Kennita Jo.

Gahddayum. That's you Switch?!

Barbara/Donna/Gladys. They still can BLOW.

Oh my.

She looks funny there, like she's had work done on her face.

You've got me all figured out.

What is represented with bisexuality is hardly miniscule. Of course not, and maybe I didn't entertain that side of the argument last night. But that idea works both ways though, and it all leads up to labels being politically incorrect, whichever way you slice it.

LMAO. We knew this musically -- Janet likes staying true to her material. But weren't we told we were getting new costumes? And didn't Gil say something about a new stage?

Oh go choke on a dick. Rather, die waiting for one. We all know this but that doesn't work for the grey areas, the point of this entire thread. I was obviously using extremes for sake of the argument, to get my point across. Hooray hoorah for those who can appropriately identify with a label. Not everyone can. I guess at the end of the day, you have to actually come from such a place to grasp it.

I wish I was paying attention to Twitter after the VMA performance. Pffffff LMAO.

Open is the only word I could give you that would work for any given moment. And no, it's the full package; labels and their connotations go hand in hand. If someone so much as speaks with a sibilant 's' they're labeled and thusly taunted. So much is carried with the word "gay" or "straight" or "bisexual" and you're not using that in your judgment. That or the convenience outweighs it for you, which would be sad. Because my sexuality "shifts with a single thought." It has no boundaries and no specificity and the label implies that.

LMAO. Ugh I'mma need you to find it.

Aaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhh I'm mad I never saw these. Oh God. I remember one they did, it was a spoof of I'm Your Baby Tonight, it had something to do with her babysitting Bobby's kids.

OMG I never realized how true was (1:15). :lol:

What in the epileptic fuck was that?

You could say that. I get the convenience of it all. They're an easy identifier, yes. My point is that regardless of how easy they make your ever-so-busy life of human interaction, they do not work for everyone, for a large percentage of the population, whether the majority or not. The same people imposing those labels are the ones stereotyping at the mention of them, which makes them moot, unfair. And lest we forget that they are the same labels that have all these teenagers in the news for committing suicide. Perhaps it's not that serious, but when you've never been taunted or abused or put in such a situation, I guess it's all sunshine. I remember saying something to that effect. I began using it to defend myself and eventually stuck with it for its convenience. Regardless, I've since realized I shouldn't. And I think it's hardly fair. This is apparently one of those agree-to-disagree things. Left at that.

Ooooooooooooop LMAO. We knew this though. Sadly I'll be dropping $300 and my unborn firstborn to see it anyway.

I'm not trying to be. It helps you find similar people, not those who don't fall so neatly on the spectrum. It doesn't cover nearly anyone, that's my point. And if we go by labels and all of their limitations, it's also fair to say that you're not gay. No, that didn't come out right. The majority does have a narrow preference, but that does not give any just cause to throw us all in the same boat. Doing so is out of line to the portion of people whose preferences are not so narrow, a percentage of the population that is relevant still. It is not. You cannot measure sexuality or preference or anything related. Such things shift with a single thought and have no infrangible scale to measure with. Because people, you included, were doing exactly what we're talking about, being simple enough to put me in a box that I don't belong in, being "gay." To level with and make my sexuality comprehendible in common standards, I marked myself as such because if I were to be forced into a category, it'd be that one. I was wrong and I no longer label myself.

Described, yes, obviously. Classified, in the literal, biological sense? No. And your logic is the same of those who conceived these labels, the same reason they exist -- large groups share a significant number of similarities? Again, no two people share the same sexuality. So similarities mean shit. Grouping "similarities" where something so subjective is concerned is just a quick, sloppy, politically incorrect way to categorize and further humankind's attempt to define and make everything "known." If anything, those groups are only defined by the acceptance of labels. So you're okay with being labeled a "gay," despite the fact that you do have/have had a slight tendency for females. What about those who don't have such a narrowed preference, i.e. the majority? You cannot put that in a box, and if you do, you'd be out of line. And clouds aren't subjective doll. Clouds are measured by shape and density and such. Can you measure my level of attraction to guys and girls? Can you also give it an appropriate name that accurately defines me but also works for everyone else? No. You can't.

You didn't like?

No, reviews were mixed, notably because it was nothing like Miseducation and her voice was different. It's a difficult album to swallow, it's very raw and very flawed but that's the beauty of it. It's in my top twenty of all time though, I love it so much.

Gerl. Teena's life > Teairra's. We all know better. Listening to It Must Be Magic.

No. Sexuality in essence is purely subjective and therefore cannot be classified. Which is why your cloud comparison is void. What works for one doesn't always work for the pack. In this case, ever -- I don't believe any two people in the world share the same sexuality. As convenient as they may be, labels are radical, they only cover the ends of the spectrum when the majority falls somewhere in between.

I still haven't heard Congo Square though. How is it? *Tries not to laugh*