.  I believe in God, but I'm not extremely religious nor do I wear it on my sleeve.  And yet, when I see so much animosity toward people like Tim Tebow for loving God, I question why? 

Whenever I say this, people bring up the crusades....okay, that was hundreds of years ago in a time where people basically killed each other all the time for little to no reason...especially if you were royalty.  So, I don't buy this.  Tebow has never told anyone that they're going to hell for not being religious.  He has never preached his religion on anybody else.  He simply thanks God for giving him his talents and for blessing him that he is able to do what he's always dreamed of doing since he was 6-years-old.  What is wrong with that?

Why is it only for Christians who wear it on their sleeves.  People don't hate devout Muslims are Hindus that don't eat meat or drink.  The Hesidic Jews are about the closest thing to the vitriol but they seem to hate non-hesedes too, so I can understand that.  Christians, however, do talk with people not as religious as they are, but still this vitriolic hatred.  People literally get offended when someone saves sex for marriage....why?  I think that's the best gift that you could give your spouse "You are the only one to have sex with me."  That's awesome, not realistic, but I wouldn't villify someone for it.  Why would you? 

Look if someone wants to be religious, let them be so long as they don't preach!  And if you do hate someone for being religious, hate all religious people, not just the Christians!

Autographed copies of my book can be bought at the bottom of the page

Chris Paul should be a Laker

Recently Chris Paul was traded to the LA Lakers from the New Orleans Hornets for Lamar Odom and Adrew Bynum.  The Houston Rockets were also involved but LA was not receiving any players from them so I'm leaving them out.  Commissioner David Stern blocked the trade because it was "unfair" and many owners agreed with him including Dan Gilbert, owner of the Cleveland Cavaliers, who made public his e-mail he sent to the commissioner complaining that the Lakers gave up no draft picks and shaved 40 million in costs in making the trade, leaving cap room and options to trade for another big name such as Dwight Howard.

As an extremely loyal and devout Cavalier fan, I cannot endorse the e-mail sent by our owner. In effect, he is trying to make it impossible for anyone to thwart the Miami Heat and live up to his guarantee "that the Cleveland Cavaliers will win an NBA championship before the self-titled former 'king' wins one" (From Gilbert's statement after Lebron James decided to go to Miami). 

Also in his e-mail GIlbert said, "They should just rename 25 of the 30 teams the Washington Generals"
A little different from "If you thought we were motivated before tonight to bring the hardware to Cleveland, I can tell you that this shameful display of selfishness and betrayal....has shifted our "motivation" to previously unknown and previously never experienced levels" (see above reference)

The hornets would've received a good/great center in Gasol or Odom and a really good power forward in Luis Scola (From Rockets),  They believed they were benefitting from this trade.  It is only an issue between the three times involved in the trade and should have nothing to do with any other owner or the commissioner.  We had the lockout to try to limit Stern's power, and now he is blocking teams from doing what they think is right for their team.  I don't think the New Orleans Hornets would purposely destroy their franchise to help the Lakers...if they want to make a trade, nobody except the teams they're negotiating with should stop them!

Autographed copies of my book can be bought at the bottom of this site. 

Exceptions make the rule

My judgment of when a video has gone viral is if I've seen it.  I don't spend much time on Facebook, even less on youtube and none on Twitter, so I normally don't see videos unless everyone else has seen them first.  This is why I believe people have seen the video of an Iowa man speaking about Gay rights by a notoriously liberal organization.  In the video, a man gives a very eloquent 4-minute speech about how he had two female parents and he came out alright, therefore being raised by two same-sex parents is the same as being rasied by a man and a woman.  Above the video is a statement "Why are we against this again?" Let me answer.

I listened to his speech and his only evidence was, "I do well in school" and "Nobody can tell I was raised by two women." Great, I can't tell if someone was raised by divorced parents until they tell me.  Hell, I can't tell if someone was raised by a single parent, does this mean that having a single parent or divorced parents is just as good as having two or married ones?  No anti-gay marriage advocate has ever said that in 100% of cases the child will turn out bad....the argument is that the likelihood they will is higher. 

It is a fact that homosexuals(yes even lesbians) have a higher risk of getting sexually transmitted diseases than heterosexuals.  The average homosexual couple stays together for 1.5 years...that's hardly enough to raise a child.  Being around homosexuals encourages your kid to be one too and most gays I know, for reasons unknown to me since they are the most protected minority in America, will tell you that they would not want their kids to be gay because they don't want them to go through what they have.  Homosexual parents promotes being homosexual and their kids are more likely to be homosexual as well. My favorite thing about this comment is when liberals scoff at it and then tell me in the next breath that there's a gay gene and see absolutely no contradiction.  Of course, if liberals could pick up on contradictions...they wouldn't be liberals would they be?

