X+Y = SEX? Ya this is TRUE

I came across this interesting "thing" in Trevvy today and say this in Missing Connection and caught my attention. This "unusual" post seems to be slightly 'bo liao' (in Hokkien. Chinese: wu liao. English: boring) But then again, since it took my attention, so just read it. And so it says:

'x + y = love or sex??

X + Y = SEX and Not Love right? or ?

Ha Ha
Boy + Girl = Love & Sex
Boy + Boy = SEX
Why?

Simple math logic pls as below......
Boy + Girl = Love & Sex
Reason : They are normally steady and this is normal cos they will ended up having a proper family and get legal married.

Boy + Boy = SEX
Reason : Both Boy having Sex is not proper in local by law. However.....

No Sex = No Love = Everything is NO Cos CAN't Click pls

Have SEX = Can Click = Everything also OK

Thus, if everything is = OK....So it means Both of these 2 boy are attached either as lover or as sex buddy or as good friend or as close shopping buddy etc.....

To the cute guy who is looking for the ans this is the reply cos U are a cute nice TOP but too bad I am Top also MUCK haha'
by crystalgear (24 Oct 2008)

I read this a total of five to ten times, and start thinking in my mind of everything.. whether it make sense or not, whether is that information accurate, the nature of my analytical state of mind's response, etc. And here's my few conclusions:

"Top" gay man can't think that deeply into a specific issue without the emphasize on Sex. As of on top, it is clearly stated so with some loopholes, such as, 'Boy + Boy = SEX; Reason : Both Boy having Sex is not proper in local by law' and 'No Sex = No Love = Everything is NO'. For the first instance, we are comparing this statement with 'Boy + Girl = Love & Sex; Reason : They are normally steady and this is normal cos they will ended up having a proper family and get legal married.' The obvious differentiation in this two variations are Boy + Boy and Boy + Girl.. Sociology once again (Anson's and mine hot topic). The problem with this sentence lies in the norm expectations of Boy are meant to have a Girl instead of Boy, which if you look properly into the aspect of the even BIGGER picture, it displays uncertainty with this norm implications.

Law comes into the picture of Love. Should it be the case in the first place? Just because Matrimony bonding are recognized by Law, this this stuff is legalised by Law, that that thing is not legalised by Law, thus people thought Law is the next thing to depend on. BIG mistake.. Law is formed on the society upbringing and acceptance. Human forms the society when human belongs to you and I. But in this 'you and I' it does not take into consideration of a lot of things, for instance, a more related consideration is sexual orientation. Why? Cause Law is suppose to be a fair medium, non-biased. And since human is imperfect (a literally correct statement), then we can make a reasonable assumption saying that Law is imperfect. When it comes to something non-definable subject such as Love, it should refrain from the implications of Law even if Law prosecutes.

'Have SEX = Can Click = Everything also OK'??? The ability to enjoy an activity (in this case sex) really represents the ability to have relate two person together.. is this even a good assumption? Coming out from a gay man (in this case, I think top or bottom isn't an issue), I guess, the only thing that actually went through the mind coming out with such equation is actually the desired part of outcome, Sex. The "body of the formula" that suppose to be the components to make up the answer has not been carefully and accurately considered... FAIL! Let me put it in a more straightforward manner: 'Have SEX = Can Click' is it totally true? 'Have SEX = Everything also OK' is it totally true? 'Can Click = Everything also OK', is it totally true? How about a NO for an answer.

From all these, I learned three new things: I sure am ART-streamed talented. Ignorant people is still running free hurting innocent (somewhere in this picture was me). It's gonna take hell of a effort for me to find that someone.

P.S. In case anyone thinking if the cute guy is it me, the answer is no, I was just a passer-by of the C.A.P. post.