221 new of 404 responses total.
But they would not agree with *how*.
Re 181 Your statement (When there are no legal limits of behavior, there are no legal limits to test.) is seemingly accurate, but the word ignore should be substituted for test. The phrase Pro-choice is a good one, which conjures up all sorts of imagined rights. I am curious about the cross section of women who get abortions. What percentage are married? How many have had more than one abortion? How many had medical problems that influenced them? What are their social standards or range of affluence? What percentage have had more than just moderate mental problems resulting from their choice? How many abortions occur because the mother didn't want the inconvenience of a pregnancy? What is the addition to the GNP due to the abortion industry? How many abortions occur because the partners "took a chance"? And figuring percentages, how could one compare the numbers of the babies who would have had successful, happy, full lives to the numbers of those who should never have been born. I've asked some of those questions to point to this question: What makes an abortion justifiable?
It doesn't have to be justified. It is the *right* of the woman. Why are you curious about all those things? What would you do about it if you knew. Actually, there are lots of statistics like that somewhere, perhaps on the web. The important information, I think, would be that which might provide some guidance to reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies. I much prefer contraception to abortion as a means to prevent/eliminate those. However your question about all those successful happy kids that don't get born seems to suggest that you think that every ovum ever produced should be fertilized and a baby produced, regardless of the means to support same and, ultimately, the capacity of the earth to sustain people.
Abortion (when you could go ahead and have the baby) strikes me as far more justifiable than buying a fancy sports car (when you could give the money to groups that feed starving children in the 4th world).
Actually, Rane, you believe it is the right of the woman. And under the law it is the right of the woman, and that is because the supreme court has determined it to be the right of the woman. Um, Kenton, what does it matter? If your view is correct, and abortion is murder, then who cares who does it and why? If your view is incorrect, and abortion is a right, then who cares who does it and why? The only grey areas are situations like rape and when the mother is at risk, which are fairly obvious causes for abortion on both sides, and they are small percentages. Someone who is excersizing a right doesn't need "justification." I don't need to be "justified" to speak freely. You're attempting to make a point which, while relevant to you, isn't relevant to others. The best you can accomplish is to establish that you have solid reasons for believing what you believe. Changing the minds of people who believe something else is virtually impossible, and 20+ years of this country's experience should pretty much verify that.
re #175: kenton, would you please tell me exactly when you made a conscious choice to be heterosexual? is it a natural choice or a learned action?
Ah, love that liberalism vs. conservatism at work it's all a matter of perception and paradigm and I'm tired of the subject..can we go on?
On to what? The course of the discussion here is up to you, too.
Uh, yeah, drift away. My choice to be a heterosexual was carefully made. At the age of 12, when encountered with the issue, I took it very seriously. First, I read all the material I could explaining the advantages and disadvantages of the various choices of sexual orientations. Then I listened and attended lectures outlining the various issues involved. Then I talked to people who had made both choices about why they made those choices and how they thought their choice had panned out. I carefully investigated the activities both choices would involve until I knew the ins and outs of everything, and scheduled a viewing so I could see the processes in action. And, finally, to make my choice, I went to a beach. I saw a couple women walking buy in thongs, said "Oh, daaaaaammmmmnnnnn," and decided to be heterosexual. The preceeding paragraph is sarcastic.
lol senna. Very clever.
ROTFL!!
I guess the only reason that the supreme court decided the Roe vs. Wade in the way they did, was because the baby had a joke for a legal team. So it all boils down to how good of an attorney do you have. Public opinion is a powerful tool and drives society. With proper answers to the questions I asked, a more moderate approach could be taken to making abortions so readily available. If babies lives could be saved within the process of abortion, I wouldn't care how many abortions happened. I see abortions as murder, because they end a life, a human life. I care and obviously lots of others care too. Unwanted pregnancies are a tragedy, but killing does not make it right. I would like to see a law that would give all aborted babies the same rights as those born by Caesarean section. They are both extracted from their mothers by unnatural means. Such a law would help mothers to be, to realize that their babies are truly human beings. In addition, if human rights were unconditionally given to the unborn (regardless of fetal age), where wife beating, etc. occurred, resulting in the death of the child, greater penalties could be imposed on the assailant. I firmly believe that a woman should have the right to decide whether she wants to have a child or not. But the time to exercise that right is before the child exists. I do not believe that any human has the right to murder or cause to be murdered any human regardless of age, physical development, ability, worth, heredity, or stage of mental development, etc.
Put the abortion issue to bed-- I grow tired of it. Opinions are like buttocks-- everyone's got one, and they all stink. Anyway, I thought we were talking about Matthew Shepard's untimely death and homophobia in general. Anyone see the ABC News special on it? They had a gay filmmaker who did a documentary of interviews with men who had murdered homosexuals. They talked a little about perceived attitudes, etc., etc.
The abortion issue will die when it dies. It's easy to ignore the responses and the item is forgettable if necessary.
I didn't catch that documentary, Jon. Could you give a brief synopsis?
The only post that will irritate me every single time I read it is one that says, "Shut up because I'm sick of hear ing it." Of course, Joe, you're free to be irritating. =}
kenton, i'll repeat my question: when, exactly, did you make a conscious choice to be heterosexual?
Misti, I'll do my best-- it was a while ago, and I didn't take notes.. but I gotta go now. I'm sure you could get a copy from ABC News..they do videotapes for educational purposes. more to come..
Re #201 I don't recall saying I was a heterosexual. But I am. And I don't recall making a choice. Should I? Because I grew up observing all heterosexual relationships, I was not aware that any other existed. But am I a product of what I have seen in an impressionable age range, or did heterosexuality come natural to me? At age 10 I thought that girls were the pits, yet had a girl for a buddy. She was 11, played catch, climbed trees, went fishin', and bikin' and could beat the tar out of me. She lived about 1/2 mile from me and was about 1 mile closer than any guy. Because my brother (12 years my elder) was married to her sister, she and I had occasion to spend a good deal of time together. When I got around guys, she ceased to exist, even if present. When she got around girls, she persisted in chasing me until I slipped or got cornered. Then I got a kiss for every girl present (from my girl buddy). As I remember, this was very humiliating for a 10 year old macho man. When both of us were around our own gender, we had a different perception of each other. The point is, although we spent a lot of time together, neither was influenced to become anything other than what we were. I moved away at age 11. At age 14, I saw her again and my interests were radically different from those of a 10 year old. But unfortunately our wrestling days were over. If a man in a mental institution thinks he is Napoleon, he obviously needs help. He thinks he is someone, who he is not. A women trapped in a man's body is in the same condition, yet acceptance of homosexuality denys this type of person mental help. Do I miss the flight with this analogy?
(Not that I agree with the statement, I just don't feel like arguing about it tonight...) But to pick a different point... Why does the guy who thinks he's Napoleon *need* help? He's not hurting anybody, and as long as it doesn't interfere with the way he lives _his_ life, how does it matter? Or maybe that's just me.
Kenton, you're using extremely bad arguments to support a point. It makes it very difficult to respect your position if that's all you can offer. I know quite a few people who hold similar views to you but are much, much more intelligent about it. How do you know what it's like to be a homosexual? Have you ever been a homosexual? Try to look at things from the other side occasionally. It's possible to be intelligent and rational and not agree with you. This applies to everybody.
I don't understand why kenton thinks it matters at all what sexual preference a person has. There is no such thing as "a woman trapped in a man's body". There are just people, with varying degrees and types of sexual drives. Why are they not all considered equal?
There are people who feel they are a "woman trapped in a man's body", and there are homosexuals. The two are entirely different things. The former is likely to consider an operation in sweden; the latter is perfectly happy "as is". In classical greece, homosexuality was considered more or less the norm--if anything, people who were only into heterosexual sex would have been considered "sick" and "in need of help". Genetics isn't as simple as XX/XY. There are also XO, AIS, & various other oddities. For most of these, there is no "cure" or "quick fix", and society doesn't always deal well with these people.
Re 205 I don't know any homosexuals nor have I practiced homosexuality. I never made any claims to being particularly intelligent. Perhaps you can point out the error of my responses, so I can amend my ways. Show me how homosexuality benefits the home and family and the nation. Show how it benefits the individual, especially the one who was beaten to death. Do the same with heterosexuality. Rane, everyone is not equal. They all (in USA) have a constitutional right to pursue happiness, but some are much better equipped to do that. I don't understand women, because I am not one. And I don't understand homosexuals because I am not one. Anyone who wants to twist these two sentences beyond what I mean is welcome. Anyway, I don't throw rocks at either group. I want to know what causes a homosexual to be homosexual. Is it learned or hereditary? Or is it just plain perverted? Classic Greece, ancient Rome and Sodom and Gomorra are all history. May they rest in peace.
Ah, so all the ancient Greeks are now dead, so they must have been doing something wrong? OK, I'll bite. Homosexuality might be a very valuable response to overpopulation. By redirecting sexual drives to unions that cannot produce offspring, population growth is slowed and massive die-offs (from limited resources) prevented.
So that's the reason why most of the population in China is homosexual?
Re #208: Well Kenton, if contibuting to culture can be considered a "benefit" to a nation, then there are far too many contributions to list here. Homosexuals' contibutions to art, music and literature are well documented and have been lauded and embraced by heterosexuals as well . . . .
Homesexua;ity can also be a benefit in a "traditional" family/tribal setting since a certain number of non-reproducing adults will (at least theoretically) be free to help with the care of their siblings children, improving the odds that more of those indirect descendents will grow up to pass on the family genes.
