Is no one "straight"?

[BlackShanglan]

*scampering off to the costume shop*

I had no idea that geese *could* scamper. But no gosling ever need wear a costume to attract my attention. *nuzzle*

Shanglan

 

[rikaaim]

*Blinks innocently*

But I'm a creature of myth and legend. I fit the Lit definition just wonderfully.

Haven't you ever heard of the Horse of Babylon?

Shanglan

I thought you were a mere ass. Not much myth there if I do say so myself.

 

[minsue]

*Blinks innocently*

But I'm a creature of myth and legend. I fit the Lit definition just wonderfully.

Haven't you ever heard of the Horse of Babylon?

Shanglan

Damn, I tried SO hard not to laugh at that.

Hanging my head in shame...

 

[minsue]

I had no idea that geese *could* scamper.

Yes, well, it sounds ever so much more attractive than waddle.

But no gosling ever need wear a costume to attract my attention. *nuzzle*

Shanglan

Careful, you'll ruffle my feathers and you'd best be prepared for the aftermath.

 

[OhMissScarlett]

*Blinks innocently*

But I'm a creature of myth and legend. I fit the Lit definition just wonderfully.

Haven't you ever heard of the Horse of Babylon?

Shanglan

Whew, ok, I wouldn't want anyone to think I'm a pervert or anything. Good heavens no!

 

[rikaaim]

Careful, you'll ruffle my feathers and you'd best be prepared for the aftermath.

I'm sure the horsey is very well prepared and is even a side accomplice in those very create Trojan brand commercials. Without the horse, those things just have no appeal. Oh, accpet for the appeal of avoiding pregnancy and STDs.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Damn, I tried SO hard not to laugh at that.

Hanging my head in shame...

*grin*

It's awfully tempting to change my title thingy to that. Perhaps another day.

Aftermath. Hmmmm. Why does that sound so ... pleasant?

Shanglan

 

[minsue]

*grin*

It's awfully tempting to change my title thingy to that. Perhaps another day.

Aftermath. Hmmmm. Why does that sound so ... pleasant?

Shanglan

It's all in one's perceptions, I suppose

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

YO PEOPLES NEED TO EMBARASS MYSELF!

But (and here's the confounding part), I don't have any negative feelings towards homosexuals... and talking about homosexuality, formally, is no more of an implication of hatred or condemnation than dissecting a cadavar is a personal statement about how humanity is terrible.




Given that there are lots that don't, its a good thing to keep in mind that self-identification as not just a social group, but a culture, may be a crucial factor in arguments concerning legality with regards to them.

I would like to extend my fullest and deepest apologies to you. The comment of "unnatural" was not to my ability to divine originated by you but rather amicus. I mistakingnly attributed it to you. I am scum. Beat me to death with a stick.

Furthermore, I found quotes pertaining to your treatment of gays in a less-than-human manner as if needing to prove their worthiness as human beings.

HOWEVER, you have explained this here as merely a part of your concept-heavy debate style which can seem overally callous. I am sorry for my misinterpretation which though aided by your habit of always ending up on the anti-gay rights side, was fully and utterly inaccurate and gross slander. Again, full and utter apologies.

Furthermore, your position gains more understanding when related to your professed discomfort with gay men. A discomfort which leads you to violently lash out at men who make homoerotic comments about you. Discomfort, however, is not the same as homophobia and thus I owe you once more full and total apologies.


Comments such as this

But, are we benifited at all by the promotion or alowance of homosexuality? That's a much, much tougher question.

while callous does not a case make. Nor does the circumstantial evidence within your standard format of avoiding absolutes give me enough to refute your reported statement of being in the middle of the deabte neither for or against gay rights.

So, in conclusion, I have indeed made a grave error about your character and apologize for doing so. Your treatment of gays is indeed not far removed from your treatment of humans in general (gay men not withstanding, you have shown quite a disfavoring of them) and you have never once on this forum called the practice of homosexual sex unnatural. I hope you will forgive my slander.

 

[amicus]

Flowers for Algernon....and a Guy named Joe? the screen play of the book? If memory serves...


Well...sorry, JoeW, looks like you lose center stage and I get to be the bad guy yet once again.

(Amicus searches for black hat and cape)

Luc, you be a curious entity, kudo's for doing the research and the recant.

amicus the incurable...

 

[Guest]

Luc -

You are indeed a class act.

 

[carsonshepherd]

lucifer, you're all right in my book.

 

[minsue]

lucifer, you're all right in my book.

In mine as well

 

[sweetnpetite]

1.It’s whether, not weather.
2. I believe you are utterly wrong and projecting your own desires upon others because that's the way you'd LIKE us to be, not the way we are.

It's just because I want to get you in my bed. I know I can change your mind

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Is it truly so uncommon to go: "Well fuck me with a chainsaw, I was wrong."

Okay, yes in literalness, few would ask to be fucked with a chainsaw just for being wrong, but in general...


Now, who has the chainsaw?

We gonna do a little chop and M.

 

[rikaaim]

Is it truly so uncommon to go: "Well fuck me with a chainsaw, I was wrong."

I have actually heard someone say that before. That exact phrase.

Interesting...

 

[carsonshepherd]

Is it truly so uncommon to go: "Well fuck me with a chainsaw, I was wrong."

Yes. You know it is. I'd rather be fucked gently with a chainsaw than say those words myself....

 

[BlackShanglan]

A belated well done, Luc. The ability to apologize gracefully is a fine art, if an increasingly lost one.

Shanglan

 

[sweetnpetite]

To further expand on my previous objection...

Oh, yes. Hijackers may continue. I don't mind if my topic spurs other debates.

Now. To further expand, if SNP was right, there'd be no gay people. There is no society with a majority of gay people. In fact, even in highly gay-negative societies like the United States in general, there are significant numbers of gay people. If SNP's theory held, gay people could be and would be converted to hetero before they even grew up. Many gay people in gay-negative societies do believe their sexual preference is wrong and do try hard to change, spending countless years and dollars on programs, prayer, and therapy to change. They don't. Thus, something about their sexuality must be hard-wired.

If you have evidence to the contrary, of course I'd love to see it, SNP. Until then, however, I must reject your theory that anyone can be socialized into any sexuality they or you desire them to have.

I'm straight but not narrow works for me, too.

Well, I think it's all a little deeper than just 'you can be talked in or out of it' I was just simplifying. I don't have any proof- it's all just opinion, and you are free to disagree. Conditioning involves a lot more than social approval or disaproval, and there is more to the phychology of a person than purposeful conditioning alone-- some people -like me who are passive agressive, are more likely to go *against* what is expected or desired, depending on the circumstances, and of course there is personal history-- some things may not be overcome by repeatedly urging someone to be straight. And conditioning works differently on different people as well- some people could more easily be conditioned to quite smoking or procrastinating or whatever, while some would have a harder time- but I still think it's possible. Sometimes the route is direct, and sometimes not. Additionally, therapy (in general- not regarding sexuality specifically) works- but variably depending on a number of factors. (One of which, and most vital is willingness to change.) this is not to say it doesn't work because it doesn't work on some people. And our unintentional conditioning may go far deeper than any intentional conditioning to reverse an undesirable effect.

I'm not sure if I'm staying quite on topic.

We don't have a word for people who are sexually attracted to people of a different race (or actually, I think there is one- but it's out of usage) we don't call them xyz-sexual- although some people claim that they could *never* be attracted to someone of a certain race- most of us would agree that this is a product of personal resistance and conditioning.

I think that as long as we have words to describe homo-hetero and bi-sexuality, those concepts will continue to affect the way we think about sex and some of the boundaries we place on it and on ourselves concerning it. Those boundaries are very real, and in that essence, there certainly are *straight* *bi* and *gay* people. But I think that the boundaries are not ineviatable or 'natural.' They are there because we put them there, and they don't come down easily (for either side). They are the iron curtain of sexuality.

As I said, this is all oppionion and speculation. I have no proof, I have no science to back it up, just my oppinion which is what I thought was asked. It isn't even really bases on experience- I've never kissed a woman and the idea of *actually* doing it- as opposed to just fantisizing or imagining it, actually kind of freaks me out.

I think that a big part of this discussion, and some of the disagreement about it is strongly related to what one defines as 'heterosexual' ect. One person said, "why should it be defined by who massages my genitals" others defined it as commitment, ext, ext.

For me, I define it as potential and possiblity, and I have to keep in line with a good general philosophy- "Never say never" I simply believe that we all have the capacity-- or at least that we were all born with the capacity, although it's probably possible that it may have been temporarily or permanantly extinguished for one side- or even for both. Many people loose interest in sex all together for whatever reason- I don't think that means that they were born to be nonsexual.

As in all things, there are always exceptions. There may be a few people who actually *are* born without a capacity for sex drive or whatever. But as a general rule of how people are, it is not that way.

This entire post is quite contradictory, or at least it probably seems so, but I really am trying to say something. I hope that the mesage has come out fairly clearly.

I'm not trying to ague, just express my own thoughts.

Peace.

 

[sweetnpetite]

I just wanted to add that to use my argument to say 'well then there would be no gay people' because they could all be conditioned to be straight is to really miss the point of what I was trying to say. I don't know how better to explain it. Even if everyone could be and was conditioned to be 'straight' that just makes straight all the more an unnatural condition.

I just want to clarify that my argument than gender segregated sexuality is unnatural is *not* meant to be taken to mean that it's as easily as choosing to be straight or being 'cured' of homosexuality, but quite the opposite. In my theory, heterosexuality is the same 'disease' (or disfunction) as homosexuality.

Well, I hope that makes some sort of sence.

 

[amicus]

sweetnpetite...

I appreciate your comments...

Taking both an objective and a subjective vantage point, I offer the follow observations...some personal...some just observational:

Most people, I think, tolerate diversity, even to the extent that they may not approve. For example I do not hate black people but I do not appreciate their music, their food, their lifestyles and I know as I have lived and worked with african americans.

Most people, I think, tolerate the 'concept' of homosexuality and lesbianism, as long as it is not shoved in their faces. I am not comfortable with women kissing women and men kissing men in public view, but I could care less what they do in private.

But it has not been left at that. Hollywood, and network and cable television has taken on the task of making multi racial and multi sexual lifestyles a 'mainstay' of television entertainment.

If you doubt that, go through the menu of television programs and note how many are promoting the 'gay' lifestyle, black lifestyles, drug culture movies, single parent family lifestyles, seemingly any and everything that challenges the traditional and conventional way of life.

These divergent lifestyles instead of accepting the tolerance offered are forcing the issue by demanding inclusion into the mainstream and I think this is a terrible mistake.

The tolerance offered, will be withdrawn as the mainstream feels the threat and suppression will follow.

Perhaps it is the way of things that wax and wane with time, but when the time is yours and mine, we are participants, willing or not.

I personally would not restrict the personal choices of any, (within law and reason) to express their personal lifestyles. But when it is in the schools and on the tube and threatens to become the law of the land, affecting all, then I think many will begin to back off and return to less stressful times...


...not that it matters...


amicus...

 

[sweetnpetite]

"I've been through the desert on a horse with no name..."

 

[minsue]

"I've been through the desert on a horse with no name..."

Shanglan got to you, too, eh?

 

[sweetnpetite]

Not that it matters that a majority of mensa candidates claim to be gauche ooops...left handed, a Science Channel program last week said neither nurture nor nature was responsible.

It seems that the thumb the fetus sucked while still in the womb determines left or righthandedness...

neither nature *nor* nurture! gasp!!! say it aint so.

The very idea puts a new spin on practically every discussion on this board. (ok, that's a bit of an exageration, but you get the point...)

 

[amicus]

Ahhh..the group was America, was it not? How fitting...a horse with no name....