I have a question. It may sound like a stupid question, and I suppose it is, but it's something that has always had me scratching my head about lesbians. And gay males too, I suppose...
I realize lesbians are attracted to other females. So why so so many lesbians dress up and/or act like males? I mean, the standard picture most of us have of a lesbian is a woman with short hair (like a male), who dresses like a male, and perhaps even acts like a male. Why would that attract another lesbian who, presumably, is not attracted to males but rather to other females?
And that's one thing I have trouble understanding about someone like you who goes to strip clubs featuring beautiful women. Aren't you attracted to women who dress and act like males?
The same goes for gay males. For many of us, our standard picture of a gay male is someone acting very much like a female. I realize that's not always the case, but it seems kinda strange.
Are there, like degrees of gayness, where for those who aren't fully gay they're still attracted to the opposite sex so other gays try to meet that need. And then for those who are fully gay you don't have to change genders to attract them. Like you going to a strip club. Wouldn't some lesbians rather go to a "butch" club where the women are dressing and acting like men?
It's not about "looks and styles". It's much more than that. It's about people acting like they are a different gender.
As a straight male, could you ever be attracted to a man who looked and acted and dressed as a woman? Or a woman who looked and acted and dressed as a man? Probably not. That's what we're talking about.
Why do gays go to such extremes to change their behavior and look and clothes so that they appear to be another gender? If you're attracted to other women, why would you want those women to be like a man?
I wish that I had a simple answer for your questions, jerikson, but I don't. It stumps me sometimes too. There are so many different flavors of lesbians (and gay men) roaming around out there - from ultra butch to ultra femme, and everything in between. And what everyone finds attractive is all over the place as well. For me, I am not at all attracted to butch women that look or act like men. I like very feminine ladies. But the very feminine ladies sometimes tell me that I am not butch enough and that they like the "manly" ones. Meh. But sometimes a very femme lesbian (lipstick lez) will find other femme's attractive, and same with some butches finding other butches attractive. So yeah it's confusing as hell, even to us gay people. So don't feel bad about not being able to understand it coz we don't either.
In any case, my conclusion on that issue, however wrong it may be, is that perhaps there is a significant portion of the lesbian population that is of the mind "I really do like men if they weren't such assholes". And as a result maybe they decide that women in general have the more gentle internal disposition that the women like, but those women are still sexually attracted to the male look and attitude. Maybe they've been fucked over and/or abused by men for so long they just say fuck it, women are so much sweeter and loving, etc. But they still get turned on by the macho thing.
Same with gay men. Maybe a portion of the gay male population, for whatever reason, were fucked over by women for so long that they said, fuck it I want a man...as long as he still looks and acts like a woman.
Hell, who knows. It just seems interesting to me. Anyway, thanks.
I find it confusing and irritating. One thing for sure, the shit ain't normal!!!
I was involved with a very attractive, "femme," so-called lesbian. I say "so-called" because as I've posted before, she's come to the realization she also likes DICK. When I first met her, she was dating a guy on the rebound from a harsh break up with a (stud/butch) woman.
She knew nothing about dating men but decided women were no longer for her. Very skillfully, I was able to squeeze my way into the view of her attention and she began to find me more appealing than the guy she was seeing. He eventually became history.
Things were humming along between us quite well and then, her ex- girlfriend (the harsh breakup) began coming back into the picture. She eventually went back that way. As she explained it to me, "It's that dominance that gets me!" Apparently, the "studs" tend to be quite aggressive in their approaches and that's what the "femmes" like.
What I didn't like, though, was how "secretive" we had to be about our dating relationship (or even the friendship that followed) after that. It was as though her gay friends could never know she ever tried DICK, or was friends with a straight man, and God forbid if the girlfriend ever found out!
I'm not saying we should've been broadcasting our business to the world but the last time I was involved in that level of secrecy, I was in high school. I'm a grown ass man who lives boldly! I am who I am and not afraid to be myself. She seemed to be living two different lives (hypocritical/duplicitous). She reminds me of a closeted gay person, in reverse (afraid to come out about being bi or possibly even potentially, eventually straight). I didn't like that. I played along for a while, though, for her sake. At the time, she had my loyalty and respect.
With me, she seemed honest about her sexuality, telling me that she doesn't want to limit her options in that area, or anything else in life. She would also admit to not being able to come clean about it with her gay friends. She even went as far to say once, "I don't even like the (black) gay community. It's too small, here in Atlanta, and everyone knows everyone else and is in everybody else's business!"