Re #208: the question should be, how does homosexuality (or any other sexual preference, including heterosexuality) *harm* "the home and family and the nation"? There are more than enough heterosexuals to maintain the population, and homosexuals (and others) are just as capable as heterosexuals to have fine homes and families. And don't go into issues of "public health". Heterosexuals were the main public health problems in the days of syphillus and many other sexually related diseases. These are public health questions, not life style questions. I don't know how homophobia arose, but I suspect it arose in primitive tribes where public health problems were less controllable for lack of information.
kenton, you most probably know several homosexuals.
Well, if the people living in an area double their population every 100 years (extremely easy if food, etc. is somewhat plentiful), then the population will grow by a *factor* of something over 1,000,000,000 in 3000 years. Obviously starvation/disease/war/etc. would (rather brutally) cut off population growth LONG before there were 50,000,000,000 people on the land that once supported a little tribe of 50. Simplistic? Yes. But this little example illustrates fairly well the fact that humans need ways to keep their population growth in check. Esp. in the small tribal situations that humans are adapted for, homo- sexuality is good for that. Male homosexuality reduces tensions in the tribe involving male competition for females. Etc. Given more time to evolve in primitive small tribes, i suspect that homosexuality would become much more common in humans. Most other social species have more restrictive ways of keeping population growth in check - usually involving suppression of sexual activity by non- dominant individuals. Some human societies use such strategies, but i don't think it's really seen at the small tribal level.
Re resp:214 - I was about to make a similar remark.
Everything I have ever seen indicates that sexuality, in general, is determined biologically not culturally. It's not as simple as either/or, however. While most people prefer the opposite sex, and a few prefer the same sex, there is also a significant fraction that can go "either way". Sexuality is not its own separate island of behavior; it's tied up to other things, and so there is some % of people (some authorities claim 10%) who are into various forms of bdsm. Even though sexuality is not determined culturally, most cultures do have their ideas on what sexuality "should be", which in our society leads to a significant number of people who might be homosexuals through biology, but who choose to pursue heterosexual relationships instead. Some authorities claim that many people in whom homophobia is strongest, may well be examples of this "repressed" homosexuality. That is, what they fear may not be the other person, so much, as what is in themselves. Human sexuality is actually unusual in the animal kingdom. In most species, including most mammals, "sexual activity for reproduction" only happens at very particular times, and the rest of the time, females are just "not ready/not interested". In most of the great apes, females have a monthly cycle (like humans) but are only interested in sex during one small part of their cycle (unlike humans). Males are still ready for sex most of the time, but the only male who gets to mate with the females is usually the dominant (or alpha) male. The other males are out of luck, well, at least so far as females go. They can, however, have sex with each other, and they may use this as a social method of expressing dominance relations (the lower male gets to assume the "female" role.) Presumably, such behavior also helps them to "practice" having sex, and keeps the appropriate organs exercised and in peak shape, in case they become alpha male. In most mammals, the female does most of the child rearing, and the male may only be there for the sex part. Cats are a good example of this; feline sex basically works like rape. The male does his part, it appears to be necessary that the act cause some pain to the female, and the male departs. The reason humans have such "unusual" sex may be related to our intelligence. Because we're so much smarter, it takes much longer for us to mature. This is because it takes us longer to learn how to do our thing. That means the mother needs to spend more time child rearing, which makes it more important that she have help. Sex helps do that, by providing the human male with a reason to stick around and stay pair-bonded. There is actually only a period of about 3 days in the month when human females are fertile, and yet sex is still possible and enjoyable most of the rest of the time. There are some other interesting "unusual" aspects. Humans are pretty much designed to have sex face to face (although obviously other positions are possible). That makes it possible for us to socialize while having sex. Most other mammals, including most of the other great apes, are designed to have sex with both partners, well, facing the same way. The male enters from the rear. Human sex also lasts a lot longer than in most other mammals. If I remember right, with horses, chimpanzees, dogs, and cats, the act is something like 10-15 *seconds*. In addition, human females enjoy sex just as much as human males. With most other species, sex looks more like something the females endure.
quick quip about the ABC News commentary-- the filmmaker is gay (did I mention that?) and what was interesting was that many of the murderers perceived gay males to be hitting on them or one of their friends. I'm not sure how to get a copy of the tape-- try cruising around the web. Be advised that the news segment does contain some very graphic scenes-- they did show photos of a murder scene, complete with blood, broken glass, and the body.
Guess what, Kenton. Something doesn't need to be "benificial to the nation" to be alright. Freud has argued, quite compelling that religion is not beneficial to the nation. Religion still exists despite this. Your beliefs have yet to be proven correct, so why are you asking for proof of the contradictions? Your arguments are weak and close-minded, and an embarassment to people who share some of your views for more legitimate reasons.
#217> What is your evidence that sexuality is biological, unless you're making the argument that the vast majority of people are biseuxal? The twins studies are highly inconclusive, and that's the best evidence... the other (such as an observation that some gay men have significantly lower levels of testosterone) is even more "tendency" related. I've never seen *anything* that would come close to convincing me that biology determines sexuality. As for BDSM, that's cultural. One might convince me that some aspect of it is biological, in the same way that addictions might be biological, while specific addictions (to alcohol, for instance) are cultural.
Of course biology *dominates* sexuality. All organisms have reproductive - sexual - organs and 99.9% of them try to use them. Humans are no different than all other organisms in this regard. However there is also a great variety of behavior out on the statistical tails, which departs in one way or another from the "norm". That is where homosexuality - in any animals - is located: uncommon behavior (which does not decry it in any fashion).
But that's not the same thing as saying that sexual orientation is biologically determined. Rather, that's saying that organisms will tend to engage in heterosexual sex (for reproduction) unless significant cultural, environmental, or biological forces induce them not to. It doesn't even make a clear distinction between which is predicted, heterosexuality or bisexuality, since both heterosexuals and bisexuals are capable of enjoying heterosexual sex, and are hence capable of enjoying reproductive sex. In other words, it says that *not* wanting to have *heterosexual* sex is, broadly speaking, anti-evolutionary. But, by extension, that would indicate that any *strong* genetic determiner for homosexuality should evolve out of the species, which would (in turn) suggest that homosexuality (as opposed to bisexuality or heterosexuality) is cultural and environmental, with a *weak* genetic/biological influence. But the opposite isn't true. There is no evolutionary motivation for choosing between organisms that want to have homosexual sex and those that don't, hence there's no evolutionary motivation for choosing between bisexuality and heterosexuality.
Kenton's comment about not knowing any homosexuals reminds me of my own history. I was raised in a somewhat old-fashioned and protected family, at a time when homosexuality didn't get as much air play as it does these days. I don't think I really even encountered the notion until I was in my early teens. My immediate response was to find the notion thoroughly disgusting. Not a reasoned response, just a gut reaction. With a bit more thought, I decided that what people want to do in their bedrooms is not my problem, but that I certainly didn't want to hear about it. I didn't think gays needed to be punished or cured or anything, but I did think they should be *quiet* about it. They can be gay as they want to be, but please don't bother me with it, and by all means, stay off the evening news. Sex should be private. I thought this was a reasonable and generous stance. That's pretty much the way my thinking worked, until I started getting involved with M-Net, where suddenly I found myself, for the first time in my life, regularly interacting with people who I knew to be gay. Actually getting to know real, live gay people, as opposed to just imaginary gay demons made a huge difference in my thinking. I found that suddenly there was a large and diverse set of people, many of whom I genuinely liked and respected, who were homosexuals. It's a lot easier to disapprove of gays in the abstract than in the flesh. For me, this was a dilemma. I discovered that these people who I liked were in a catagory that I had considered disgusting. So I had two basic choices - decide to stand by my prejudices and write off these people, or decide to stand by the people and write off my prejudices. (Well, I guess there is another options, the "I hate all gays except the ones I know" option, but I'm not good at that kind of thinking.) Anyway, once I decided that gays are OK, the "gays should keep it private" thing collapsed too. It's not like hetrosexuals keep their sexual relationships quite. I *like* walking down the street hand-in-hand with my best beloved. Why shouldn't gays want to do so too, without fear of condemnation? Everyone's sexuality is a big part of their identity, and as hetrosexuals we routinely and constantly express our sexual orientation in public in lots of large and small ways. It's a hundred per cent acceptable, and it should be for gays as well. I think that my initial reaction to homosexuality is really a reaction to unfamiliarity. Sex role assumptions run through everything we do, and if, like me, you were raised with certain fixed assumptions, having them suddenly twisted on you can make your stomach turn, especially if, like me, you aren't very emotionally adventurous. You don't get to choose your prejudices. They get foisted off on you whether you asked for them or not. You do get to choose what you will do when your prejudices hit reality. To some degree, you also get to choose what prejudices you pass onto the next generation. I think I've matured a lot, but in spite of my intellectual stance, I'm not completely comfortable with homosexuality on an emotional level, and I probably never will be. It's hard to get past your early training. But you can change the early training the next generation gets, but doing your best not to let any lingering prejudice be reflected in your words or actions.
p
really nice posting, Jan. Although my background was completely different, you made it easy to understand where you are coming from and how it happened. Separating the intellectual from the emotional response, also helps understanding what you are thinking and feeling.
