Perfectly. Since there really ain't no label that fits me now. Not really

Queer works.

(Over time I've gone from seriously disliking that term to embracing it. YQMV.)

Perfectly. Since there really ain't no label that fits me now. Not really

Queer works.

I'm iffy on queer as it applies to myself. It doesn't seem right, in the same way that straight and bi also don't seem right.

I just kinda go with, I know what I am and who I love, and that's fine.

Yesterday it was grapes, today... beer. [link]

Add that to the honey that was spilled back in March, and it's been a banner year for food/beverage spillage already.

Wow. I ordered a Leverage travel mug from their Cafepress store, and it arrived with the enamel cracked. I finally got around to bringing it into work so I could ship it back for a refund, and filled out the online form--and lo! They're going to ship me a replacement and told me to just discard the one I have.

Which? Makes sense, since what are they going to do with a crappy quality product? But I'm just surprised that it nets out with so little hassle for me.

God, I'm still craving cheese. Roll on lunch, where I'll at least have cream with my chicken.

I don't know what label fits me. At any given time, I might like everything, or I might not like anything. Is there a term for "aloof and capricious"?

"But in this ever changing world in which we're living..."

This is not what they are saying?!?

Oh, I bought a big Leverage mug from their store! I should go have some tea in it and watch Leverage again.

Of the people I know in a long-term monogamous relationship who identify as bi, all are with a man.

I assume we're talking about women? Anyway, I know the point you're making. I figure, for people who are bi, chances are they're likely to come into contact with more straight-people-of-the-opposite-gender than queer-people-of-the-same-gender over the course of their lifetime -- straight people outnumbering queer people by a sizable margin* -- so therefore they're more likely to meet a compatible person of the opposite gender than the same gender, statistically speaking. In other words: it shouldn't really be surprising if there are more bi people married to/partnered with people of the opposite gender than with people of the same gender. It's just how the numbers work. But it sure as hell doesn't mean they're not still bisexual (or however they choose to define themselves).

* I do think this is essentially true, but I'm aware it's a topic worthy of debate, especially getting into the question of what constitutes "queer" and who gets to define that.

I can certainly find women hot, and would never rule out sex with a woman, but I seek/want relationships with men. I would id myself as straight, French vanilla, occasionally with jalapenos.

Hee! I love this. I usually refer to myself as "basically straight," which I like because it leaves a little bit of wiggle room. With no qualifiers, "straight" feels too much like a straitjacket.

it shouldn't really be surprising if there are more bi people married to/partnered with people of the opposite gender than with people of the same gender

But that's not what he said--he said they're with men. He didn't say they were women.