Signed copies of my book can be bought at the bottom of this page

Guilty until proven innocent

As I continue to watch the news and TV, I can't help but think that we have strayed so far in this country.  Sure, on paper, the criminal justice system says we're "Innocent until proven guilty" but as I keep listening to accusations, I begin to laugh at how ridiculous it is to think this is true.  Maybe for some things, like insider trading or the like but you are certainly guilty until proven innocent if you A) are a male and are accused of sexually harrassing a female B) Are an athlete and get accused of performance Enhancing drugs and C) Are accused of molesting a child.
 "A" has come up because I keep hearing about how someone else is accusing Herman Cain of sexual harrassment.  The problem is, there is never any proof.  The only proof I hear is, "Where there's this much smoke, there has to be fire"  That's not true at all.  Especially if you're talking about a conservative.  You can get millions of people to tell you that the phrase "Separation of church and state" is found in the constitution, but that doesn't change the fact that it's not.  There are many liberal women, there's a reason for the expression, "Hell hath no fury over a woman scorn" so it stands to reason that you can find a handful of women who knew Herman Cain, got appalled by his conservative ideas, so made up a rumor about him. Multiple accusations does not a conviction make, you need proof.  I need something like "Since Herman Cain repeatedly harrassed me, I taped it, here's the tape."  That never happened.  When this was brought up at the time it happened, it was concluded that it didn't happen.  The only evidence is that he didn't do it because that was the conclusion of the only investigation into it.  But alas, that's not what people will believe simply because so many women claim he did.  And all have one thing in common....no proof whatsoever.  And the same people who vehemently defended Bill Clinton for doing the same thing to Paula Jones and Linda Tripp are condemning Herman Cain.

To move out of politics, I'll go to Jerry Sandusky and Bernie Fine, two men accused of molesting little boys when they were assistant coaches for Penn State and Syracuse respectively.  The only evidence for Jerry Sandusky is that in 1998, he was banned from the locker room when little boys were showering because of accusations and when interviewed he fumbled when asked point blank "Are you sexually attracted to little boys."  I admit, the second one gets me a little suspicious....why not say no?  But then again, if he did, nobody would beleive him....nobody believed the Duke Lacross players when they denied raping the stripper six years ago....luckily banks and taxi cabs keep detailed records showing their whereabouts in the time frame that the stripper gave....without that, they probably would have been convicted.  Joe Paterno says that he took away Sandusky's keys to the locker room and banned him from being in the locker room when boys are showering because of what he heard from his assistant coach McQuery who alleged he saw it.  But why did McQuery wait 12 years to report it to the cops?  He's the one who saw it.  So, based on the evidence, I don't think there's enough for me to definitively say Sandusky did it.  I was very hard on Sandusky in my last post but now, I just want evidence. 

Now Bernie Fine is a different story.  This time, there is a tape recording of an alleged victim talking to Laurie Fine, Bernie's wife.  He complains that Fine is touching him and the wife just rolls with it by saying "Yea he's got problems."  Nowhere in the phone conversation does the guy say exactly where or how Bernie Fine touched him.  It could have been a pat on the knee that made him uncomfortable.  Or a slap on the ass, which is common in sports...Brett Favre did it to every one of his teammates.  As I listened, I was skeptical, until the accuser said something along the lines that he thinks Bernie wanted him to give Bernie a blowjob.  His wife responded, "Of course he did, why wouldn't he?"

   That leads me to believe that there might be something to the Bernie Fine case.  I don't know why his wife was so cool in the phone conversation, that's more distrubing. Makes me think she's one of these stay-loyal-to-my-husband-no-matter-how-fucked-up-he-is wives.  I wish that in the phone conversation he said, "Hey Laurie, he touched my penis" or "Made me pull down my pants" or "Put his hands in my pants and grabbed me" something specific instead of "Touching."  That phone conversation was enough for Jim Boeheim to back off on calling the accusers liars but I still think the evidence is kind of weak.  This is the most damning of the three but still, it's just that his wife said, "Of course Bernie would want you to give him a blow job" and "Yea, Bernie has problems"  The accuser goes on to say that he did have sex with Laurie Fine...which I think was a way to get back at Fine....get back at him for what?  Well, I can think of one thing but again just the act of accusing Fine makes me believe that he doesn't like him.  So, having sex with his wife just confirms, he really doesn't like him.  Without the accusation, you wouldn't jump to "Because he molested me" so it's possible there's another reason.  Why is it that when the accuser said at the time of the incident "Ask these four people, they'll confirm my story" and all four people said, "No, he's lying"?  Why would that be the case?

Six years ago, the Duke Lacross story gave me hope that any woman can't accuse any man of rape with nothing more than tears as evidence.  Now, I'm beginning to believe that it was merely an exception to the rule.  It seems that women and children are given an "Accuse anyone of rape" card and that has dangerous implications.