A Dyke’s sexual preferences over heterosexuality? What an absurd insanity!

By Stanley Collymore

How could you be so churlish and insensitive towards me to act

as you’re doing now in relation to us having sex together and

regularly as was customary between the two of us knowing

perfectly well as you do that I’m exceedingly partial to

sexual intercourse, which is an obsession with me

when it relates to you, and as you’ve constantly

known, and no less so from the very start of

our mutually engaged in - both physically

and emotionally- sexually reciprocal,

turbulently hot blooded, no holds

barred and a most thoroughly

rewarding, carnal liaison?

You who from the very beginning of this sexual tryst that’s

been happening reciprocally between the two of us and

entirely enlivened by what we were jointly embarked

upon and joyfully experiencing; and what is more

most stimulatingly and delightfully with your

enthusiastic encouragement, unbridled and

comprehensive furtherance physically as

well as emotionally in relation to what

we were cooperatively doing while

additionally on your part you in your responsive

excitement knowingly and appreciatively but

also humorously dubbing me “Mr Semen”,

teasingly, in the process, saying that you

seriously couldn’t think of any better or

more appropriate way for two entirely

compos mentis, thoroughly sexually

willing and distinctly heterosexual

human beings to beyond all doubt

permanently cement a searingly

hot and ardent physical union

as that which was obviously

and naturally occurring in

analogous circumstances

relating to you and me.

All that, then to now completely out of the blue and most

irrationally after all the several years that you’ve been

voluntarily and reassuringly telling me and matching

your words with unstinting wantonness and wholly

unrestrained lust that you’ve become a dedicated

feminist and consequently in the process of this

theoretically enlightened transformation earnestly feel that

it’s both incumbent on you, and also imperative too, that

you switch to being a lesbian? No rational explanation

that I can see for this, far less so any consultation or

any deemed necessary with me, pertaining to this

oversight it would seem - and at this juncture in

your life of you being a mother and a wife –

of you wanting to and furthermore patently

desirous of turning into a bloody Dyke; a

done and thoroughly dusted finalization

on your egocentric part of a stringently

unilateral situation which leaves me

with an inconsolable broken heart,

and that’s supposed to be alright?

© Stanley V. Collymore

14 February 2017.

Author’s Remarks:

Doubtlessly there will be many who’ll sanctimoniously and viciously say and even actually firmly believe that it’s a woman’s inalienable and God-given right as well as her undoubted privilege to have a complete and absolutely unchallenged say and control not only over her body but also her legitimately implemented sexual relations and I wholeheartedly agree and fully endorse that statement, although doing so on thoroughly objective and logical grounds rather than absolutely and wholly implausibly, for me, of ever jumping gratuitously on any populous or irrationally unthinking bandwagon which expediently and supportably fits into the self-serving agendas and self-centred ends of the vociferous fraternity of inured Queers and Dykes with their own individual and/or collective axes to grind.

That said, however, when that identical even though hypothetically aforementioned woman voluntarily, knowingly, enthusiastically and avidly enters and subsequently wholeheartedly engages in what from the outset of that personal relationship was always intended to be and accordingly was energetically transformed into a reciprocally harmonious understanding of how they both seriously intended and keenly required for their shared association with each other to be, only for one half of that relationship to subjectively and without any foreknowledge to their partner of what they were contemplating, saw no requirement to acquaint their partner of what they were actually thinking far less so engage with them in any conversation or discussion over the matter now dividing them, but instead rather arbitrarily and unilaterally adopted a most determined and inflexible position over an issue with decidedly transforming consequences and even a profoundly detrimental character in relation to what had always previously and unquestionably been thought of and firmly acknowledged on both sides as an enduring and highly beneficial relationship.

Now this! Coming completely and most shockingly out of the blue and from someone who is a biological mother, always wanted to be, and most crucially within the conventional bounds – as it was self-confidently emphasized and quite unambiguously understood at the time – of a relationship founded entirely on the principles of heterosexuality. So why should treachery, for that’s what it is, and particularly in such circumstances be rewarded with submissive indulgence?