68 new of 84 responses total.
Yeah...what he said. :)
i'm a little confused, too, jack, but for as much as you write with as little attention as you pay to the posts of others, i'll just skip the confusion. first, the idea that writing is devoid of emotion is so ludicrous as to be passed off as another one of your sidesteps. meanwhile, the rest may have been more straightforward -- in which case i'd say, that was easy :) -- but one thing remains: if you were writing this just to be informative to a few select folks, you could've just emailed. if you really thought internet was emotion-devoid, you probably wouldn't have taken what i wrote to be so hurtful. sucker.
Lumen, perhaps I should have been clearer, but I thought I did make it pretty clear that I wasn't talking about you. I don't think you're trying to convert anyone, nor that your reasons for avoiding homosexuality are invalid. I'm just saying that I've known people in the past who tried to "convert" others, and that 1) they used poor logic and 2) they didn't necessarily have their subjects' best interests in mind. If you want to know what I think about *your* situation, read brighn's #16, which says what I was going to, but more politely.
otoh this has given us a wonderful chance to discuss something i didn't know was going no. err, on
resp:16 good point, except that other issues are intertwined. For me, preference for redheads and arousal to homoerotic images or situations just isn't the same. In other words, if I were able to completely filter out any socialized complexes, i.e., abuse, addiction, emotional baggage, etc., etc., etc. but you have to understand that my therapy DOES include other distractions-- I'm working to give up dependence on pornography, which was quite the addiction for me. I'm not sure if generalization or distinguishing of distractions matter, except it's easier for me to examine things separately. furthermore, if the theory of deferred detattachment *is* assumed valid, then no, brighn, marriage workshops alone wouldn't help. Yes, indeed, I can learn to get my *sexual* needs from my wife, but the therapy is designed to promote male-to-male friendships, to fulfill that emotional need that said theory presumes is sexualized. Let me try saying that again. For me, I think I want to relate to men with strong, fraternal friendship, but for some reason or another, I've responded sexually. The theory presumes that the sexual response is there where the emotional response should be. This seems to fit for me. resp:19 I think I'm familiar with that, but then, the large organizations with which I'm familiar-- Exodus International, which is an interdenominational organization, and Evergreen International, which is more specific to LDS folks, seem to have done careful study. It's unfortunate that others-- individuals, groups, what have you-- haven't taken the time to do the research. resp:18 A claim that I'm ignorant of what others have posted. What do you think now? Secondly, I wasn't saying writing was devoid of emotion or that the Internet was devoid of it, either. My point was it is difficult to be emotion-specific in writing, and so one statement can be interpreted in a variety of ways. Sorry, lelande, but your assumption of what I have said is incorrect. Thirdly, addresses changed, and I couldn't get a hold of people directly (or I'm just *damn* lazy-- got a problem with that?), and do you know how many people read the conferences? Here on backtalk, that's anyone. What is said can be like blowing feathers to the wind. I intended for some elements TO be public in order to reach that unknown segment as well.
Ok, that makes sense. Actually, I think most men could stand to have some sort of intimacy (agape) therapy. I have difficulty expressing and handling non=sexual love, and I daresay most (if not all) American men do.
I agree. I think it's a moderately serious (that is, widespread and decidedly inconvenient without threatening to destroy society) problem with men today in our culture. I know a lot of guys who strongly prefger being in large groups of members of the opposite sex to large groups of members of the same.
*shrug* it might be a matter of personality type. I'm not sure if you've heard of the color theory of organizing personality types, i.e., red defines those who value competition, blue for those who value relations and diplomacy, white nonconfrontation, yellow fun and excitement-- and it would seem that much of what is defined as masculine culture may favor the first two types of personalities, i.e., red and blue, and more particularly red. From what I have read and discussed with others, the dominant drive of male culture *seems* to be competition. This works really well in capitalistic business, and some of the mythos surrounding the founding of America-- rugged individualism, for example-- may foster such a drive. It would therefore be difficult to surround yourself with those you would perceive to be rivals. but that's one way of looking at it.
I know a lot of girls who have more male friends than female friends. It goes both ways.
My impression is that workplaces with an awful lot of women can be a stressful place to work for those women.
*nod* I figured the opposite was true, but wasn't quite sure as to reasons why.
i find it odd that this "sexuality" conf is more about psychology than sexuality with lots of sweeping gender generalizations.
So contribute your views if you don't like it.
humans are humans. women have cunts, men have cocks. drop the guilt, stick it where you wanna and LIKE IT.
i like oval:)
I vote yes!
