"Is there something wrong with lesbians?"

I can care less. People should be free to love and adults should be able to marry whoever they wish regardless of gender.

 

Lesbians will do if there's nothing else female (sort of) available. Dog-style, with their heads in a paper bag. Yeah, that'll work, if you're desperate. Just don't get in bed with one of them if they've belted up with a "strap-on"....

 

I'd say there's two kinds of lesbian, one I like and one I don't. The kinds I like are the ones who are attracted to femininity, and who realise that two women is simply the most beautiful thing on earth times two. The kind I don't like are those that in one way or another go for the more manly approach, like strap-ons.. it really ruins everything..

 

To me watching men or women in those acts I find equally unsettling, but it's their life not mine. If they are happy who cares, they sure as heck don't need my approval....

 

Sigh.

No- the walls of San Francisco don't 'smell of ejaculate'. God what twisted fantasies you project on San Francisco. I don't even know what you are trying to say about elevators- most people in San Francisco don't use elevators.

You asked in another thread whether you might have a fecal phobia- and yes- I think you do.

So much you worry about- and what bizarre assumptions.

You worry about fingers coming out of butts but appear to assume that heterosexuals don't do that. And really- if you are obsessed about fecal matter- read up about American men hand washing habits- that will really gross you out.

Women can and do enjoy sex even more often than men. Unfortunately lesbians can spread HIV also- though more rarely. And straight men give HIV to their partners too. Your opinion is based on a hint of reality, and a whole lot of misinformation.

Odd, when I think of San Francisco, I am thinking of many things- the Golden Gate Bridge, fog horns, Alcatraz, Fisherman's Wharf, Noe Valley, China Town, North Beach, Coit Tower, the Bay Bridge, Crissy Field, Baker Beach, the Castro, the Mission, West Portal, the Marina, Cow Hollow, The Presidio, Ocean Beach, the Cliff House, Japan Town- I am thinking of the De Young Museum and the Exploratorium. The Academy of Science and the Asian Art Museum. I think of the fog pouring in on a hot Summer day like natural air conditioner.

When I think of San Francisco, I think of Dim sum and mission style burritos, sour dough bread and Anchor Steam beer, Banh mi and chow fun, North Beach pizza and crab at Fishermans Wharf.

You apparently focus on something entirely differently.

MLK Jr. wasn't a Republican.
Democrats both opposed the civil rights movement- and proposed and passed the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act. History is funny. There is a reason that African American vote massively Democrat.

 

The Republicans led by Sen. Dirksen were the driving force to pass the Civil Rights Act! Johnson and his dimocrats took credit and have duped blacks with that and their welfare programs. Johnson said, "we will have those Ns voting for us the next 200 years!" Sadly, he may have been correct.

 

I would suggest studing history. Foremost in the civil rights movement was John F Kennedy and in 1963 his speech represents his advocacy for Civil Rights in America.

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/jfkcivilrights.htm

Yes, we can note that Senator Dirksen lead the drive towards passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1965 but we also must address the political landscape of the time. At that time the extreme right-wing (white supemacy) political organizations (e.g. KKK that had virtual control of all Southern politics) supported "Southern Democrats" as they opposed the Party of Lincoln (i.e. Repubican Party). These were the "Democrats" that opposed the Civil Rights Act and they were also the "Democrats" that created JIm Crow voting laws like the poll taxes (virtually identical to today's voter ID laws) and prohibited inter-racial marriage (virtually identical to today's prohibitions against same-sex marriage). These :Southern Democrats were yelling "States Rights" so that they could violate the US Constitution including the Equal Protection Clause and the Supremacy Clause.

Those with these same political agendas that existed prior to the Civil Rights Act are no longer "Southern Democrats" because they became Republicans.

 

and those southern democrats who became republicans are for the most part dead, and none are involved in politics.
The republican party today is nothing like the republican party of the 60's, yet people like to try to say they are. Racisim in the republican party is no more prevalent, then in the democrat party at every level.
Voter ID laws have nothing to do with racism and everything to do with proving who you are. why there is such a fuss over showing an ID to vote, but nobody squawks about having an ID to drive, showing ID to buy alcohol, cigarettes, a car, a gun, a house, virtually everything we need to show ID to purchase, to prove who we are, yet voting, oh no why do I need to prove who I am?
It's all horse poo arguments that voter ID laws are designed to suppress votes, all in order to keep the racist right myth of today and compare it with the racist right reality(and left) of the 60's

 

Go to Craigslist personals, or places like that. Read the men looking for men, then women looking for women. You will then see the difference.
Also, open your eyes to reality. Men have higher sex drives.

 

I don't like being around dykes in general. There's nothing creepier than being hit on by a woman who acts like a man but isn't. I also detest their politics in general, this feminazism which holds we should all try to be like men. If they hate men so much, why emulate them?
That said one of my best friends is a lesbian, but she isn't a feminazi, she likes men and does not hit on straight women. She also thinks the gay rights movement will backfire because of the militant hatred toward any sort of social norms.

 

So, lesbians who act like angry black dudes are ok with you? Did you just say angry white guys to stoke more hatred and stereotypes against white males? It isn't PC otherwise?

 

Yes, MLK WAS a registered republican, SFJeff.
Your city is disgusting. The reason I don't go to those wonderful places is because I read the gay section at Huffpost and I know what gay guys do there in public places. I thought it was gross when they wanted the right to walk around and bike in the nude, but one article in particular changed my mind about going there. It was an article about how wonderful the ejaculation on the walls smelled. There was another article about gay apps and safe sex with strangers in another column. There is a reason HIV spread so rapidly in the gay community, it is called extreme promiscuity. I grew up in LA, and had a gay uncle. I have a pretty good idea of what I'm talking about. I also know that STDS are reportable, the only one not is HIV/AIDS because of the strength of the gay lobby. Why shouldn't people be informed they may have a deadly disease?

 

I would instead suggest that Craiglist isn't a good source. A much larger percentage of women are bi-curious than men from my experience which implies that they are much more likely to find willing partners than men. Straight women don't seem to be replused by another woman making advances but straight men typically are.

Of course that is anecdotal and not statistical as it's just based upon my personal experience.

 

I think that might have to do with that it's more acceptive for women to be bi, because it's quite frankly kinda hot, whilst man on man just isn't. Is male gay porn as attractive for a female audience as lesbian porn is for a male one? Cartianly not.

 

many women dont find two women doing it appealing...it all comes down to how your brain is wired, homosexual, bi sexual, heterosexual or some degree between the three, none are wrong all fall within normal range for the species...

 

I am trying to figure out how to reply to this.

'dykes in general' to me is like saying 'Jews in general' or "blacks in general'- you are saying that 'in general' most of X is this way- and you don't like this.

Except your friend of course. My grandfather was like that- he disliked blacks in general , but he had black friends that he was very close to.

Oh and pretty much when I see the term 'feminazi'- I think that in general- that means the person in general- doesn't much like women.

But that is what comes from generalization.

- - - Updated - - -

I am trying to figure out how to reply to this.

'dykes in general' to me is like saying 'Jews in general' or "blacks in general'- you are saying that 'in general' most of X is this way- and you don't like this.

Except your friend of course. My grandfather was like that- he disliked blacks in general , but he had black friends that he was very close to.

Oh and pretty much when I see the term 'feminazi'- I think that in general- that means the person in general- doesn't much like women.

But that is what comes from generalization.

- - - Updated - - -

So you are just saying that blacks are stupid.

Which is why I believe that African Americans have rejected you and yours for the last 50 years.

Thank you.

 

That is true. Today they're raised as Republicans and not Democrats. An extreme example was David Duke but politicians like Rand Paul and Ted Cruz carry forward the same anti-minority agenda that the Southern Democrats of the 1960's embraced.

Racial prejudice is the precursor of racism and according to two separate studies Republicans express over twice the explicit (i.e. direct) anti-black racial prejudice when compared to Democrats. According to the most recent of these two studies from 2012 32% of Democrats expressed explicit anti-black racial prejudice while 79% of Republicans expressed explicit anti-black racial prejuduce. In fact explicit anti-black racial prejudice increased from 71% in 2008 to the 79% level in 2012 which might reflect the Tea Party movement from 2010.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ap-poll-majority-harbor-prejudice-against-blacks

Republicans paint the picture of voter impersonation at the polls, which would be voter fraud, as the justification for the Voter ID laws but the problem is that voter impersonation at the polls is virtually non-existant. Pennsylvania passed a voter ID (struck down by the federal court) and Republicans were unable to show even one case of voter impersonation occuring. Texas has passed a voter ID law and the DOJ is challenging it based upon the same basis foundation that lead to the Pennsylvania law being struck down. Texas was able to produce four possible cases of voter impersonation at the polls over four election cycles, or one per election average.

What Republicans do know are the estimated number of people that don't have government issued identification that would allow them to vote.



25% of eligible Blacks don't have ID that would allow them to vote and about 95% of Blacks vote for Democrats.
16% of eligible Hispanics don't have ID that would allow them to vote and about 75% of Hispanics vote for Democrats.
Only 8% of Whites don't have ID that would allow them to vote and their vote is divided between Republicans and Democrats about equally.

The Voter ID Laws are not about preventing voter impersonation at the polls. It's about suppressing the Black and Hispanic vote because these minorities overwhelmingly vote Democratic. The laws are based upon race and ethnic heritage to supprese the vote and not to protect the integrity of the vote.

The arguments about people needing a drivers license that can't afford a car and don't drive, that don't buy a car or house they can't afford (where ID isn't required), cigarettes and alcohol where government issued ID isn't necessarily required (I haven't been asked for ID to purchase cigarettes or alcohol in the last 30 plus years) have absolutely nothing to do with the fundamental Right to Vote protected by the US Constitution. Show me anywhere in the US Constitution were it expressly states we have a Right to Drive on the public roads.

Racism is not a myth and it is very much alive and well (a sick term for it) in the United States. It crosses all political parties but is overwhelmingly most evident and documented related to the Republican Party. I know that there are Republicans that are not racists and don't express anti-black racial prejudice but they're also the few that are willing to admit there is a serious problem with racial prejudice in the Republican Party. They are, as the studies indicate, only representative of about 1in 5 Republicans but they do exist and one thing is certain, they are not Tea Party Republicans and they are also probably the same Republicans that have been supporting equality in marriage for the last several years.

 

The intent of voter ID laws is not to suppress the vote, it is to prove who you are. there are very easy fixes if you do not have an ID. If 84% of the black population can get one, what is stopping the other 16%? same with Hispanics and Whites. How do you know if there is voter fraud if you don't even have to prove who you are, so that is misleading.

 

Why would a person have to prove who they are when there are virtually no cases of impersonation at the polls. Apparently American voters are very honest when the go to the polls to vote and there is no need whatsoever for them to whip out ID to prove who they say they are. Only if voter impersonation actually existed would a problem exist but it doesn't.

Read again, 25% of Blacks don't have identification that would be valid based upon the voter ID laws. The reason they don't is simple. They can't afford to purchase the documents to establish that they are US citizens. When a person doesn't have enough money to eat they can't afford to come up with an extra $30-$45 to purchase a birth certificate. It isn't the ID that the problem but instead it's the fact that they have to spend money to purchase a document from the government to prove they are a US citizen. In Harper v Virginia Board of Elections the Supreme Court ruled that the government could not require a person to pay any fees to government to be able to vote. In that case it was only a $1.50 poll tax but today it would be a $30-$45 birth certificate but it is still a "government fee" and is unconstitutional.

Once agian there isn't a problem with voter impersonation at the polls that would provide a valid argument for voter ID.

But enough of this. We already know that 79% Republicans express explicit anti-black prejudice which is the basis for racism and this is off topic. The voter ID laws are nothing by Jim Crow voting laws just like the poll taxes and literacy tests prior to the Civil Rights Movement. Everyone knows that is a fact even though Republicans try to deny it. Republicans don't want Blacks to vote, period.

What is of interest to me are those that don't have a problem with "lipstick lesbians" but have a problem with "tomboy lesbians" because I wonder why that is.

 

Hmmmmm, could be potential here. All I need to do is, get hold of some Michael Bolton sound tracks, a dozen bottles of wine, shave my back, front, arms, legs, face and feet. Never know, could be on a winner here.

 

Noting is wrong with 'lesbians'. The problem is politics that has engineered the label 'lesbian' (Lesbos, a Greek island) and the female with feelings for other female stuck and stick that political label to their mind so they started to organize (invisibly)
The suppression increased when ('other') people became aware of 'gays' and 'lesbians' (when the labels were invented and spread via politics and media, and many started to use them), and after decades in this time they have managed to organize 'gays' and 'lesbians' (and by that also the 'heteros') So immidiatly that negative labelling have caused an anti-attitude in many 'heteros'.
Three sexual orientated groups, and the system (via politics) is playing them agianst each other as cards (the 'gay' or 'lesbian' card, never the 'hetero' card) and organize them (into two opposite groups, because fight, emotions and images via the media are causing organisation) Politics is a weapon, is causing organisation of a society in any way possible.

 

I think you might mean "Lesbosians", re the inhabitants of that Greek Island. Furthermore, only a small percentage of Lesbosian women are rug munchers, but an alarmingly high portion of the men are shirt lifters.

 

It is now 2015 and some great movies are coming out about Lesbian relationships: "Freehold" and "Carol."