My own experience is similar to Jan's. As usual, he says it far better... Re: #222 - I don't agree with your orientation/evolution logic, brighn. In humans, sexuality could be very strongly determined by a complex of independently-inherited genes or a similar pseudo-random mechanism, and evolution could favor that set-up. Humans can easily make more babies that they can feed and care for - taking some adults out of the breeding population is usually *good* for the group's overall reproductive fitness. In the small groups where humans evolved, a homosexual's genes will be very well represented in the breeding population, so they will be conserved if a homosexual minority is of benefit to the group. In a wolf pack, only the alpha male and alpha female reproduce - why hasn't evolution stamped that out in favor of all adult wolves reproducing? On a related subject, evolution may be incapable of stamping out genetic homo- or bi-sexuality if underlying genetic mechanism is very complex, gives some slight benefit to individuals without the critical mass/combi- nation of genes to be homoi- or bi-sexual, or is replenished by common mutations of "heterosexual" genes. All sorts of blatently-bad-for-both- individual-and-group genetic disorders exist in humans, and evolution has (unfortunately) been unable to stamp those out.
Good post, Jan. Realizing the prejudices that we *do* have, and we all have them, is an important part of dispelling or at least dealing with them.
I would hesitate to quote Freud on a whole lot. While he unveiled new ideas, many of his theories have found disfavor lately. I am surprised to hear that modern, primitive cultures practice homosexuality. It must be why they are nearly extinct. I would like to know the names of those tribes, if you have it handy. I suspect that the reason only the dominant wolves of a pack breed, is because the others are last years pups. Packs seldom get large. Pigeons, geese and some other birds mate for life and both share rearing duties. Foxes both share the care of the young. I asked for reasons why homosexuality benefited ... etc. I got one good reason. Population control. The idea of a homosexual being creative has nothing to do with homosexuality. There were also a few questionable "facts". Re: M. I. I only use tact when it is to my advantage. I expect to change no ones mind in this conference. Apparently, I have stepped on your toes. If you are a homosexual, say so. Don't be ashamed. I'll still like you, but I will not like what you do. I trust I haven't left anyone guessing about the way I feel about things. But some others haven't been so forth right. Perhaps, I should have earlier said that I am unaware of knowing any homosexuals." However, I do know a guy who had his testicles removed and began taking hormones. Hey, what ever turns him on.
You're unaware of them, I'd bet, because you've obviously closed yourself off from them, Kenton. Only the most militant would bother to debate this with you.
To agree with JanC towards the end, yes, I think everyone should have the same rights to show affection. Being a straight guy, I can put a picture of my sweetheart on my desk at work, talk to my boss about the movie "we" went to, hold hands at a company picnic, and kiss each other goodbye at the airport. Could I do any of those things if I was in love with a guy? My gut tells me that I probably could, and nearly everybody I'd encounter would be basically okay with it. But our society is such that the potential negative reaction, even if there's a slim chance of it happening, is so severe that most people in the situation would tend to keep their feelings hidden, or at least held back somewhat around strangers. And that's a shame. But. That said. I'm COMPLETELY EFFING SICK of Anne Heche and Ellen Degeneres. Every time I've seen them making a public appearance, they're SO in your face about clinging to each other. When I see straight couples being that deliberate and ostentatious about displaying themselves, usually it has been a sign of trouble in the relationship. In other words, the couple is insecure about their situation with each other, and so maybe if they convince someone else that everything's fine with them, then perhaps they can convince themselves. So they don't miss the opportunity to trumpet themselves to a single passerby.
"Modern primitive" societies by definition haven't developed agriculture, and don't have much resistance to rock and roll music. It's as simple as that, and has little to do with their views on sexuality or anything else. In a wolf pack, chances are most of the members of the pack are more or less closely related to each other. A "gay uncle" or "maiden aunt" can still help propagate her genes by helping to raise his or her nephews and nieces. I don't know about wolf packs in particular, but in many species (I believe walruses and monkeys fall into this class), the alpha male doesn't last very long. He is, after all, leading a high stress life with a lot of challenges, and tends to burn out pretty fast. His successor will almost certainly be a "younger male", and in some species, that means he'll also have had plenty of homosexual experiences as he advanced through the social ladder to gain the experience to successfully overthrow the old alpha male. With domesticated animals, particularly animals in zoos, we often create social situations that are not much like what the animals would experience in the wild. It is not uncommon, in these situations, to have "breeding" problems. Either the mother doesn't know how to raise young (never having seen it done), or in some cases, the male literally does not know how to have sex. I wonder how many of these mating problems arise through the successful efforts of zoo keepers to keep their animals from protraying "undesirable" sexual behavior, such as homosexuality, or masturbation?
I think the evolutionary aspects of homosexuality are quite simple - it doesn't matter much, so there is little selection. What evolutionary pressure would there be? The species propagates just fine. Having some members that don't doesn't matter. There are many species that have neuter members - the colonial inspect workers, for example. With all of the complexity of sexual differentiation, I am not at all surprised by a variety of outcomes.
kenton, how can you posiibly know what any individual gay person does? You said you'd still like someone if you found out he/she was gay, but wouldn't like what he/she does. NOt all gay people do things you would find disagreeable, and many straight couples do things that you would.
the struggle continues..
Better not tell kenton what men and women do with each other......he'd become a heterophobe as well as a homophobe.
Now now, let's just let Kenton deconstruct himself here.
On evolution and sexuality: There are two possible hypotheses. One is that biology strongly determines sexuality. The other is that it doesn't. My discussion of evolution was meant to illustrate the problem with the first hypothesis. Rane and the other person support my view that the first hypothesis is flawed while causing me to infer that they think I support it. Rane was the one who said that sexuality was biologically determined, not me. In re the question of why alpha maleness doesn't cause non-alpha-male traits to evolve out, there's a simple answer: Look at the Middle East. Look at Ireland. Look at Yugoslavia. Look at China. Look at Australia. Look at Capitol Hill. Then tell me that aggression *isn't* selected. We are the most intelligent species; it could be said that we are the most evolved. We are also, by far, the most aggressive.
re #237: as a species, aren't we one of the largest in number, if not the largest? I would suppose, therefore, that aggression is therefore selected biologically to keep numbers down. or maybe I'm not understanding this.
Re #233 Katie, what I know about homosexuals is based on what I have read. And I read a lot, about many things, and from a variety of sources. The main thing I don't like (associated with homosexuals) are the sex acts. I find the thoughts of them disgusting. The idea of sucking a penis which has just been removed from an anus, makes me want to vomit. Yet some here, would castigate me for my strong minded aversion to these practices. I figure that some of these practices are not conducive to good health. I am aware that not all homosexuals get so extreme in their "loving". I have asked some valid questions about what causes a person to have homosexual tendencies. Congratulations to those who are truly considering those questions. I would tend to be more understanding of homosexuality if I was sure that it was not some perverted action. In other words, if the aberrant behavior was influenced by social setting or heredity was the cause. I have found that some of the people who claim to be the most open minded are really just the opposite. And I am curious about some of you. In my line of work I meet about 2 to 3 people a week, with whom I manage to establish a working relationship. I have yet to meet an open and practicing homosexual. Perhaps there are more of them in Michigan. Rane, If I want to know about women, I'll contact you the expert. Don't worry about overloading my systems, M. I. will reconstruct me.
Not all homosexuals suck penises immediately after they're removed from an naus. Few, I imagine, do. You may wish to sit down for the next revelation, Kenton: Some heterosexual women suck penises after they've been removed from an anus. Few, I imagine, do. This revelation will, quite possibly, hit you even harder, so try to take it slowly: There is *nothing* that a homosexual man does in homosexual sex that at lest some heterosexual women don't do. Anal, fellatio, rimming, fisting, you name itt, and some women will do it... some will even enjoy it. In fact, short of mutual acts (such as fellating while being fellated), there is nothing that homosexual men do that heterosexual couples don't do. Oho! But gays do them *more*, and are more *extreme* and more *blatant*... Pishposh, you're being naive. I could direct you to some very extreme depictions on the web involving heterosexual acts. For the sake of our beloved audience, I won't get graphic with the details. Suffice to say, homosexuals hardly have the market cornered on unhealthy, unhygeinic sex (and nor are most homosexuals unhealthy or unhygeinic, at least when educated).
*What?!?* I thought all heterosexuals did missionary 100% of the time! This is disgusting pornography! Note the sarcasm dripping all over that statement.
(Brighn just said what I was going to say, only much better)
If finding another person's private actions disgusting is a reasonable criteria for declaring anything illegal, immoral, etc. (vs. not-to-be- done-in-public), then how many new laws do we need against how many things that someone, somewhere might do? And if you black-list groups based on what a few members might do, you've pretty much outlawed human life.
Kenton sez: "In my line of work I meet about 2 to 3 people a week, with whom I manage to establish a working relationship. I have yet to meet an open and practicing homosexual." I'm wondering what kenton is expecting. That instead of shaking his hand they're gonna grab his ass? That they'll be dressed in pink suits and carry a purse instead of a briefcase? Lord knows I rarely introduce myself by saying, "Hi, my name is John--and I'm heterosexual." And the subject rarely comes up during subsequent business conversations, especially if I realize or suspect that the person with whom I'm conducting business has deep disgust for my desires for and relationships with the opposite sex.
I think that kenton's remark that he has "yet to meet an open and practicing homosexual" says it all. He has met dozens I bet, but there is no way to tell, besides the fact that it is none of his business.
Not having met Kenton in person, I cannot say this for certain, but he may also project an attitude that causes normally "open" gays to become somewhat less so. I suspect that gays, much like other minorities, develop a pretty good second sense of who is "cool" and who isn't . . . .