I don't think it's odd that the sex conf is more about psychology and gender issues than actual bumpin' and squishin'. There's only so many times you can say "I like to cum on young girls' tits" before everyone stops caring.
or stops bothering to call you a pedophile:) but yha, it's all about the squishy luv thing or at least about how fucked up you are
The real discussion comes from more complex issues that don't have easy answers. Questions like "do you like it up the ass?" typically elicit one-sentence answers with little room for elaboration. The question needs more meat to it.
and I suppose it can be amusing sometimes to think senna meant something more when he said "more meat to it." But seriously, I think we get enough of the joking and crude comments that may come from misinformation about sex, or perhaps the attitudes that surround various taboos. We're just attempting to talk intelligently without feeling the need to coat it with raunch. However, analyzing the issues to death is extreme in the other direction; thus, I suppose, we attempt to discuss without psychobabble or detached clinical stances. Honesty is good, but I think we are trying to find a balance.
30 oval what happens when a human born a male is given a cunt through surgery as an infant? what is this human, then?
does he keeo the cock?
his cock got keyed, actually. all scratched. needed a new paint job.
I have a question. Does anyone besides jaklumen have a clue what Exodus International is/does? Everyone's doing it, I'll add a website: www.bridges-across.org
wtf is it then
Exodus International teaches gays to be straight.
http://www.exodusnorthamerica.org/aboutus/
This is terribly, terribly un-PC, but I think I have a handle on
another reason the idea of reparative therapy might be reasonable. I've run
into quite a number of people, personally, who have attractions to both
genders, but have had such strained relations, or one sufficiently strained
relation, with the opposite gender they've turned solely to the same gender.
Oftentimes they overly strongly identify with their new preference, touting
to the world that they're gay, as if in an effort to convince themselves.
I can't see a reason why curing those problems, and those strained relations,
through therapy *wouldn't* be a good thing.
Oh, I agree. I think most people are born bisexual, though (or, at least, with the capacity for bisexuality). Anything which increases the amount of positive interactions you can have with others isn't a bad thing.
do they reparative therapy for those who want to go from straight to gay?
I haven't heard of it. The whole point is straight="fixed", gay="broken." You don't repair things that aren't broken.
There probably would be if straights were discriminated against
randomly, beat up, and ostracized from their families for being straight or
bringing home their opposite-sex partner.
Bisexuals are, but that's only in gay communities. ;}
They don't get the full membership package, and sometimes suffer from
sarcasm and wit that can only be imagined in straight circles, but they don't
generally get beat up by bisexuophobes, or ostracized from their families.
Is it as bad in the gay male community as it is in the gay female
community? A lot of the lesbians I know really are in it for the benefits
package, and not a kinsey 6.
Beaten up, no. Ostracized from the "family," yes.
resp:47 No, Paul. Reparative therapy isn't about "fixing" you if you are gay. It is about investigating the "homo-emotional" and "homo- social" issues behind the desires. Having done so, and, perhaps, discovered problems, seeking to heal the damage caused by the problems. Reparative therapy isn't an attempt to "cure" homo-sexual tendencies. It is, in fact, understood as we begin down the road to reparation, that homo-sexual tendencies aren't some kind of disease that you can get a shot for and be all better. Rather, we realize within ourselves that homo-sexual tendencies are the "band-aid", if you will permit the term, that we placed on our lives following the damage we perceived and placed there in an effort to deal with said damage. We do not say that "all gays" should participate in reparative therapy. What we do say is, this has helped us and, if you are in the same boat we were and unhappy with the idea of same sex attraction (SSA), then this may be a solution you could look into. That said, I feel that, after so much discussion, of which I have been a part, however unknowingly, that I ought to take some time here to clarify some things. When Jon and I met, we had a lot of conversations, the result of which was a realization in myself that I was in a situation similar to that of Jon. By this, I mean that I also had sexual attraction to both genders. For a while, this was not a bad thing. Occasionally, when Jon and I were together, one of us would spot a particularly nice- looking specimen of either gender and point it out to the other one of us. After a while, thoough, not to mention a little experimentation, I began to feel uncomfortable with it. I still had the attractions, I couldn't deny them or make them disappear, but I was unhappy because of them. At one point, I remember Jon asking me if I could ever see myself taking a lover in addition to my relationship with him (we were engaged to be married