Anyway, we eventually fell out. The day came when I needed her to have my back (health related) and after all her empty promises to be there, she let me down. It was the most insensitive thing I had ever experienced in my life! After that, my loyalty began to wane and the respect I once had for her disappeared. I felt/feel no need to be secretive any longer. The loyalty that once kept my mouth shut was no longer there. I shared my experience and she found out about it. She no longer wished to continue our friendship after that.
She thinks I'm trying to "expose" her (she's very self-centered and would think it's all about HER). However, from my point of view, it's not about exposing her as much as it being about doing "me." I'm a person of many experiences. This is only one of them. I have the right to share my experiences with whomever I please. After all, they're mine.
Personally, I think a femme who wants a butch ain't really gay, especially if she gets off by penetration! She's kidding herself to think otherwise.
^^Sounds like you want to believe that last paragraph because that way you might still have a shot. But if a femme or butch or whatever calls herself gay then she likes pussy. Period.
And it sounds like that chick your talking about is bi, not gay. Big difference.
Lopaw u and hotstuff r the only 2 people I have made discussion titles about so there is extra respect and love!!! Is it possible that I am planning a secret meeting too get hotstuff and lopaw together?!?!?!
#OnlyTimeWillTell
"Personally, I think a femme who wants a butch ain't really gay, especially if she gets off by penetration! She's kidding herself to think otherwise."
And my rationale to explain that is that the "gayness" is in most part a learned behavior and attitude, based on bad experiences with the opposite sex. It seems that, deep down, most women really want men, and most men really want women. And the only reason people change in that regard is the result of bad experiences with the opposite sex that causes people to "decide" to be gay.
Now I know this is very contrary to what the gay community wants people to believe, and I'm sure that there is a portion of the gay population that, for whatever reason, really does prefer the same sex to whatever degree. But I see so much evidence that so many gay people still prefer some/many/most aspects of the opposite sex. I just don't know any way to make sense of that other than that many/most gay people "decide" to become gay.
Ah, yes, there another time where a girl was there by herself, but when she started visiting from guy to guy and then left one of them, looked like she must have been an escort. Probably why some clubs would have a rule about unaccompanied females or at least keep a close watch on them.
Yes jerkoffson you are very wrong.Who in their right mind would decide to be gay knowing the hate and bigotry that they would face? You are a blowhard idiot. For crissakes STFU already and stop embarrassing yourself trying to discuss shit that you obviously have no clue about.
Allow me to be clear. The statements made in my last paragraph have NOTHING to do with me thinking, or hoping "I still might have a shot." You must not have understood the things I wrote. I've lost quite a bit of respect for this woman, as a person. That has less to do with her sexuality and EVERYTHING to do with her inability to keep her word.
As for her being bi, that is mainly the point I was trying to make. Remember what I said about her reminding me of a closeted gay person, in reverse? Perhaps you should go back and read it again. Your commentary gives me the impression you failed to understand what I composed.
@Jerikson40: You may need to go back and read my story again as well. I clearly stated that it was AFTER the harsh breakup with her ex (a stud/butch) that she decided to try men. This girl has been fucking other girls since middle school.
The statements in my last paragraph are simply based on the LOGIC that if you're a woman who achieves orgasm via penetration (especially in the ass), and you are attracted to masculinity, why not just be with a man? Even this girl had to admit, "Ain't nothing like the real thing, Baby!"
Now, I'm not trying to say that's how it's supposed to go between gay women. I don't understand that and ain't tryna understand it (Like I said, "That shit ain't normal!") but what I'm saying only makes sense! IT'S LOGICAL.
Right now I'm just waiting for lopaw to straighten you out on a few things that I personally think you are incredibly wrong about. For one if all lesbians who like penetration really liked dick, there would be no demand for strap ons. Did you think they are only used in pornos? Your logic is typical of a guy who doesn't have a clue about this and so you have come to a conclusion based on the little sexual world that you know, hence you stating that it is not "normal". Well its obvious that you don't know dick about it. Yes the pun was intended.
You are falsely accusing me of things I haven't said. Take a deep breath.... Get your emotions in check... Okay? Here's a review:
You said I stated:
"For one if all lesbians who like penetration really liked dick, there would be no demand for strap ons."
What I actually stated:
"... if you're a woman who achieves orgasm via penetration (especially in the ass), and you are attracted to masculinity, why not just be with a man?" NOTICE THE QUESTION MARK? Also, the word "DICK" is nowhere to be found in my statement. Let's continue...
