response 251 of 404:

Nov 7 01:20 UTC 1998

I was very disappointed this week because some one I respect decided to
break off our friendship because (we're in the same writing group) I had
decided that my bi polyamourous character would not commit to one person,
but would like to have at least two partners. (Which -- as I kept saying
-- was for cuddling and the like, rather than for sex, per se.) Apparently,
even in fiction, and fiction with a decidedly fantastic flavour, this
person can't deal with that particular worldview. She said it wasn't logical
for a bi person to want one person of each gender in a poly relationship,
and that I was weird for even thinking about such things. (Since I happen
to be a straight het vanilla monogamous person, I find that a little 
strange...) And yet she writes a very het and macho character who, although
married and supposedly very much in love with the wife, still bonks 
anything in skirts. Including other married folks. Which is something
which I find immoral since I have always figured that onece you've made
a promise, then you have to keep it, and if you're married traditionally,
then you don't fool around. Sigh. I'm just really bummed about this,
since I had gotten really excited about exploring those areas with my
co-writers, and was looking forward in particular to writing that kind
of relationship in a positive light. 

response 253 of 404:

Nov 7 02:15 UTC 1998

Re 240  Glad I was sitting down, wish the chair had been stronger.  When I
read your comments, it collapsed under me.:)
But I'll just add those heterosexuals to the list of perverts.  Even so, homo
sexuals have less options than do a heterosexual pair.  Therefore they must
improvise.  BTW, people who "sleep around" (regardless of sexual preference)
are by far worse than a pair of perverts who stick with each other.

Re 243  I challenge you to find anywhere that I said any sex act should be
outlawed. I do, however, feel that many if not all perverted acts are the
result of poor mental health.  Can I prove it?  Maybe.

Re 248  Your comments speak worlds to me.  And should to anyone else who
understands what they read.  Oh! Don't fool around with the depression, there
are plenty of good ways to deal with that problem.

response 255 of 404:

Nov 7 07:57 UTC 1998

kenton has a strange fascination with the words "pervert" and "perverted".
I presume they mean to him anything with which he does not agree, or like.
People that are so intolerant and quick to judge others seem to me to be
the real perverts - they have little or no experience themselves about
that which they propose to judge, but are yet willing to act as though
they know something upon which to base their judgements. 

response 257 of 404:

Nov 7 15:47 UTC 1998

"perverse" means "varying from the correct or normal". It then attains
negative connotations of "unreasonable", "refractory", "disposed to vex",.
etc, but solely because someone that varies from the normal is often subject
to criticism or prejudice. From most of the discussion here, since kenton
appears to be in the minority on the issue, he is the pervert. This, of
course, just shows the ridiculousness of trying to demeen others by calling
them perverts - its depends on who's on top (if you will excuse the metaphor).

response 259 of 404:

Nov 8 01:49 UTC 1998

   wow.  there's a lot to respond to here, but since i've addressed my 
last few remarks to kenton, i'll continue in that vein.

   i've always been a lesbian.  growing up, i never encountered any 
couple in homosexual relationships...no, i take that back.  there was 
one couple, but since they were closeted everyone assumed that they were 
simply friends who lived together (for 48 years?).  however, because our 
society is so hetero-oriented, it took me a while to figure out that 
there really was a reason i was not terribly interested in boys.  it 
took a while longer for me to figure out that i really could come out of 
the closet, and found people who could accept me for who i am.  the fact 
remains that being a lesbian is not something i consciously chose, nor 
is it something i wish i could stop.  is my lesbianism the result of 
something in my environment?  perhaps, but if it is, there's nothing i 
can point to and say, "there! that's it!  that's what made me a 
lesbian!"

   if, by "perversion," kenton, you mean something other than 100% 
vanilla missionary-position heterosexual sex, then i guess i'm a pervert 
in your book.  however, i tend to think that things like rape and child 
sexual abuse fall under the heading of perversion, rather than 
consensual acts performed in private between consenting adults.

   kenton, you probably have met dozens of "open, practicing 
homosexuals" and you simply don't know it.  i rarely walk up to anyone 
i've never met, stick out my hand, and say, "hi, i'm dru, and i'm a 
lesbian."  (the exception to that is national coming out day, which i 
celebrate by coming out to a complete stranger.)  someone else brought 
this up, and it has made me curious: do you really think that you'd be 
able to tell who's gay and who isn't simply by looking at them?

   i have a few more questions for you, kenton: why are you so 
interested in the goings-on in bedrooms to which you have not been 
invited?  how do those goings-on directly harm you or your family or any 
aspect of your life?

response 261 of 404:

Nov 9 06:45 UTC 1998

Other people's pride in self and self esteem is totally the business of
those other people. You really are acting in an overbearing manner to
think that you have an iota of judgement to make about that. If you would
keep out of it, there would be less intended damage to the pride of
others. People with your (and that Croatians') attitude are the cause of
other people's misery - and solely for the sake of pleasing their personal
ego. 

Yes, perversion is by defintion "abnormal", but who is to say what is
normal? At one time *democracy* was a perversion. Thinking of giving women
the right to vote was a perversion. Calling things a perversion primarily
reflects poorly upon the caller, not upon the victim.  Claiming
perversions is just another way of subduing minorities. In Afghanistan,
women not wearing the chadur or wishing to have an education education are
offical perversions punishable by cruelty if not death. Your decrees are
just as nonsensical and dangerous. 

The incident at your daughter's school might show the prevalence of
intolerance at that school - or it could show that most students are
actually tolerant, but don't want to take "sides". Gays would not need
"pride" days if everyone else just treated them with the respect due
individuals. 

No one should rub anyone else's noses in their own private preferences. 
However, how do you recommend that gays obtain full and total acceptance,
if not to at least raise the issue of the existence of intolerance (which
you seem to interpret as rubbing people's noses in it). I do rub peoples
noses into the expression of their own intolerance (consider your nose
rubbed). 

response 263 of 404:

Nov 9 08:03 UTC 1998

re #253: :P I already deal with my manic-depression in a good way by seeing
a psychiatrist, so fuck off-- you're starting to annoy me.

response 265 of 404:

Nov 9 18:18 UTC 1998

I'll just agree with Katy's first line and quit there.
not too sure this  is worth it
<bob ponders>.

response 267 of 404:

Nov 10 00:16 UTC 1998

Kenton would have been considered a sexual pervert by the average
ancient greek.

response 269 of 404:

Nov 10 03:22 UTC 1998

I can't give a reference offhand Jon .. but the greeks were
'perverted' enough to the point that the GOVT made it manditory to
marry and procreate....  they were not getting enough soldiers on
account of the guys hooking up.
they were kept together pretty much since birth to be trained as
soldiers etc, and lived together a good hunk of their adult life.
many only married and had kids out of duty

response 271 of 404:

Nov 10 04:32 UTC 1998

I'm afraid my office library doesn't contain much on the ancient greeks.
I'll try to find something when I go home.

response 273 of 404:

Nov 10 05:26 UTC 1998

I find that I learn a lot from attempting to explain things that I
consider obvious.  I've been participating in on-line discussions like
this on all sorts of topics for about 15 years now.  I may not have
changed the minds of the people I talked to all that much, but I've
changed *my* mind on almost everything just from the exercise of
attempting to construct solid arguments to support what I thought I
believed.

So on the use of the word "prevert" to describe gays:

All that dictionary definition says is "perverted" means "abnormal" in a
negative sense (debased, degraded).  That's certainly what it means. 
You seemed to think that clinched the argument, though obviously lots of
people don't think homosexuality is any more abnormal or debased than
other sexual practices.  But it isn't the logical weakness of the
argument that offends people.  You have lots of choices for which words
to use.  You could say any of the following:
   homosexuality is perverted
   homosexuality is odd
   homosexuality is different
   homosexuality is unfamiliar
   homosexuality is exotic
All these words convey that the practice is not one that fits
comfortably with your personal ideas and experiences. And you could find
a dictionary definition to support the use of any one of them.  But they
differ in the value judgements they carry.  They also differ in the
degree to which they reflect personal viewpoints as opposed to absolute
judgements (that is, "unfamiliar" has a implicit "to me" after it, while
"perverted" does not).  There are a hundred other words you could pick
that would fit the facts as well as "perverted" does (which isn't
necessarily very well).  But "perverted" is the most absolute, and the
most negative.  When people object to your use of the that word, they
are rejecting the condemnation it carries.  You need more than a
dictionary to support such a broad and strong condemnation of a very
large set of people.

response 275 of 404:

Nov 10 13:58 UTC 1998

Interesting that when Kenton was challenged to define "perverted" he could
not. He was challenged to explain how "poor mental" health led to
"perversion"  and he could not (he merely stated that it must result from
"low self-esteem", which totally ignored the fact that many well-adjusted
Grexers enjoy the acts he condemned). So, rather than address these
issues, he falls back on the "more with me than thee"  argument that is
(a) highly suspect in terms of whether it proves the point he claims it
proves, and (b) totally irrelevant in terms of explaining his previous
statements. In other words, the best he could come up with is "UM students
didn't support a special day for gays, therefore, all acts of
non-missionary sex are perverted and the result of poor mental health."

A few items back there were some statements about the Wizard of Oz.
Kenton, you're not in Kansas anymore, or Pleasantville, or anywhere else
where everything exists in black and white. You need to get a heart and a
brain.  At the very least, get a clue . . . .