at the time.) By now, many of you know about my code of honor. I replied, honestly, that I didn't think I could. I said, I was a one partner person and that any other relationship I had would be a distraction for me, in part because of my Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD). I know myself well enough to know that one partner or the other would end up neglected and that I was safer staying in a monogamous relationship. Jon and I had this discussion long ago and I want to share some of the more salient points with you all. I'll admit that the idea of Jon taking lovers in addition to his relationship with me hurt deeply. Still, I love Jon in a way that I can't completely describe. I can't see myself failing to forgive him if he chose to take a lover, even if that decision meant that I was hurt. I can see that his taking lovers might do some damage to my ability to trust him. The first few times he "cruised" for the anonymous encounters he mentioned in resp:0, I felt hurt. However, I cannot honestly say that I would ever want to dissolve the relationship based on what many of my "girl-friends" (meaning friendly female companions) would define as cheating, in part because he has been completely honest with me about it when he knew there was a possibility that I might just say, "okay, that's the last time. It's over." So many ladies do that. In a very real sense, Jon is my dearest friend and I don't think I could have made it through my own "repairs" without his help simply because he has been so understanding toward the issues underlying my own difficulties involving SSA. I won't say "Go do this!" like some kind of Used Car Salesman. What I do say, however, is following intense therapy for a pair of incidences of sexual abuse that happened to me when I was 10 years old, I have noticed a profound healing taking place. I can hold up my head and say that I am happy to be me and happy to be a woman. I can look at a beautiful woman in a bikini and appreciate her innate beauty with only a brief thought toward her sexual appeal to me. With Jon, I will say that I probably didn't write this very well and, with him, I will also say that this has the chance of being misinterpreted in so many different ways. Still, I'm sure you can read the emotion behind these posts and understand that these are more personal revelations than anything else. These are something in the nature of wonderful news shared with good friends. I'm done. Thank you for listening.
generally speaking, straights don't really seem to have a problem with bi's - especially women. but gays are really set in their 'identity' and are much more exclusive of bi people. gay women generally have sex with someone, and then want to move in with them the next day. bisexuality confuses people. and usually people who are bi also have the opinion that identity should be a much more individual concept, having less to do with who you fuck. hence - not much of a 'bi movement' or strong bi identity group. i generally don't discss my sexuality with people unless i'm a) interested in them , or b) a close friend and it comes up or they ask. i can't think of where else it'd be relevant (except mayb a discussion of the topic on grex ;) people think that bi's are so lucky because they can enjoy the best of both worlds, but it's not neccessarily the case. i generally prefer a partner who is also bi whether male or female, i don't look for it, i've just found those are the ones that seemed to work the best. they usually have less sexual hang-ups too. that really cuts down on how many people that would interest you .. i'm not sure i made a point. <shrug>
Re #50:
Well, being ostracized from "the family" is different than being
ostracized from one's family. Completely. You may have father or mother
figures in the family - I do, I've been a friend of the family for many many
years - but they're not the same as your parents.
Re #51:
I've always been confused when it comes to people having problems with
their attractions. Even when I'm in a completely committed relationship, I'm
not dead, and I have attractions to other people - I'm about as close to a
Kinsey 0 as I know, so it's members of the opposite sex - but I'd always
thought that people had accepted it as a normal part of being in a
relationship, having attractions you didn't act on. Heck, that's a part of
not being in a relationship, too, now that I think about it.
Oval slipped in with #54:
What does a Lesbian bring on the second date?
A U-Haul.
I know exactly what you're talking about. A good friend of mine is
going through that - she's had one very brief homosexual experience followed
a couple of years later by an abortive attempt at another, and now, because
the second got her in touch with the local lesbian community, she swears up
and down she's a lesbian. I called her out on it recently, and she admitted
it's political, and just where her head is at right now. But I've seen it
happen so many times, with that one lesbian klatch and with others, that I'm
strongly inclined to believe it has to do with that group, and the way it
encourages its' bisexual members to declare themselves lesbians, not shave,
and to hang out with the group. After all, if you don't, you lose those
friends. It's a real shame.
yea those groups hate me.
Whyzat?