I know, as a bisexual Pagan polyamorous Dom, having a sense of who can and will try to use my alternative lifestyles against me is a simple matter of survival. The wrong word to the wrong person, and I could wind up ostracized, harassed, or worse. So yes, I'd say so, Cyklone.
I imagine that Kenton is still holding fast to a preconceived notion of how homosexuals act, dress, have sex, etc., etc. The misconception must be so strong that maybe he has indeed witnessed some exceptions, but may have turned a blind eye to it. If Paul doesn't mind, I think bisexuals can be included in this case as far as man-to-man sex is concerned. For the sake of reason, there are some things that people won't do. Not all homosexuals have anal intercourse, or at least from articles I've read. Bisexuals can be choosy, too. One of my friends told me man-to-man anal sex and kissing didn't interest him, but fellatio and cuddling did. Of course, I'm sure *all* men and women insist on having a penis washed before it is stuck anywhere else-- well, most of them. Some aren't so clean. Some only have anal intercourse in certain situations. Some men like women to penetrate them anally with a strap-on (forgive me if I offend some readers,) and I don't think they are necessarily bisexual. I've heard it explained that many hets are uncomfortable with the idea of homosexual sex because they have to imagine themselves doing it to a degree, consciously or unconsciously, and that is definitely uncomfortable to them. But many of them forget that bis and homosexuals do many of the same things heterosexual couples do-- cuddle, kiss, say kind and loving words, caress, fondle, hug, massage, smile, laugh, cry, moan (when making love), argue, delegate, share, help, desire children, etc., etc. This brings me back to my point that not all homosexuals and bis fit the stereotypes. There are exceptions to the broad generalizations, although there are often still factors that make so-called gaydar and bidar work-- yes, I do believe that there are some observable differences between hets, bis and gays, even when they're not having sex (although I think bis can be tricky). But that doesn't necessarily describe it all-- all it means is that our society still espouses the concept of gender-- that social roles must be assigned according to sex. Bis and homosexuals cross the barriers of those roles, be they in a very few or many ways. But part of that is for identification purposes. We may dress, act, talk, walk in various and intricate ways, but that is so we can recognize each other. I'm sure that the complexity grew out of some security from those who would harm us-- things were coded to avoid scrutiny-- but some don't make an effort to especially express themselves. You wouldn't really guess they were bi or gay unless you really got to know them, or if they told you. Myself-- I'm sure I look fairly straight. My clothes don't say much, although if you really knew me, you might notice I'm happy when I'm fairly well-dressed and color-coordinated. I'm extremely artistic, but so are some very straight people. I don't follow any particular trends in anything, so it's hard to be pegged with a certain sexuality. Sure, I like listening to British New Romantic bands, and I have the long bangs some of the old school cake boys used to sport, but I'll bet some straights followed some of those trends, too. Yeah, I like to street/disco/club dance, and I'm a maniac on the floor, but..so..? Sometimes I have a beard, and sometimes I don't-- and the beard has been full, a goatee, a Don Juan, George Michael-style-- and I'll bet that throws a lot of people. Some of the music I listen to is not just by gay artists-- some are bi-- but does that necessarily say anything? Hey, I used to be uncomfortable around the g/l/b community. The gays were sometimes flighty, the lesbians all seemed very leery of me, and I had no idea who the bisexuals were. But I still managed to make a few friends-- and boy, was I surprised when I found out their sexuality as well as mine! I used to think that gays were either femmy or macho in a funky sort of way, that lesbians were men-haters, and bisexuals were folks I hadn't figured out yet. (Well gee, that's funny-- I am bisexual.) My preconceived ideas started crumbling when I met some warm, caring folks in the community who seemed rather comfy with themselves, even when I met other g/l/b's who were obviously a little neurotic. The first woman to wipe away my tears was a lesbian. Not even my mother had done that for me until much later, I think. Alder tried to act tough, but she just melted when she saw me crying huddled up in a dark room. After that, she always checked up on me to make sure I was ok. I appreciated that, because I am manic-depressive and my mood swings hadn't been stabilized yet. My sister has had a lot of ups and downs-- probably a 5 on a six-point Kinsey scale who called herself lesbian for a while. We used to fight a lot, but she still trusted me enough to share some of her problems-- including the day she met a man she could not only stand, but liked. Strangely enough, most of the folks I came out to were in a similar situation-- even if a few didn't admit it at the time. The more people I met, the more I realized the g/l/b community was just like the population at large-- but the orientations of attraction were different. I'm not really practicing, although I've had a few experiences. Julie and I joke about 'window shopping,' and we still make comments on sexy bodies or either sex-- which gives others in same-sex relations pause sometimes. Really, it's kind of weird-- some folks think that because we're Mormon and getting married, we're kinda supposed to disappear, or at least put on blinders and then attach them to each other. We were watching 'Celluloid in the Closet' with our G.A.L.A. group, and the video showed a number of clips of homosexuals in the movies. One had a scene of a man taking his shirt off, and I said, "Check out that six-pack!" to which Julie and I then chorused a lustful "Ummm-hmmm." Immediately, one of the girls said, "Hey-- you guys are supposed to be getting married!" Hmmm. Well, we won't think sexual thoughts-- we're pretty religious-- but it doesn't stop us from noticing. Julie tells folks, "You can look, but don't touch the goods." So do I fit Kenton's notions or no?
Well, they *do* all like Judy Garland. You can't deny that.
There are wavelengths to all personal associations, and I'd imagine (having no factual basis for this) that a homosexual person would act differently around people they felt weren't as accepting. It's just how things work. Some people that I know tend to be a bit raunchier, and I'm cool with that. Some are fairly uptight, and I adapt. Granted, with me my standard reaction to all social situations is to shut up and sit in the corner, but there are variations of that I use :)
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.
So why can't you still write about it? Did she force you out of the group?
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.
re 252 -- yeah, I can and my other cowriter and I are planning it, but it's just not the same when you had plans involving other characters and now you have to come up with something totally different. It's scary.
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.
I am anxious to read Kenton's discourse on the connection between "perverted sex" and "poor mental health." But please, O Learned One, first define "perverted" for us . . . .
"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).
BTW Rane, the phrase "O Learned One" did not, in this case, refer to you. But I understand how you may have been confused ;)
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?
Websters- pervert--4.to debase--one practicing sexual perversion. Perversion-3. Any sexual act or practice considered abnormal. Sorry guys but there is more that be with me than be with thee. At the University that my daughter attends there was "a gay pride day" on which students were to were blue jeans to show support for gays. I was informed by my daughter that even though a normal day was infested with blue jean wearers, on that day there were few blue jeans seen on campus. Kids went out of their way to show a lack of support for this day and this people. My son in law from Croatia said that the guy out West got what he deserved. Further he said that any fags in Croatia got the hell beat out of them. Such practices were not permitted there by the average citizen. <<y response was that as long as no one was harmed, a person has the right to do what they want. <i don't agree with my son-in-law and <i don't agree with many of the writers here. The most harm done to any individual through homosexual practices is done to those who practice these perverted actions. Loss of pride in self and self esteem probably lead the list. At the present time, I am looking for a design draftsman, experienced in land development. If a homosexual man or woman met the qualifications, I wouldn't care what they did on their own time as long as they didn't try to rub my nose in it.
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).
In the paragraph beginning: My son in law... you refer to an individual who was beaten to death, in part because of his sexual orientation. In the next paragraph, you say: "The most harm done to any individual through homosexual practices is done to those who practice these perverted actions." I don't see a large number of gays beating each other to death. Apparently, loss of self-esteem, which you claim to be a result of practicing homosexuality, is more harmful than death. Hm. Wow. At any rate, you're quite right, "pervert" is someone who practices *abnormal* sexuality. So you're determining what is considered normal and abnormal. We could do that. The APA removed homosexuality from its Diagnostics Manual (I believe DSM-III was the first that didn't list it, some 10 years or so ago). In so doing, the American Psychiatric Association deemed homosexuality to be within the realm of "normal" human behaviors. Hence, according to the predominance of the experts on human behavior in this country, homosexuality is normal, and hence, it isn't perverted. In contrast, Masochism is, I believe, in the DSM-IV(R) as a personality disorder, so us BDSM folks are, in fact, perverts. Ain't life grand?
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.
so much to object to, so little time.. kenton, what is your goal when interacting with people? Do you want to be able to understand them, or are you more interested in being able to feel superior to them and their ways of life? at any rate, I can think of far worse habits than homosexuality, among them such diverse behaviors as: -drinking strawberry soda -wearing clothing circa the 70s -using the words 'perverted' 'pervert' 'fag' more than once in any post and the list goes on..
I'll just agree with Katy's first line and quit there. not too sure this is worth it <bob ponders>.
of course it's pointless, bob, but tricksters don't care about points, we care about how much fun we're having, and hooooooodoggy, this is entertainin'. =}
Kenton would have been considered a sexual pervert by the average ancient greek.
re #264: Well, not all clothes in the 70's were so over the top. I like paisely somewhat, and my dad had some real boss clothes when I was a tot. Leather armbands are cool-- so are big black leather belts. My good colors were popular then-- brown, black, sandstone, ecru, etc. It's disco and the Brady Bunch that really ruined fashion, and even then, the movie re-make characters wore clothing even more exaggerated than the cast in the TV series. You don't like strawberry pop? :( re #267: Marcus, what's your reference source? I'm curious. My understanding was that it was acceptable but not necessarily the norm. Your statement is echoed a number of places here, and I had never read about it. (Book, author, and year will suffice :) )
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
You know, I orginally began writing this with the intention of establishing a counterargument to the idea that gays and lesbians are perverts, but then I thought to myself, "I don't really give a rat's ass what kenton or mother superior thinks", and said the hell with it.
I'm afraid my office library doesn't contain much on the ancient greeks. I'll try to find something when I go home.
Hmm. Katy's first line works for me too. Kenton, your arguments are silly and nonsensical, your "data" is anecdotal and not even gathered as a primary source, and your outlook is not the standard by which all people appear. See, you're not the only person who takes his or her view of the world and applies it to everybody. On this system or otherwise. But you're by far the most blatant and the least sensible about it. Your opinions are just that... your own. Whether or not they are correct, your method of presentation leaves a great deal to be desired. I most likely agree with some of your beliefs (ones you haven't been talking about) more than the average grexer, but I cannot identify with where you stand. Your persistence at ignoring sensible reason simply does not convince or even justify yourself to anyone.
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.
(no, sorry, not strawberry soda for me, but I see no reason why you shouldn't drink it, as long as you do it in your own home, with a consenting glass, and in the dark with the curtains drawn) ;) look how easy that was
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 . . . .
There is a remote (?) possibility kenton is putting us all on. . . .
There is always that possiblity, but I'm happy to take people at face value. I'd much rather be occasionally fooled than to be distrusting everyone.
re #276: now *that* would be interesting
Well, if so kenton has done Grex a great service. There have been some fascinating posts in this item! (Re resp:276)
No, judging from the information and the rate that it continues to appear, I'd say he's serious. I think you said something at the beginning of this about being open minded, didn't you? (or am I just imagining things) If that is so, why do you continue to use words like "fag" and "pervert" etc when you know (at least I assume you know) that they are offensive. I hope you're not trying to convince us to stop being gay/bi/lesbian or whatever. A lot of the people who post on this conf. have been the way they are most if not all their lives. Homo- and bisexuals are people. I agree that they shouldn't "rub it in people's faces. I'm not altogether fond of Hets who do that (and they do, did you notice that?) I think that one's sexual orientation should be kept private, except in circustances such as these. I don't mind discussing it if people ask me about it. I'm not ashamed to say I'm bisexual, even if I haven't had any physical experience with a MOTSS. If people asked me about it, I would tell them flat out how I felt (in as far as I was able to do so) Just as parentss are supposed to explain to interested children, how babies come about. I would try to be circumspect. I think that, if hets want to have a het pride day, I would probably support that, just as I'd support gay pride if they had a gay pride day here. I think that open-mindedness refers more to the acceptance of people regardless of who they are or might be and regardless, further, of what they do or don't do in the privacy of their homes or out in public for that matter. I do have to agree that those who sleep around are worse, but more because I think that people who do that, needlessly put themselves and others at risk for dangerous, even fatal diseases. Jon has promised me he will get tested before we get married. Just to be safe, I may get tested myself. I have a lot of respect for Jon because he loved me enough to be up front with me about the experience he mentioned to you and because he still loves me enough to get tested. Maybe we should abandon this conversation and talk about something worthwhile for a change.
Hrm..still, it has always fascinated me that the naysayers have more of the traits they so condemn than they'd like to admit, in some cases.
Real or pseudo, kenton's a pretty interesting character. He seems willing to expose his views to an audience that does not agree with them, interested in learning from their reaction, and good-humored in the face of a rather hostile reception. I suspect that many of "us" wouldn't fare as well in his shoes.
He does try to put many of us in his shoes, by responding stubbornly and in nearly total disregard for the opinion of others.
To be "in his shoes" as i meant it would mean that you were alone in an item where everyone else more-or-less held kenton's views, and felt free to let your know how wrong you were....
There's a bit of confusion here regarding the idea of sexuality - in
terms of that an individual is a sexual being and has a sexual drive - and
what Edward Hall calls (somewhat confusingly) bixsexuality - the division of
the two biological sexes into different roles and assigning sexual meaning
to those roles. The two don't overlap completely.
That's one reason that homosexuality (and especially bisexuality) isn't
something that'd be eliminated by natural selection - sexuality has a far
broader use among humans and recent homonids than just reproduction!
Heh. This item is amusing. Amazingly, it hasn't turned into mnet yet :)
Re: #283 - Rane, c'mon, you of all people can't be serious! :-) Re: #280 - I find use of the word "gay" to mean "homosexual" to be offensive. Let's everybody get offended!
"perverted" means "abnormal" Is homosexuality "abnormal"? "abnormal" means "not normal." Is heterosexuality normal? "normal" means one of two things: (a) the modal/medial behavior of an object within a particular group (b) occurring naturally (plausibly) within an otherwise healthy member of a species (a) is easy to figure out. The mode of a group is the most frequently occurring characteristic of that group; the median of a group is the statistical average of a numerical characteristic. Short of Kinsey's numeric scale of sexual experience, which has since changed into a scale of sexual interest, it's difficult to determine a "median" of sexuality. All the same, I'd wager that the median of sexual experience is around 1.5, mostly heterosexual; the mode of sexual experience is certainly heterosexual, though it's uncertain whether the mode of orientation is heterosexuality or bisexuality... it certainly isn't homosexuality. So from a statistical standpoint, homosexuality is abnormal. (b) is the one people really spend all the time arguing about. One the one side, same-sex behavior occurs in non-humans, and even non-primates, but it's unclear whether this can be classed as "homosexual" in the same way that it's unclear that human sexual terms at all can be applied to non-humans, since they contain clusters of emotions as well as behavior. In my last post, I point out that the APA doesn't consider homosexuality in and of itself a mental illness, and there are plenty of humans who are practicing homosexuals but who are not intherapy for any other reasons, so it appears that, on a subjective level, homosexuality does, in fact, occur in otherwise healthy members of the community. Unfortunately, this is a subjective assessment. While not all homosexuals are in therapy, incidence of mental and social dysfunction is clearly higher among the hemosexual population than among the bi/heterosexual population (let me make it clear that the bisexual population is a transient one, in that it patterns like the heterosexual one in certain regards and like the homosexual one on others). The standard -- and I think viable -- argument for this is that what causes the mental and social dysfunction is not the homosexuality per se, but societal lack of acceptance of it. So the preponderence of evidence in this matter says that homosexuality is normal. However, we still haven't looked in depth at the *opposite* issue... is *homophobia* normal? Inasmuch as homophobia is a form of xenophobia -- fear of strangers, or people who are different -- yes. A certain level of xenophobia is necessary from an evolutionary standpoint. Inasmuch as my genes are attempting to find others which will help them strengthen and propogate within the population, I should be seeking out people of a similar genetic background, and avoiding people who don't suit my genetic reproductive needs. Homophobia comes from the same source that racism, sexism, etc., come from: an externaliztion of what is, for almost all of us, an internal process: a drive to maximize our own genetic effect on future generations. Note that sexism is on the list. While our reproductive systems know that we must mate with a member of the opposite sex in order to reproduce, our genetic coding demands that we avoid the opposite sex as much as possible, if we wish to propogate our own (obviously superior) genes. These drives, as much as they occur within the brain, go on within the "lizard" or "amphibian" brain... the oldest portion of our brain. We consider it vulgar when people *who hold beliefs we don't* act on their inbred xenophobia, and yet are generally unaware when we act on them ourselves. Indeed, homosexuality is, in part, rooted in the same drive: Avoiding the opposite gender. This xenophobic model not only predicts homophobia, it ALSO predicts homosexuality *as a natural phenomenon*! It contains two main directives: (1) Seek those who are similar to you (2) Avoid those who are dissimilar to you Taking to its extreme, this xenophobia-driven genetics does NOT strengthen the species, it ultimately destroys it. If everyone were homosexual, and refused to even ACT bisexual, the species wouldn't survive long enough to develop methods of artificial insemination (as a species, now, we are free to become 100% homosexual, but old habits die hard). Even in a heterosexual world, this xenophobia has led to inbreeding, which leads to increased birth defects and decreased immunity. In order to prevent total genetic xenophobia, genetic development has also evolved to FORCE members of a species to mate with outsiders or risk annihilation. Hence, on a genetic level, we must follow a balance between: (a) Opposites attract (b) birds of a feather flock together We must include JUST ENOUGH foreign genetic material into our pool to maintain health, but in the main, we must reinforce our own genetic make-up. There it is, from my own spin on genetics.
The median is the Q-50 - the 50th percentile. It is not the statistical mean.
I don't believe I said or suggested that mean and median are the same. I suppose one might infer that from my using a non-integer for the Kinsey scale, since it's generally presented as an integer scale, but I also use half-points (that is, for me, the Kinsey scale runs 0, .5, 1, 1.5, 2, up to 6, as opposed to the more traditional 0, 1, 2, ... up to 6). (Statistical medians always have to be one of the points on the scale; it can't be between points on the scale. Means, being mathematical averages, can be between points on the scale.)
(Sorry for being picky, but I'm teaching a stats course this term, so could not resist 8^}. You wrote "the median of a group is the statistical average of....." in #288.)
Ah. Point taken. "Average" non-rigorously is ambiguous between mode, median, and mean, but true, in statistics, it's typically synonymous with "mean." Now that we've bored everyone else. =}
(average cannot mean mode or median as neither requires taking an average (of two or more things)....keep it under your hat.....)
Hey, dammit, quit drifting! This item is about perverts, and how they sometimes beat up gay people!
Statisticians aren't perverts? <mild shock> ;)
I read an amusing and highly biased article against Christianity in the paper yesterday. Nice to know that Christians can be victims of rabid prejudice too.
"average" in the sense of "typical"... "the average person has two arms" refers to a mode or a median, but certainly not to a mean (since there are some one-armed people out there, and no three-armed people that I'm aware of). The mode of "number of arms" is 2, the median is 2, but the mean is 1.99999995, or something like that. Likewise, we could either say, "the average American family has 2.3 children" or "the average American family has 2 or 3 kids" (mode) or "the average American family has 2 kids" (median) I'll give you the math argument, but in everyday speech, "average" is ambiguous, dammit. ;} Statisticians are perverts only inasmuch as they enjoy teaching it to others, making them sadists (and hence, according to the APA, mentally ill). ;}
In other words, perverts?
Re. 223: Good post, Jan. I don't remember where/when I first heard about gays, but I do remember thing, "Yuck, how can anybody do that?" But even though I was from a conservative family, for some reason I never picked up my parents views on a lot of things. My opinion was--and still is--that what people do is their own biz, as long as it's legal and doesn't hurt anybody. Since then, I've met a few gays and don't think anything of it. I will admit, however, I was a bit taken aback when I saw lesbians kissing at a party I went to, but just accepted it as a new experience.
Its just putting allowably exposed body parts together, like shaking hands. Why should anyone notice?
Because it's dirty, sick, and perverted. Not like when straight people do it. That's fine.
actually (um re:299) can't say i still don't take notice to ( for ex:) lesbians kissing.. well, i notice ANY PDA's to some extent but it isn't the "norm" for the general public (for lack of better words) and even most of my female friends (most being gay/bi) are rather discrete. hmm, Can't say what i feel or think really, just that i take notice.. I'm living downtown "boystown" Chicago's version ofgreenwich villiage basically rainbow flags fly for more than a mile from my place on Northalstead it is impossible to find a bar or store that doesn't um 'cater' to gays yet every weekend on my way home from work i "notice" the boys on their way home from the bars <no snickering> o.k. so at this point i think i lost track of ANY point i may have been trying to make but ah-well ;)
Measures of Central Tendancies are not very useful when trying to determine the average sexual orientation of a population since it is completely unknown just how many people in this world are homo, or bi. It's also nearly impossibly to obtain an unbiased, totally random selection of the population. Sexual orientation is a personal issue for most people and a lot of people really don't like to share that info with others. I remember working for Greenpeace some years ago. Management decided to do a diversity survey, but the only minority that was excluded was a catogory for gays and lesbians. I was a little pissed so I called the woman that did the research and she explained to me that she originally created a catagory for gays & lesbians, but as she was calling each of the offices around the country, no one would give her information on how many gays & lesbians worked for the country because they didn't know, nor would anyone step forward to be counted. I instructed her to redo the survey and include a catagory even if I was the only person on the list. She eventually did, but I thought it was a bit ridiculous that out of an organization with over 10,000 employees throughout 30 different offices throughout the country, including San Francisco, that there was only one openly gay person-- and Greenpeace, the world's largest environmental organization, was one of the most liberal and progressive organizations on the planet. The point to all of this is that the power of statistical validity if greatly reduced with a population selection that does not represent the true population. Now, having said that, back to the regular discussion...
or maybe there aren't as many gay people as you wish there were...
well, I've never bought the "one out of ten" theory, but I'd like to believe that there's more of us than 1 out of 10,000. This is just a prime example of how skewed statistical research can get. Imagine how impossible it would be to get accurate data on how many minorities lived in the US if all of them were somehow able to disguise themselves as Anglo Americans. The data would be useless.
For the sake of those of us with short attention spans. Could I convince you guys to keep it to less than a page, please?
re #302: Wow, I've gotta see this place.. re #303: I think *everyone, everywhere* has their biases, hiding places, myths, etc. etc. Even minorities and minority-friendly groups exclude some people. i.e. it is interesting to note that even people of color have derogatory terms for those of mixed ethnicity
#306: Do what I do. Skip the long posts. There's no reason why everyone should have to read everything posted here... it's not like this is a job or anything. It's a conversation, and, as with real life, you might miss things that some people have to say, or find them uninteresting. Life goes on.
sorry brighn, did you say something?
I may have had a technical problem... post #309 was blank. Did anyone else have that problem? ;}
Just got around to reading this very long discussion. I respect Kenton for
supporting his beliefs, particularly as they differ from those of most of the
other participants in this conference (in other words, they are, at least for
grex, 'abnormal'). Kenton, if you are still around, could you explain to us
how you happened to have opinions on homosexuals when you say you never knew
any? Where did you get your facts? I suspect they may be close to majority
opinion for people where you live (very rural Pennsylvania), in which case
this is a valuable chance for people in grex to actually have a civil (most
of the time) discussion with someone trying to explain the reasons for such
opinions. I also strongly suspect that if Kenton actually knew as many
homosexuals as the average person in Ann Arbor (and knew that he knew them),
his opinions would change.
To draw a parallel, Kenton was a highly active participant in the
dowsing discussion (a few agoras ago, linked to paranormal). He grew up in
a society where it was normal to dowse, and began dowsing from an early age.
Rane, on the other hand, who does not know any dowsers personally (at least
not any close friends or relatives), does not believe dowsing even exists,
or if it does, a rod going down in someone's hands is something they do by
choice. I thought dowsing was a big hoax until a few years ago, because of
the silly stuff I read about angels and earth spirits and dowsing for lost
keys and the like. That was until Jim, who has never lied to me, dowsed on
his very first try, and consistently, even with his eyes shut. He has no idea
why it works for him and not for me. I will probably never learn to dowse,
Jim learned immediately, other people may be able to learn after a while.
Similarly, some people have always had homosexual feelings, some never will,
and some may have them only if exposed to certain environments.
I think it is wonderful that there is a such a broad range of
individual talents and features, that is what has allowed humankind to spread
into so many different environments. Even if one feature, say the ability
to dowse or to develop a strong emotional and physical attachment to a member
of the same sex, is not particularly advantageous in most environments, in
the long run is has obviously been beneficial to society, since it persists.
(Schizophrenia, Tay-Sachs, sickle-cell anemia, and some other diseases also
benefit society under certain conditions, just not the individual.)
Rane, I suggest that some day you watch Jim dowsing, and Kenton, I
suggest that you take the time to read the discussions in the glb conf, in
order to collect more facts on which to base your opinions.
I also thought I did not know any homosexuals until I came to Ann Arbor
(where this is not something to hide), but then one day my mother mentioned
that her best friend's son, who had gotten divorced, had AIDS and was living
with another man. And a friend from high school mentioned that his brother,
who had gotten divorced (in both cases there were children), had move to
Provincetown (a gay community on the tip of Cape Cod). Which all goes to show
that you can't spot a gay person unless they want to be spotted. I have known
lots of men with mannerisms and interests closer to the norm for women, and
vice versa for women, and most of them were not homosexual.
Sorry for the long entry, but it is my only one. And I want to say
that I am glad that Kenton has been willing to tackle most of grex in defense
of what he believes to be right, just as I am glad that Rane persisted in
challenging just about everything I said in dowsing - it gets people thinking.
Watching Jim douse wouldn't prove anything as there are not time and resources to set up a double blind experimental test. No dowser has ever passed one, however, so I would be properly skeptical.
Oh, goodness, not THIS discussion again.
I think I should have spelled it dowse. I might be interested in seeing Jim douse. 8^}
While we are at setting up experiments, how about one in which Jim dowses for gays, blindfolded? Or a statistical analysis of the relative percentages of dowsers who are and are not gay?
One thing about finding water when I'm dousing though, it's 100% reliable. Whenever I've doused, I've found water. In fact, the water had been in my hands, and has been doing the dousing. =}
Hahahahaha
:P
Subsequent banter aside, I though Sindi's resp:311 was excellent. It always amuses me when people assert that they "don't know any gay people". They probably know a number but are simply unaware that they're gay. This speaks to some pretty prevalent erronoeous stereotypes about what gay people are "like". In my less enlightened days I held to some of those stereotypes myself. My enlightenment was quite similar to that described by Jan Wolter in an earlier response.
I guess that many people who claim to be open mined are fooling themselves. I have known some to do things that were against their "normal" way of thinking, just to prove they weren't predudiced. Could I legislate a prohibition of homosexuality, I wouldn't waste my time. Change must come from the heart. Can I carry on a normal (normal for the majority) man to man relationship with a homosexual man? Yes, as long as he does not come out of the closet. Can some of the readers here carry on a relationship with me inspite of my strong opinions about homosexuality? Well???
As long as it doesn't come up, yes.
My inability to carry on a relationship with Kenton would not be stemmed in his homophobia.
Somehow the `can't have a normal man-to-man relationship with an out gay' in #320 strikes me as odd. Is this like `can't have a normal person-to- person relationship with a woman', or `can't have a normal friendship with a Jew', or ??? Would it make a difference, kenton, if the homosexual man was really committed elsewhere, so he had no more sexual interest in you than you have in, say, Barbara Bush?
Good question. Perhaps, I would be ashamed to be seen with a homosexual. But, I doubt that. As a general rule, I don't care what people think of me or my actions. I am, of course, speaking of my personal life. Paul, your response of 322 puzzles me, because I have neither a fear of nor hatred for homosexuals, mainly just curiousity. Now a murderer would be a different matter,.....maybe.
Kenton, have you ever had any personal contact with someone you knew was homosexual? I think you said you had not, so how do you know how you would react?
Apropos being seen with a gay friend: I used to have lunch a couple of times a week with a gay friend when I lived in NYC. He was a "Village People" sort of gay, if you know what I mean. Very macho looking but *too* macho, what they used to call a "clone." No one looking at him would have any doubt as to his sexual orientation in those days. It never bothered me to be seen with him -- he was a nice guy and an old childhood friend of mine and we'd been buddies forever. One day, however, we were on our way to a restaurant, joking and laughing, and out of the corner of my eye I noticed my ex-shrink walking past us. He'd been staring openly at me and my friend. This was a man whom I'd regaled for almost a year with tales of heterosexual woe -- the breakup of my first marriage, several false starts on new relationships with New York women. I'd terminated "therapy" with him, which had consisted mainly of gripe sessions anyway, a few weeks earlier when I'd finally hit it off with a woman in my building, and I was still feeling slightly guilty about it. "Oh, shit," I said, "that guy was my ex-shrink." My friend practically collapsed with laughter. "I love it! Now he's thinking, 'What did I do to that patient?!?'"
Using the word "normal" shoots you in the foot when you're discussing
formal cultural standards (in the Edward Hall sense for the anthropology nit-
pickers in the crowd) - largely unspoken social conventions - which American
culture is steeped in. What your define as a "normal" friendship may not be
a "normal" friendship for someone else; nor may your "normal" heteroseuxal
relationship be similar to their "normal" hereosexual relationship.
That said, I'd be interested in hearing what the difference is to
Kenton between a closeted male gay friend and an uncloseted one. One would
think that a closeted male gay friend *wouldn't* choose him as a confidante
about his sexual preferences, but one never knows ...
It's an interesting comment about "fooling one's self".
Openmindedness, to my understanding, doesn't mean that you accept things on
an even level with those things you accept - you're never going to be as
comfortable with someone else's sexual preferences as your own the way you're
never going to be comfortable in someone else's house as your own - but rather
to give things which may make you uncomfortable the benefit of hearing them
out *desipte* the fact that they make you uncomfortable.
But that's just me. :)
I should hope Kenton wouldn't be ashamed to be seen with a homosexual. Or else he'd have to be ashamed to be seen with a recovering alchoholic, or a guy who cheated on his wife 15 years ago, or a woman who cheated on her taxes last year, or just about every other member of the human race.
um? tsk tsk steve
re #328: Reminds me of what a Christian friend of mine said to me at work. She believes homosexual activity is a sin (as many Christians do), but then she notes that we are all sinners. If having homosexual sex is a sin, is this sin therefore greater than other sins, as some claim? And if this is so, then should they be ostracized? She doesn't think so. Let me explain why I think not, as well. The Biblical accounts of Jesus of Nazareth state that he made friends that were considered questionable. They include the following: 1. Publicans, or Roman taxcollectors. These poor souls were probably not paid a living wage by the Romans. They often overtaxed the people so they might be able to have enough money to live on. One could agree this was a dishonest practice, so Jewish leaders considered them outcasts, besides the fact they worked for the Empire. 2. Women who worked as prostitutes. If a woman did not have a family or was disowned, this was one of the few ways of making money. 3. Samaritans. They were looked down upon by pious Jews because they had married outside the covenant, and engaged in foreign practices, although they kept the law of Moses to a substantial degree. 4. Other sinners. This is interesting in light of the fact that Jewish leadership had become less spiritual, or religious, and more political. Interpretation of the law had become quite ritualistic, and there were several factions in the religion. Now I don't doubt that homosexuals were included in the list, but they are not noted. When the law was created, some homosexual practices were tied to foreign religions, and it is very likely the practice was excluded in the Jewish religion because of their outside influences. In fact, it has been noted that many of the Ten Commandments distinguish the Judaic faith from religions at that time that threatened to consume it. Another example is the prohibition of graven images (or idols) that was common in Egyptian belief. Even if homosexuality per se is contradictory to the principles of Judaism and Christianity, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist and isn't a problem. Even though the glb community may dislike the writings of Paul, some scholars have theorized that 'the thorn in his side' may have been his way of saying he was homosexual. Therefore, his advice of celibacy may have been misinterpreted by early followers. In any event, I understand that some gay Mormons remain celibate to remain strong in the faith. This has been encouraged at times, and they have been compared to women who have not had the opportunity to marry. There are also Mormons who have been widowed, or have separated. Widows and widowers may choose to marry again, but not all. Those who were sealed (married for eternity) remain sealed to the spouse who has passed on. Some separate, but do not obtain a cancellation of sealing, or what is informally known as a temple divorce. Of course, one cannot remarry while the sealing is still in effect, and I have never heard of those who obtain a second sealing. This is why Mormons tend to look at marriage as a one-shot deal. Therefore, there are other singles who are abstinent, but are not gay. Of course, this does not sit perfectly well with me, because I know of many disgruntled g/l/b (mostly g/l; so sue us for het privilege) Mormons who leave the church or discontinue their activity because of its policy. One of them is my sister, as I have said before. I would rather hope that these people would choose to commit to only one person of the same sex if that is what they choose, thereby following very similar principles that constitute the LDS (Mormon) definition of the law of chastity. Therefore, such people would remain faithful to their partners, and abstain from sex until they were chosen. I understand some believe this is fruitless because society has not accepted a concept of gay marriage, and some gay Mormons are probably quite upset that they cannot attend LDS temples or hold the Priesthood. But I would think that it would be easier to continue to attend an LDS congregation and remain true to their core beliefs, rather than denounce some of them (besides the ones they aren't allowed to participate in) to fit in to another Christian congregation that is tolerant of g/l/b lifestyles. Despite the fact that homosexual sex is not accepted in the LDS Church, it has been made quite clear that they are loved and accepted. Other options have diminished. The Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, a splinter church that formed after the death of founder Joseph Smith, has been accepting of homosexual couples (who likely followed principles I described above), but has recently denounced the Book of Mormon in order to receive money from Christian organizations. The church has been bankrupt for years. I would bet that many gay Mormons who have left their church practice serial monogamy, and have changed some of their standards almost in retaliation. Most, I am sure, do so very quietly. In any case, this saddens me. If you'll forgive my tangential wanderings, my point is that even the most conservative and outwardly pious people have problems that effect their happiness. Let me suspend the word 'sin' for a bit. Alcoholism, homosexuality, and mental illness are just a few of the things that are not sins-- but are conditions that may impinge on people's happiness. Anything out of moderation can fit this category, too. Everyone's got problems and perceived imperfections. Rarely, if at all, are these imperfections portrayed in ways that are beneficial, and much of the time, they are seen as things that make people inferior or harmful. In any interest group, you have radicals and conservatives. Radicals are always pushing for change, and conservatives try to keep things as they are. Believe it or not, both groups are beneficial. Conservative g/l/bs are rather invisible because they either aren't heard or don't raise their voice. Garry Trudeau's portrayal of Mike's politically conservative boyfriend probably isn't a myth, but you don't guess these folks are gay. Most probably stay in the closet, or carefully hide themselves. But it's a shame their views don't get heard much; stereotypes probably wouldn't be a prevalent if they spoke once in a while. I'm fairly moderate myself, and I do think that the medium is rather happy at times. It puts me in a good negotiating position, and it is easier to see opposing ends of an argument, for me, sometimes. I'm fairly mellow, too, so I rather enjoy talking a subject out. I wouldn't doubt there are a lot of people in this category. In terms of sexuality, most people are said to be moderate, too. As we said earlier, Kinsey's proposal that most people are bisexual is puzzling sometimes when so many identify as heterosexual. But then, people are still really uptight about discussing sexuality, as has also been said, especially if it contradicts what is said to be the norm. <ramble set= off>
Kenton, I personally classify anyone who is incapable of having a serious friend-based relationship with an openly homosexual person a homophobe. That cliassification is niether universal nor unheard of.
Re #330: one sure does get tied into knots when one has to follow an accumulated contradictory batch of tenets, and spend time worrying about what other people do in their private lives. The knives that would cut those Gordian knots are tolerance, acceptance of everyone as just human beings, and only being concerned about *criminal* behavior that threatens ones life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Sexuality is not the business of anyone not directly involved.
I don't believe anybody is "incapable" of having a serious friend-based relationship with an openly homosexual person. If you'll permit me, Paul. I think what you mean is this: Any person who fears homosexuals and homosexuality so much that their fear interferes with any healthy, friend-based, relationship with an open homosexual (or even conversation with said homosexual) is probably homophobic. To my mind, this should not mean that we (meaning Gays, Lesbians, and Bisexuals) should treat that person with fear or hatred (homophobophobia?). We should attempt to make the person more comfortable, provide needed information, not allow them to make us angry or fearful, and, when all else fails, pity them. I always feel sorry for someone who allows their fear to stand in the way of a possibly rewarding friendship. If fear and hatred should lead to violence on the part of the homophobic against the homosexual, then it is advisable to fight for all you're worth--spare nothing and take no prisoners. Fear and hate should not be a reason for more fear and hate. Our purpose is to survive and thrive, not to denounce those who act in ignorance brought on by fear of the unknown.
I for one have had quite a few homosexual freinds, doesn't mean I condone their lifestyle.
332> Kenton is of the opinion, as many homophobes are, that he doesn't fear or hate homosexuals, though. So your explanation doesn't work. He *is* incapable of having a serious friend-based relationship with an open homosexual at this point in his life because he says he is.
Re #334: it is not your business to condone or not. Re #335: but he hasn't tried, so what he says may not be true.
Re: #336: It is not your business to tell people what they may or may not condone. So there!
yeah and my daddy can beat up yours. sheesh........
Kevin, it isn't your business to tell Rane that it isn't his business to tell people what they can or can't condone. I have a headache now.
Right! I think I have more right to tell someone they have no business condoning or not condoning things that are not their business than they have in telling me that I should not tell people that it is not their business to condone (or not). Condoning/not-condoning is sticking one's nose into other people's business, making them nosy parkers, if that is clearer.
rcurl, there is no one on grex that thinks you wouldn't assert you have more rights to do something you agree with than someone else has to do something he/she agrees with.
Glad I made myself clear... 8^}
I heartily request that you two stop the bickering.
I find it amusing, but confusing.
Me too....bickering? It is just word play because the topic has been so thoroughly ground up.
re: last debate-- I would suppose the idea seems ridiculous if you're not a religious person. But if you are, then refusing to condone might be an issue. We're all for religious freedom here, and some of the major religions still do not accept homosexual practices (sex, that is) in their tenets. But that doesn't ban the homosexual from continuing to worship in that religion. Re: #332, yes, it is a Gordian knot sometimes, and I, for one, am in one somewhat, but shessh, I chose my priorities. However, I'll admit that it's really ultimately a private matter, and between you and God or whoever your higher power is. My beliefs are my own, so I keep 'em, however fandangled and tied up they may be. I just hope folks would learn that no one can force you to do anything, nor can they deliberately corrupt you or steal your soul. (nope, neither God nor the devil nor anyone under the sun)
No need to be so defensive, Paul No one likes to be told they are afraid (Phobophobia). IT's difficult to admit. It's also typical for the human race to fear or hate that which it does not understand. Therefore, in one way or another we are all phobics. Regardless of whether or not they really *are* afraid, We should not let other people's rudeness or bad conduct towards us to make us angry. That brings us down to their level.
WHO THE FUCK IS BEING DEFENSIVE???????????? heh heh. sorry =}
LOL that was funny.
<i chuckles>
The last 15 or so responses sent me into gales of laughter. This is not good at 4:30 in the morning.
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.
Your opinions are worthless to me, too, Kenton. I was explaining my viewpoint; I wasn't asking you to agree with it.
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?
If someone's opinions are worthless to you, why bother to "grex"?!
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?
You are sooooo cool Cindy!!!
There is entirely too much public obsession with sex and sexual matters.
Cindi, thanks for the analysis and defense, but I am trying to find out more about the people on grex, than I am about homosexuals. I suspect that a few would try to beat me up physically or worse, if they had the guts or if they were drunk. In short they are closely related to the pair whose actions lead to the death of the homosexual mentioned at the beginning of this conference. But then I've been wrong about many things and maybe this is one of them.
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.
I doubt that anyone here has the least interest in physically attacking anyone, least of all Kenton. Is that another one of your obsessions, Kenton? Of being attacked physically? It would go along with the fear of the unfamiliar.
I dunno, rcurl, your words often pack a wallop! ;-)
Grexers are, in my experience, far far more likley to debate you to death than to raise a hand in anger. Verbal people, which you pretty much have to be to enjoy Grex, tend not to react physically.
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.
Kevin> I grex out of an overwhelming sense of arrogance, since my opinions are obviously so imoprtant to everyone esle, since they're mine. My purpose is to amuse myself with the idiocy of others and to demonstrate to all concerned how blindingly brilliant I am. Wasn't that obvious? Rane, Kenton> It is my understanding that the chemical composition of saliva is such that the HIV virus doesn't persist in it. The reason why you can concievably get HIV from oral sex/French kissing is because there are occasionally cuts in the mouth, particularly bleeding gums, esp. immediately after brushing. If there is *fresh* blood in the saliva, there is (I suppose) the remotest possibility of acquiring the virus. This is all my understanding, which may be flawed, and I am not a medical professional or resource, nor am I attempting to represent one.
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.)
Ejaculate and blood both carry the AIDS virus, but it also seems to me that female to male transmission is less common than male to female because the female system is designed to intake ejaculate (semen), whereas the male system isn't, so it seems to me that the only way a male could get HIV from a female is either by swallowing a significant amount of her fluids (ejaculate and/or blood), or by the misfortune of having a small cut somewhere (possibly, by getting it into the urethra and having it infect into the bloodstream). I mention the urethra because men do occasionally get yeast infections there (and they are, allegedly, significantly more painful when they happen than female yeast infections are), and I know one person who admitted to getting an e coli infection there, so things DO creep in. All right, enough ick for one post. =}
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.
Paul slipped in. The lining of the urethra (even the part that is in your penis at the glans) is mucus membrane and any infected fluid in contact with that tissue puts the male at risk.
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>
I don't know what you inferred, Jon.
If you mean that you implied it, then yeah, I was clarifying.
Quickie language lesson:
"I inferred x" means that, from what you said, I determined that x was true.
"I implied x" means that, from what I said, I meant for you to determine x
was true.
On an interpersonal communication level, it's typically better to say "I
inferred x" than "you implied x," because the latter is accusatory and may
be untrue. ("I feel that you implied x" serves the same function as "I
inferred x".)
End of lesson.
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*.
(I disagree partially with Rane, but won't say why, so as not to contribute to this line of drift. Let's get back to gay-bashing issues and icky stuff.)
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.
(Sorry John...) By implying it all you are doing is conveying a view or opinion. The inference of truth is a simple error by the inferee.
I infer that Rane likes to argue fine points of vocabulary.
That is a case in point, as the inference is not true. You might infer instead that I like to argue with pedants. 8^}
<jessi ducks, and asks someone to let her know when this blows over>
#375> But an inference NEED NOT be false, either. I think we're arguing objective vs. subjective truth, and it seems that for you a "truth" must be objectively true... Let us say, in response to the question, "Did you and Monica ever have sexual relations." I respond, "Monica and I did not have a sexual relationship. I never had sex with Monica." I intend to imply that Monica nad I never had sexual relations, which is a fair inferrence from my response. In order for me to imply this, the truth value of "Monica and I had sexual relations" is irrelevant... what is relevant is the truth value I want you to infer for "Monica and I had sexual relations." Which is what I said at the outset. This is different from a presupposition. In saying, "I corrected you," you pressuppose, "You said something inaccurate." Since I never said anything inaccurate, you could not have corrected me.
I only infer from the statement made that you have said that you did not have sexual relations with Monica (I also infer that you seem to get around....). I have no idea what you intended to imply - I only know what you said. This is especially true as the statement is ambiguous, as what constitutes "having sex" is not self-evident. *I* have sex - I am male. A man talking to a woman is a sexual relation (among many other things). I think that what is inferred from that statement reflects more upon the predilections of the inferee (perhaps, to "believe the worst"?) than in the content of the message.
I just forgot... are we arguing? I think we're just saying the same thing and giving everyone else headaches. I think we should both stop showing off. =}
My god. It's a logic course. Can I get credit for reading this?
Yes, but you have to pay tuition first. Send tuition to Grex, Office of Admissions, and we will credit you.
Actually, it's a rhetorics course. Make checks payable to Paul Kershaw, Direcotr of Admissions. Any amount will do.
And we wonder why M-Netters find Grex boring.
No ideas, m'self. I'm having a good time. Aren't you, Rane?
That is such an insane idea that it might actually work
Yes, I find this much more interesting than the mucous membrane of the urethra.
Kenton, don't let it phase you. We're usually a lot nicer than this. We just have a tendency to be a tad defensive, don't we boys and girls?
Not me.
Re: 33 I collect quite a following at cocktail parties with that stuff. Guess you have to be there. ;-)
re #390: heh. whatever. obnoxious, then
re female-to-female transmission of hiv: although it's often claimed that lesbians have a low-to-almost-nonexistent transmission rate for hiv, the truth is that no one really knows. as far as i've been able to determine, there has been *one* study of woman-to-woman hiv transmission done, in 1991, involving less than 100 women, all of whom were either iv drug users, bisexual, or both (however, by the criteria used to establish lesbianism in that study, not even i would qualify). i found the study by dint of digging around for quite a while at the cdc's web site. if anyone's really interested, i could try re-finding the specific url for the study. if anyone knows of any other studies which have been done since then, i will happily sit corrected and delightedly go off in search of them.
No offense meant to anybody, but this conversation is getting seriously boring.
Julie is easily bored
(I've asked my mother if she knows about any studies like that void, and any decent general sites with that sort of information..)
thanks, maeve. :)
Re #394. The next time you read this item, type "forget" at the prompt. Solves your boredom forever.
Nice lesson on language. I'll have to remember that rule, it's a
handy explanation of the difference.
Kenton, don't worry. Most GREXers are small or easily cowed. But your
position, here, invites controversy and tongue-wagging (sic) and I'm sure
you're perfectly aware of it, though I'm unsure of your motives in doing so.
If it genuinely is to express your feelings about homosexuality, popular GREX
opinion be damned, more power to you.
I guess Kenton's given up as he hasn't responded for nearly three weeks.
Hrm-- I wouldn't be so sure. If it stretches to months, then perhaps he has given up.
We can hope...
oh dear, I had a letter but it's in my school account and I can't get to it, but I believe the difficulties have to do with the general lack of blood to blood contact involved..
re 398: Thanks, Catriona. that's advice I may take to heart. re 399: I'm with you, jazz. Everybody's entitled to his/her opinion. If you don't like it, type "forget" at the prompt.
You have several choices: