Re: Phaleran homosexuality

Boudewijn Rempt wrote:

> Well, according to Martijn, he either wasn't creative, or gay. So, if
> you admit his creative powers, then he must have been gay (either
> faithfully married, and thus not really interested in women, or
> extramaritally promiscuous, and thus hiding his essential gayness in
> a display of fake heterosexuality...
So, if I understand correctly, someone who is monogamous is not really
interested in women, so he must be gay. On the other hand, promsicuous guys
must have something to hide, it being their gayness. So too little is "not
good"  and too many is "not good" either... we straight guys are walking a
thin line here, according to your friend...

And you know what would be the worst possibility: be gay and _still_ not be
creative ;-)

Maarten

Reply