response 352 of 404:

Nov 27 02:27 UTC 1998

Re 331   Your personal classification and $1.25 will get me a cup of
coffee.
   Maybe if I actually was aware of a practicing homosexual, I would
be afraid of him or her.  By associating with them, I may run into a couple
of nuts like those out West, who killed that guy.  Or I might be afraid of
catching aids from the sweat or a sneeze of a homo sexual, or I might hate
them because they are different than me.

You don't know how I would react to any homosexual, because I don't know.  I
know it is foolish of me, but I suspect they would be like my neighbor next
door.

My son-in-law doesn't understand me because I argue one way on here and the
opposite
 with him.  We have a number of computers and often work and surf in
the same room.  So when he hears me laughing, he reads what I read.
He is truly mystified by my apparent Jekyl and Hyde writings.

response 354 of 404:

Nov 27 13:58 UTC 1998

        So what's it to be then?  If you know you have a problem with the 
openly homosexual, what is the problem insofar as you understand it?

response 356 of 404:

Nov 27 17:02 UTC 1998

I think Kenton is trying to be both honest and open-minded at the same time,
and I respect him for it.  He is not claiming to be perfect, he is also trying
to understand his own actions, which is more than many people do when they
react without thinking.  And he is trying to explain them to us, not justify
them.  If Kenton were not relatively tolerant of different sorts of people,
he would not be on grex, and I am glad he has decided to join us.  Is there
anyone here whose actions are completely rational?
        Kenton, you cannot get AIDS from someone sneezing on you, or from
saliva, as far as I know.  And many heterosexuals also have AIDS and are on
average more careless about protecting themselves from it.  Lesbians have a
lower incidence of AIDS than heterosexual men.  I would appreciate if you
could figure out just what would make you uncomfortable about being around
(or is it just being seen with?) a known-to-you homosexual.  Most homosexuals,
like most heterosexuals, are not going to indiscriminately attempt to have
sex with anyone of the proper sex.  They are probably not at all interested
in you in that way.  Is it possible that you would be uncomfortable not
knowing how to act with them?  That is understandable.
        Kenton, would you like to attempt to guess how many, and who, of the
participants in this discussion are homosexual or bisexual?
        I think most people act a bit differently depending on whether they
are with a man or a woman, and perhaps it is difficult for some people, when
with a gay man, to know whether to act as if they are with a man or a woman,
the signals are mixed and a bit confusing.  This might be more of a problem
for very feminine women or very masculine men, who are more likely to act
different depending which sex they are with.  (And there are some people with
emotional problems who try to eliminate their problems by eliminating the
cause, leading to gay-bashing).  Any comments on my theory?

response 358 of 404:

Nov 27 21:05 UTC 1998

There is entirely too much public obsession with sex and sexual matters.

response 360 of 404:

Nov 28 01:24 UTC 1998

Grexers generally don't tend to beat people up.

I imagine you'd have a hard time finding many (if any) cases of straight
people being beaten up by homosexuals.  OK, maybe in prison, but normal
societal rules don't apply in prison anyway.

response 362 of 404:

Nov 28 05:45 UTC 1998

I dunno, rcurl, your words often pack a wallop!  ;-)

response 364 of 404:

Nov 28 17:19 UTC 1998

I need to hone my verbal wallop.  I try not to undercut people too much, 
because if I got really vicious I'd be able to really really get into 
it.  That's scary.  I have teachers with horror stories.

response 366 of 404:

Dec 1 03:07 UTC 1998

re #365: That sounds conceivable, honestly: AIDS is, after all, a blood
disease.  I am assuming that risk goes up when it is more likely that blood
will be involved.

I assume this is why anal sex is so risky-- the anus is dry and prone to tear
and bleed when penetrated and rubbed by a penis.  I think former Surgeon
General Everett C. Koop said something to that effect.

I don't think oral sex *causes* cuts in the mouth; perhaps this is why the
risk is lower.

I think it's also been established that a man is more likely to infect a woman
than vice versa.  That seems to be because of the biological plumbing, so to
speak.  Perhaps the incidence of women infecting men goes up when sex is
performed during a mense, but that seems improbable and most find it gross,
although some do it.

The fact that many women don't ejaculate during orgasm (usually through
stimulation of the clitoris and the G-spot, I believe) might explain why
lesbians are less at risk when they have cunnilingus.  Perhaps the only
factors that would increase rates would be ejaculation and cunnilingus during
menustration.  Sound even grosser?  Yep, that might be why the incidence is
so low.

re: the long homophobia debate-- again, I think the fear is just of homosexual
sex and attraction-- fearing that a homosexual may be attracted to you, or
that association with that person may taint the individual in the eyes of
others, who may assume that individual is homosexual and perhaps having
homosexual affairs, and hence, a fear of being associated with problems and
issues homosexuals face.

It seems to be a synergistic thing, and a reinforcer that is applied
throughout a network of people.  Homophobia isn't rooted in one person alone--
it's a system of roots in segments of society-- or it kinda grows along
runners, like strawberries..well, at least that's my take on it.

I'm surprised Kenton still has made no mention of bisexuals.  It's rather
ironic that fear and misunderstanding of them is actually undercommunicated,
or not in the way homophobia is, but then the issue blends into heterosexual
lines as far as those attractions are concerned, and there is no subculture.
Any bisexual expression, I guess, is assimilated into popular society anyway,
along with the few homosexual ones that have become acceptable through
connections to radical expression, I suppose (men accepting an earring, long
hair, etc., etc.. things that used to be connected to homosexuals).

but I would assume biphobia is very real..I, for one, didn't know what to
think of bisexuals.  In some ways, I thought they would be a threat-- hitting
on me at times they weren't attracted to women (I speak of bisexual men). 
And of course, there was no way I would know which way the attraction would
turn-- toward women, or men.

(Of course, most of you find this statement ironic, but I'll explain later.
If Kenton figures out the irony, maybe he'll understand better why homophobia
is so ridiculous.)

response 368 of 404:

Dec 1 14:14 UTC 1998

There is a lot of misinformation in this discussion regarding the
transmission of the HIV.  The virus gets transmitted
when infected body fluids come into contact with blood, broken
skin or mucus membranes.  The lining of the sigmoid colon is
like the vagina so you don't need rips or tears to be at risk.
Splash infected blood in your eye and you have the same hazard.

The mucus membranes of the mouth would allow the same transmission but for
the pH of saliva, which makes the environment hostile.  HIV is really
quite a fragile virus.  Last I heard the CDC was stating that transmission
of HIV through kissing without the exchange of fluid was totally safe. 
Deep kissing, even though it had not been proven to be the route of any
known infections, could not be ruled out as a potential risk. 

response 370 of 404:

Dec 1 17:41 UTC 1998

re #367: I thought I had inferred that, but thanks for clarifying.  re
#367-369: yes, the urethra lining is mucus membrane, but is a lot smaller,
and usually, fluids aren't injected backwards through that opening.

<raunch = off>

response 372 of 404:

Dec 2 04:48 UTC 1998

Slight correction: infer and imply do not concern truth, but only information
conveyed. "I inferred x" means that, from what you said, *I understand
that you are saying you mean x*. 

response 374 of 404:

Dec 2 16:21 UTC 1998

That's not a correction, Rane. I wasn't discussing truth, I was discussing
perceived truth... If I want you to believe x but don't wish to say it
directly, I''ll imply it... particularly good for politicos.