Kennita Jo.

Gahddayum.

That's you Switch?!

Barbara/Donna/Gladys. They still can BLOW.

Oh my.

Is he at a playground?

Is he really playing on the jungle gym?

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

You're a very sad, miserable human being and that's obviously never going to change. Scrape the forced polite surface and you're still the abrasive, pompous and insecure person you always were. And never one to pass up taking what you think is low blow when you have nothing else to say. You're a prick, you're such an asshole to compensate for having such shitty self esteem and being such a damaged person and I feel sorry for you.

You've got me all figured out.

Sometimes the grey area is so minuscule that it's negligible. If a flaming queen is 90% gay and has a 10% sexual attraction towards women, is he on the same plane as a man who is 50-50?

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.

ill be doing the same plus my urethra tube

and to all u people complaining stay dat ass home that 1 less hoe ill have to push down for space in the front row

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?

My whole point was basically most people fall somewhere on the scale from gay to straight, and that there are groups of people who share commonalities. For example, gay dudes like dudes. Lesbians like chicks. Straights like... the opposite sex god bless them But to Kenny, ANY attempt to simply name these general and very real distinctions is something akin to nazi germany.

Oh go choke on a dick. Rather, die waiting for one.

I reread and I see what he's saying that sexuality can't be measured. But at the same time, when you use your skills of inductive reasoning, someone who is sexually attracted to the same sex is homosexual, opposite sex - heterosexual, etc. You can easily classify these individuals because they share a commonality. It's the same methodology used to describe a culture.

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.

@rickyrozay I saw that MTV interview you gave about @MissKeriBaby's "racy" video. You know DAMN WELL @JanetJackson didn't inspire that SHIT.

— Stevie's Wonder (@Stevies_Wonder)

December 7, 2010

Pffffff LMAO.

Talking to you is so fucking draining Every single word oozes with condescension "That or the convenience outweighs it for you, which would be sad." like are you serious with this line Get over yourself

Yeah and you're so fucking special and unique and hard to define you can't even say who you're attracted to on a regular basis You're so full of shit. You've gone on and on about guys you've found hot in the past. But it's astonishing how mortal words are incapable of defining who you're attracted to now

So, if I asked you to describe your sexuality, how would you describe it? Forget about labels, but surely you have a good sense of what your sexuality is? I'm curious as to what terms you would put it in, I'm not trying to trap you or say "gotcha" or anything. In this society if you're anything other than straight, you have to struggle in some way with your sexuality. Yes, labels are definitely imposed, because if you're "not straight" (can we at least agree upon that term?) you are forced wrestle with what you are. Everyone will go about it differently. Some people will embrace "queer" "gay" etc with defiance and pride, others will choose not to adhere to the system of labeling and not think of themselves in that way, etc. The label isn't what's driving and driven kids to suicide. The connotation of the label is. I hope you're not insinuating that growing up was all sunshine for me

Why is it so unfair? In what way is "bisexual" such a radical misnomer for your sexuality? I'm genuinely asking.

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.

She pretty much jumped on the New Jack Swing band wagon with IYBT because of the backlash she received from the niggras in the hood.

It was on Youtube some time ago. Whitney even spoke about it on Arsenio around that time too

LMAO.

Ugh I'mma need you to find it.

You could NOT TELL Whitney she wasn't Janet herself in those IYBT performances

I'm still looking for that Rhythmless Nation sketch In Living Color did

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.

And this

:12

OMG I never realized how true

Whitney's "CONTROL" moment (head mic)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDONsuJI3hA&playnext=1&list=PL036B491E962A4B76&index=17

What in the epileptic fuck was that?

Must come naturally then.

Ever heard of the gay pride parade You think all of those people don't have different quirks about them? You think they're all in one neat little box, all clones? No, and no one thinks that, and that's not the point of it. The point is that they all, we all, have something in common, something other people don't. Sure, maybe in a perfect world, those difference don't matter. They shouldn't matter, a gay pride parade shouldn't have to exist, there shouldn't be "gay" marriage there should just be "marriage." I understand that point of view, and I understand how labeling is divisive. But, it does help people identify into a greater group, a support system. Obviously, straight people don't identify for that reason. And hell, people don't identify at all or identify for other reasons. The thing is, I don't see why it's so unforgivable to you to look at sexuality on a scale from straight to gay as merely observable differences among people. Obviously some people are asexual, some people are attracted to inanimate objects, but generally, people fall somewhere on that scale. Again, I'm not interested in judging people based on it, it's just merely a fact.

I'm not talking about scientifically measuring sexuality and branding a person for life I'm talking about in passing being able to say what you are or what you aren't in a succinct way. If you don't think sexuality matters at all, if you don't feel the need to label anyone or yourself, that's fine. I thought you were gay because I thought you were in denial. That was close-mindedness on my part and I realize that was wrong. You started out saying you were straight, events occurred I don't feel the need to mention, then you reemerged very "confident" in your sexuality and were very insistent you were bisexual. It wasn't in response to anyone putting you in a box. I remember a quote specifically about true blood because of how ridiculous it sounded, "my bisexuality was going crazy" or something like that you really relished in the label and were proud of it, it wasn't to shut anyone up or simplify things to anyone. And you were very defensive of it too. If you're attracted to both men and women, there's a name for it. People get it, and you move on. I respect you choosing not to label yourself now, but based on the fact that you're attracted to both, it's fair to consider you as bisexual, just like it's fair to consider me gay because I'm primarily attracted to men.

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.

You're misinterpreting what I'm saying, and you're being very hostile and rude for no reason.

No, classified as in observing differences and marking distinctions. I'm not looking at it from a judgmental point of view, I'm looking at it as naming a quality. I never implied it was perfect, or covered everyone, or that any one category would completely and accurately define one person, or that people needed to label themselves and each other. Similarities do mean something, I don't understand how you can say that. Labeling can be divisive, as with any type of distinction based on an innate quality, but it can also help you find people who are similar to you. I identify as gay, as I said in this thread. Anyone else will judge me however they want. You can call me gay, you can call me bi-curious, you can call me bisexual, but it's fair to say I'm not straight. That's really all I'm saying. It's up to any individual how they perceive their sexuality and others'. I have a narrow preference? And the majority of people don't? Really? Tell me, who are you attracted to?

Based on the general trend of who or what you're attracted to, yes, it's possible to give a general name to your sexuality. Does it 100% describe every nuance and fiber of your sexual being? No. I never said it did and it doesn't need to and that's not what it's for. I really don't get how someone can be so insistent on being "bisexual" and then turn around and say labels are for simple people. You made a point of continually emphasizing that you were bi

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.

I disagree with you. If something has characteristics, it can be described and classified. Sexuality is murky and it's not an exact science, that's why it's difficult and labels can be misleading because you're right, it is nearly infinitely complicated and different from person to person. But to deny there are some general categories and that large groups share a significant number of similarities is to deny reality. If you are attracted to primarily the opposite sex, versus primarily the same sex, there is a definitive difference, and some people can fall into either of those categories. So to name those categories which do exist is not simple minded. The cloud comparison is completely relevant. You're naming differences that exist. They're all clouds, aren't they? So why must meteorologists refer to them as cumulus, vs stratus, etc?

I never said it did But there are general categories and definite similarities among large groups of people, like I just said.

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?

Didn't she release a live album that left such a bad taste in ppls mouth to where she became "CRAZY HILL" and it eventually tormented her career or was I dreaming?

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.

Ch...

Not placing one life above another, because all loss of life is sad, but these kids betta recognize.

...and yes I took it all the way back to the 90's with "betta recognize" lol

Gerl. Teena's life > Teairra's. We all know better.

Listening to It Must Be Magic.

Sexuality has characteristics and can therefore be classified and described, and it can be very useful like I said, but can also impose limits on an individual. No, not necessarily. That's like saying classifying different types of clouds is for simple minds because they need a clean-cut classification, or dividing up the earth into countries, states, towns, etc.

Different types of sexuality exist, wouldn't you agree? Therefore why is it simple minded to refer to those differences with unique names? I think the way people apply labels, their view of them, etc, can be simple minded. Labels are just a tool, a convenience. And when it concerns sexuality the nuances of it can be subjective from person to person.

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.

She was a TRUE artist, singer, songwriter, producer, musician and composer.

I still haven't heard Congo Square though. How is it?

Why was the youngins on twitter flipping out because they thought it was Teairra Mari that passed??

*Tries not to laugh*

If you they fuck you raw; STDs can abound.