Reparative derives from "repair." Julie, your speech is so full of justifications, it saddens me. You refer to homosexuality as a bandaid for psychosocial problems. I didn't say that Reparation Therapy was aimed at all gays, but I did say it was people whose thinking is, "I'm gay because I'm broken. Fix me." That's what you said in a lot more words while disagreeing with me.
it should be noted reparative therapy is espoused generally by those who are dissatisfied with their attractions.. they may have exclusive attractions to the same sex, or they may not. We aren't going to waste time with folks that are happy gay. We weren't happy with the lifestyle, so.. I hate having to explain myself all over again =P
Okay, Paul, it's time to leave the prego woman alone. I don't know about her, but in some aspects, I see my attractions as a source of strength-- it is easier for me to be sensitive, gentle, open and honest, in some aspects. I am empathetic to others who are in my shoes. My feelings are good in some ways. However, it has not been my experience that homosexual relations have been good or healthy for me. It is damaging to my marriage, and it is incompatible with my faith. Some say I should change faiths, and I should expect Julie to learn to accept things or maybe she should leave. But Julie is a good woman. I love my faith. Putting my sex with men to the side-- forever-- is a sacrifice I am willing to make.
..or your faith is incompatible with you. jazz .. the reason these groups hate me is because (in one instance in particular) i am seen as a woman who 'fooled around' with one their 'members' casually and with a genuine intention of getting to know her better etc blahblah .. but because i had a boyfriend at the time, and because i am generally close with men, and because i am not a unfeminine-stereotypical-dyke-what-have-you they felt that i was your typical 'bi-femme-tease-bitch who didn't "fit" with their social mold and therefore was unacceptable as a human being type situation. i dont really give a shit, as i have no desire my individuality for that kind of crap. i could cite other instances that have led me to feel this way.
..umm .. that's .. i have no desire _to sacrifice my individuality_ for that kind of crap. and while im hiccupping an ranting and typing like shit... all the shit i've experienced with women has made me really turned off by the thought of getting involved with a woman in general. while i'm open and willing .. i have to say that the politics surrounding it are not worth it. i still, however, do not feel as though those 'bad feelings' are in need of 'repair' within myself, nor to conform to any steroetype of lesbianism etc. i could really rant on the fucked-up-ness of men too .. but i won't, as they haven't pissed up me off percentage-wise the same way as women, and my - they're tasty. ..
resp:60 No, Jon, in this case, I think he should be free to voice his opinion and I don't feel threatened. After all this *is* a public forum. resp:58 >Reparative derives from "repair." Julie, your speech is so full of >justifications, it saddens me. You refer to homosexuality as a >bandaid for psychosocial problems. I didn't say that Reparation >Therapy was aimed at all gays, but I did say That's what you said in >a lot more words while disagreeing with me. Okay, it is true that the term "reparative" derives from the word "repair" meaning (according to Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary) "1a: To restore by replacing a part or putting together what is torn or broken: FIX b:to restore to a sound or healthy state: RENEW 2: To make good: REMEDY", which is basically what you said, I'm just clarifying. Also, generally speaking, those of us that seek "reparative therapy" (hereinafter referred to as RT) tend to be those of us who believe that there is something fundamentally wrong with us, maybe not necessarily the homosexual behavior, but usually so. On the other hand, I interpreted your comment "it was people whose thinking is, 'I'm gay because I'm broken. Fix me.'" to mean that you thought that many of us who have sought RT were just a load of whiners. I am most likely mistaken in this assessment due to certain inherent problems in translation between communicating persons with differing opinions. However, if that was, in fact, the case, I want to clarify that I in no way *expected* the world to "fix me". I simply went in search of a personal solution. If Homosexuality were something that required a "cure" or a specific "fix", then I wouldn't have had to do that, would I? I will admit that I believed, and still believe, that there was a certain part of me that was damaged by my abuse and contributed to my eventual sexualization of the problem because I was too young at the time to really be able to understand how that part of me had been damaged or what sort of "repairs" were needed. So, in fact,I suppose I am agreeing with you. Many of us are, in effect, saying "I'm gay because I'm broken," but I don't think any of us are saying "Fix me." I think it is more like this "I have these gay feelings because of something about me that is broken or not functioning properly. Teach me how I can fix it." It wasn't my intention to "justify" anything. I merely intended to state the facts. I hope this clears things up a little. If you have any other questions I can answer, I'll be happy to try to do so. Oh by the way. I seem to recall a question regarding whether there was ever anyone seeking RT to be free of problems that made the heterosexual. I haven't heard of any, but that doesn't necessarily mean that there *aren't* any. Anything's possible. After what I'vwe been through, I can certainly testify to that.
resp:63 I have funny feeling I may seem to have contradicted myself somewhere. Allow me to clarify a bit more. "I have these gay feelings because of something about me that is broken or not functioning properly. Please, help me figure out what it is so that I can fix it." Hopefully, that is closer.
Julie, if your complaint is that my characterization of Exodus is that the people who go there are passively and dependently asking Exodus to "fix them," rather than taking responsibility for their own "fixing" by reaching out for help, ok, I'll accept that. I'll amend to "Exodus helps people who don't want to be gay to not be gay." Jon, on a different thread, get off it. Suggesting that Julie should be given special treatment because she's pregnant, or that I should "cut her some slack" (private email) because she's pregnant, is disempowering garbage. Julie is an adult, she made the adult choice to get pregnant (IIRC, if not, she made the adult choice to engage in acts that might make her pregnant, and the adult choice to stay pregnant), I'm not going to put on kid gloves and start treating her like a child. As she said, she can defend herself. Just because you're LDS doesn't mean you have to act like Brigham Young.
lol. Be nice, Paul. Thank you very much for the vote of confidence. Jon, thank you for attempting to defend me. Gentlemen, I concur with Paul in this case. Just because I'm pregnant doesn't mean I should be treated differently. And Paul, I think you should probably give Jon a little credit. He's going to be a daddy soon and it's his first time. I think you could stand to be a little nicer to him. I don't think he was acting like Brigham Young. I think he was acting like a protective husband. In any case. Maybe it is time to freeze this item and talk about something else, if all we can do is argue. Lets just agree that we disagree and move on. Okay?
One thing, to bring these two threads together, that's always bugged
me is the way that some people don't seperate a sexual preference and a
lifestyle. They really don't have anything to do with each other, other than
the fact that some groups seem to center around little in the way of common
interest except for a common sexual preference and a love for drama.
#66> Since you asked so nicely, I'll stop picking on Jon. ;} All the same, I can't resist this, but I'll provide this preface so you KNOW I'm joking: What, Julie? Now I'm supposed to be nice to Jon because HE's pregnant? Boyoboy, you're just two peas in a pod, aren't you? Special treatment all around.
(I'm glad you said it Paul, I was just about to make fun of Julie for the same thing, but (a) you got to it first, and (b) you're already in trouble for picking on the soon to be parents. :)
brighn: ignore e-mail reply then, I hadn't read this yet yeah, yeah, I'm pregnant too, about to give birth to a fat cake
While reading through a book on the therapeutic techniques of Milton
Ericson, I noticed that, in almost every example of the great therapist's
work, he was deliberately acting as a normative, not just working with the
subject's problems, but also bringing them back in line with his percieved
notions of what a person should think and feel, and what their role in society
should be. It troubled me, and it still troubles me.
I'd also like to state that the idea that, if you are bisexual, that
you can and should have one partner of each gender, isn't necessarily a part
and parcel of bisexuality. I can't see how it's any different than a
heterosexual or homosexual who prefers, say, blondes and brunettes,
rationalizing that they should then have one partner of each gender. If
you've got an arranged polygamous relationship, or you're not in a committed
relationship, then you are of course free to do as you've negotiated, or as
you will. But if you go introducing the idea of bi privilege into a committed
relationship, don't be surprised if it has negative effects, and don't blame
bisexuality for it.
i'll take a burnette, a redhead and a blonde please. with a side of gradients, maybe some blue or artificial red
jazz: hmm. Maybe I need to have this "bi privilege" thing defined for me because I don't recall ever saying I was claiming it.
It's a local term for the concept that, if one is bisexual, one can
or should have a partner of each gender. Jon mentioned it a couple of
responses back, though not by that term, but I'm too lazy to go back and
quote.
oh hey, she can have a freind, as long as i'm the male partner for both
I've already told my boy that he can have a boy, but I get to watch...or at least take pictures. He was all for it, but then he realized it would still feel like cheating, even though I'd said it was okay (and encouraged it). I feel bad that he won't get the experience of being with a guy, but I'm also okay that he feels weird about touching anyone but me. :)
menage a trois?
I think that's what she's getting at.
I actually had a girl I was in a committed relationship with bring the
idea up. I wasn't really into it. It would've been unhealthy for the
relationship unless it was just the right person.
yea, it's easy to find a dynamic of 3 that's comfortable for everyone.
err .._not_ easy.
Um, no. I didn't want a threesome. I wanted to watch and/or take pictures.
That does not mean "threesome". It means watch.
:)
resp:74 but then there is also the Bisexual Grand Slam, which is a double of that variant.
you think you could watch without wanting to jumo in? heh, i doubt that.
I don't doubt it. I know myself. :)
You have several choices: