Yeah, but it's all your fault.  You made them unstable by refusing to become
bisexual enough to satisfy these women in _both_ the ways they enjoyed.

Nature is never mathematically possible.  For instance, scientists
tell us that bacteria outnumber people.  But if that's true, how
come nobody cares that bacteria can't vote?  It's because numbers are
always meaningless, all the time, when anyone other than me uses them.

Please tell me more about this "stripper culture".

No, the usual response to (4) and (5) is that "People whose explanations
of how sexuality works consist of two-word sentences such as 'It's choice!'
or 'It's genetic!' or 'It's parents!' know nothing about sex."

Don't make me repost the analogy about whether you like red or blue.
Because I hate reasoning by analogy, even if it has pretty colors.

Okay, I'll paste in the paragraph from an article I wrote last year:

  Whenever the debate of "Are gay people that way because they chose to be,
  or because their genetics made them that way, or because their parents
  got something wrong?" comes up, I always ask, "Which do you like better,
  red or blue?  Beef or chicken?  Comedies or dramas?  Did you choose to
  like blue better than red?  Or do you have a gene for liking blue?
  Or did your parents manipulate you into liking blue?  Those are just
  preferences, and they just sort of go in random directions for no
  reason, and sometimes over the years they gradually change because
  you realize you like red more than you used to."  These are just things
  that happen.  Nobody knows why.  If all the scientists of the world --
  even the really gay ones -- can't explain why you settled on liking
  blue best, of course they can't explain something even harder to
  understand such as your orientation.  Heck, probably most of them
  can't even understand their own orientations, let alone yours.  Also,
  I like black.  And White Castles.  And 'Mystery Science Theater 3000'."

These things aren't deliberate choices -- you don't sit down with
a pencil and paper and work out the relative merits of red vs. blue
once a year to figure out what your favorite color will be until
the next recomputation -- and these can't be wholly genetic or
caused by childhood experiences, because then you'd be stuck with
the same preferences your entire adult life and would buy the same
can of SpaghettiOs every day.  Some people do feel they knew what
their orientation was from birth (I find it hard to believe they
can come to that determination before they reach puberty) and for
others these preferences just sort of creep up and then we realize
we're not who we thought we were ten years ago.  Your food preferences
and color preferences shift over time because you never stop growing
and changing, and your sexual identity can be the same way.

I used to be straight.  Now I'm gay.  And while I can pinpoint the
date where I figured out I wasn't who I used to be, there's no way
in hell I or anyone else can figure out a _reason_ why I have the
preferences I do (or did), any more than you can figure out why
you used to like SpaghettiOs back when you had that mullet.

I note that people of both genders and both orientations feel comfortable
telling you all about their dating habits.  You've stumbled into a sexual
loophole:  By being asexual, everyone gives you the play-by-play of every
date they go on!  It's like you're a black hole that sexual gossip is
drawn into, never to come out, except on the Internet!

Has any straight guy _ever_ had "much luck" with the ladies?  The only
people I've ever encountered who take great pains to have a different
"conquest" every week (or every night) always seem to be growing more
and more desperate that the casual sex isn't making them happy when they
try the same thing over and over.  The goal of dating is not to have
"much" luck with the ladies, it's to have a good time when you _do_ get
together with someone.

I'm happy to make a friend once in a while.  It's not a game, there's
no goal or quota, there's no such thing as good luck or bad luck
when it comes to whether you satisfy your needs when it comes to
relationships -- when people aren't happy with their "luck" with
the appropriate sex, often they may just not understand what they
really want to get.

Gay and lesbian people can't even agree on what their pride symbol should be
(Rainbow flag?  Pink (or purple or black) triangle?  Two linked "male"
or "female" signs? Equal sign in a blue box?  A lambda?  Red ribbon?  Labrys?)
I mean, there are three different "bear pride" flags.  So I doubt you'll
be able to explain all gay/les/bi/trans folks in just one crackpot theory,
even if you leave out all the different types of bears.

I like to think of it this way:

"Gay" by itself doesn't imply that much about a person.  It means they
can feel love for people of the same gender, but implies nothing about
what sort of sex they like, whether they're macho or sissy, how they
dress, etc.  There are at least three independent axes one can position
oneself anywhere along:

A.)  Sexual preference axis:  Do you love people of the opposite gender,
     both genders, or the same gender?

B.)  Gender identity axis:  Do you present yourself as a man or a woman?

C.)  Attitude axis:  Do you act "masculine" (macho/dyke) or "feminine"
     (swishy/girly)?

There are people everywhere within that three-axis cube.  A whole lot of
men are near the "I'm a man who acts masculine and loves women" corner,
and the classic gay stereotype is in the "I'm a man who acts girly
and loves men" corner.  But there are also people in between, and
people in each of the other corners (butch gay guys and lipstick lesbians
and swishy straight guys and transgendered men who identify as women
and love women -- i.e. lesbians born with penises -- and every
other combination you can imagine.)  My "cube" crackpot theory has eight
different extrema for men and eight for women, and while all those corners
seem to be populated (some of them sparsely), not all those stereotypes
have handy names, nor have most people considered whether "gay"
might mean one corner of the cube, or half the cube, or all of the
cube except their own corner...  And all the corners are equally
distant from each other.  A lot of people don't get that the "sissy
gay guy" stereotype corner is just as far from the "butch gay guy"
stereotype corner as the "straight guy" stereotype corner is from either.

My Cube O' Sex theory still doesn't take into account people who aren't
interested in dating people of _either_ gender.  Asexuals can have their
own little cube off to the side or something.  Nor does it do anything
about all the different specialized subtypes within "gay" and "straight"
such as fetishists (chubby chasers, shavers, rubberists, foot-lickers,
cake-farters, etc.) and sexual role-players (dominants, submissives,
slaves, cops, French maids, furries, etc.)  And what about masturbation?

THERE SHOULD BE ROOM FOR MASTURBATION IN ALL SCIENTIFIC THEORIES.

There, I just wrote you a new bumper sticker.  My crackpot theory
of The Whirling Sex Cube Plus Some Place Where You Can Masturbate
must be good because they put stuff Einstein said on bumper stickers
so I must be just as smart as him, or at least as sexy as him.

                                                    -- K.

                                                       I need a haircut.