You stated:
"Your logic is typical of a guy who doesn't have a clue about this ... Well its obvious that you don't know dick about it."
When I've already stated:
"Now, I'm not trying to say that's how it's supposed to go between gay women. I don't understand that and ain't tryna understand it."
No need for redundancy. Admittedly I don't know "dick" about it, thus my QUESTION in the previous example. Let's continue...
You said:
"... you have come to a conclusion based on the little sexual world that you know, hence you stating that it is not 'normal''..."
Here's where you've got me! I DID wrongfully use the word "normal." For that, I sincerely apologize. I did not mean to use that word. What I meant to say is that shit ain't "natural." I base my logic on "the little sexual world that I know," that cats know, that dogs know, that birds know, that fish know, that reptiles know, that insects know, that flowers know, etc, etc, etc...
Now calm down... Take a deep breath. I am NOT passing judgement. I'm merely basing my comments upon the laws of nature, that's all.
I do appreciate HEALTHY debate. Let's try to remain calm, okay? Also, make sure you read my comments correctly before firing upon them. Thanks!
I'm sure in your own way you mean well and are just trying to explain your thoughts on this very complicated subject, but sclvr has you on several accounts. Sexual orientation and gender identity are very complex issues that befuddles even us gay folk. Alot of your presumptions are a stretch at best. Yes your ex seems to be bi rather than gay - she has alot of nerve claiming that lez title! Simple enough. But because a lesbian likes penetration (anywhere) does not mean that she secretly likes men or she should "just be with a man". If it were that simple I'm sure that she would be with a man. But then she'd be a terrible lesbian, right? Don't forget that when her partner's strap-on comes off, that partner is now brandishing a pussy, so our girl is getting the best of both worlds, along with all of the other fem qualities that her butchie may possess. So yes - even if she wants a butch she may still be very very gay. It may sound convoluted to you and me, but it makes sense to her. And that's all that really matters to her & her partner. Often logic is out the window when the heart (and genitals) want what they want.
Thank you for realizing that using the phrasing "not normal" was insensitive. But changing that to "unnatural" wasn't much better. You seem like a nice enough guy so I don't think that you meant to offend. Please be cognizant of how you phrase things because you never know who is reading. To me my sexual world is very natural - it's all I know and all that I want, just as your sexual world is natural to you. Ours is not to judge, but to ask questions and learn about others so that our fear & ignorance do not breed hate and intolerance.
lol that last sentence would have made a great public service announcement ;)
@Lopaw:
Thank you for keeping your comments void of emotion. It makes no sense to me when people get angry over other people's right to different and varying opinions. They're not weapons; they're just opinions and everyone's entitled to at least one.
Now, let's dissect your comments:
"Sexual orientation and gender identity are very complex issues that befuddles even us gay folk. Alot of your presumptions are a stretch at best."
I'm not sure what "presumptions" you are speaking of. I didn't "presume" anything. As I attempted to show in my response to sclvr5005, I made it clear in my comments that I DON'T understand this type of sexuality, which therefore infers that I concur with your assessment, concerning its complexities. That is why I posed a QUESTION in my comments, as I admitted to my lack of knowledge. I can not make a "stretch" on a presumption that doesn't exist.
Reading is truly fundamental BUT comprehension is golden! All you have to do is go back and read the words I chose to use. They speak for themselves.
Here's your next comment:
"... because a lesbian likes penetration (anywhere) does not mean that she secretly likes men or she should 'just be with a man' ..."
Again, go back and read the words I carefully took the time to choose. I said NOTHING about lesbians (I didn't even use the word "lesbian") secretly liking men, based on their enjoyment of penetration! Again, I didn't PRESUME anything. What I posed was a QUESTION based on the LOGIC of being attracted to masculinity. Again, I NEVER claimed to know ANYTHING about the issue, thus the reason for the QUESTION. If anything, it was inferred that someone make sense of it for me.
Your next comments:
"...If it were that simple I'm sure that she would be with a man. But then she'd be a terrible lesbian, right?"
As you've already stated (and I pointed out in my story), she's more bi than gay. She really shouldn't be calling herself gay. However, she's gotta figure that one out for herself. To answer your question, Yes, she does make a terrible lesbian. From what I hear, she and the girlfriend have recently broken up. I would guess she's probably in the midst of an identity crisis, right about now. Who knows, she may end up with a man next. BTW, sclvr5005, this in no way means "I have a shot," or I want one. The girl lacks honor and I'm no longer interested.
Your next comments:
"It may sound convoluted to you and me, but it makes sense to her. And that's all that really matters to her & her partner. Often logic is out the window when the heart (and genitals) want what they want."
This is where I say, "I don't understand that and I ain't tryna understand it." Thanks for admitting that LOGIC is tossed to the wind here. That's the most sensible thing I've read all night.
Your final comments I will address in this response:
"Thank you for realizing that using the phrasing "not normal" was insensitive. But changing that to "unnatural" wasn't much better."
This is where we may bump heads and have to agree to disagree. I truly meant it, when I said I didn't mean to use "normal." I sincerely meant to use the word "natural." However, I didn't take back the word "normal," due to insensitivity issues. I took back the word, because I truly meant to say "natural."
It is not my intent to offend. However, I have no control over what people CHOOSE to be offended by. I stand by my comments, as an incontrovertible fact of NATURE. That is why I chose the examples I used, when referencing sclvr5005's comments concerning "the little sexual world that I know." I intentionally mentioned various species of NATURE to stress a point and to show that "sexual world" mentioned by sclvr5005, isn't so "little" after all. Only NATURE can dictate what is natural and what is not. All the rest of us can do is voice opinions. I think NATURE speaks for itself.
Now, please DO NOT take my words and twist them to mean that I'm "intolerant" or I'm filled with "hate" or that I'm "judgmental." That simply would not be true (Hell, I just told you about a lesbian I dated). However, I can no more call your lifestyle natural than I can say the sky is red! It doesn't mean I have a problem with the sky. All it means is that facts dictate the sky is blue and facts are stubborn things.
I hope this doesn't hinder our ability to converse and debate, Lopaw. I rather enjoy you. This debate, by far, has proven to be more edifying than any I've had tonight. I find you rather stimulating. Please don't be offended by my positions. I mean it when I say there's careful thought and compassion behind each word I choose. Please know and understand this.
It seems too me that this topic has shifted directions. This topic was intended four one of my favorites too come clubbing down in Atlanta with me...and it turned into one of those typical troll wars!! Well I guess I got more names too add too the ignore list lol
"This topic was intended for one of my favorites too come clubbing down in Atlanta with me"
And she said no fucking way. What's more to discuss? We turned a stupid thread into an interesting discussion. Just because it's too difficult for you to understand doesn't mean everyone is a "troll".
"Ours is not to judge, but to ask questions and learn about others so that our fear & ignorance do not breed hate and intolerance."
And while that does sound nice, I'm sure you'll agree that in some cases, our job IS to judge. Sometimes we SHOULD judge others. And sometimes hate and intolerance IS called for.
If, for example, a pedophile rapes a young child, our judgement, hatred and intolerance is not only called for, it's mandatory. Even though HE might be certain in his own mind that his sexual world is totally justified and normal.
There is right, and there is wrong.
The real question is in what situations do sexual (and other) preferences demand judgement, hatred, and intolerance. Or some portion of those. Just because the pedophile tells us "you shouldn't judge me because your fear and ignorance is breeding intolerance and hatred", doesn't mean we should listen to him.
So objectively, for those well meaning people who place certain sexual practices in a similar category, I'm sure we can agree that, for them, at least we can understand their judgement, hatred and intolerance.
""This topic was intended for one of my favorites too come clubbing down in Atlanta with me"
"And she said no fucking way"
Guys. People's plans change. Traveling half way across the country to hang with strip club junkies from the internet for a night just isn't going to be a high priority for most if anything more important comes up. Get over it already and your belief that it shows something sinister about the people who dropped out all ready. Where does it rank in importance on a scale of 1 to 100? 4? 5?
@jerikson40 dude...I think you've answered your own question regarding when sexual preferences and activities demand judgement, hatred, and intolerance. When consent is absent.
Children cannot give meaningful consent, so any activities that involve an adult and a kid are illegal and SHOULD be illegal. I do have sympathy for an 18 year old dude that screws his 17 year old girlfriend (or vice versa) and don't think folks like that should be on sex offender registries. But some states already have exceptions for cases where the couple is close in age. All probably should. But cases where an adult seeks out anybody under 18? Nope...that deserves judgement and it gets judgement.
Likewise, anything done that eliminates meaningful consent -- anything from roofies to threats and all in between -- is also uncool. And does get judged.
There is a lot of difference between somebody who wants to fuck someone of the same gender or wants their partner to cross dress or something like that and somebody who takes advantage of others. I'm not going to judge the former.
^^^
Even is that somebody else is DoctorPhil. I'm not bothered by the fact that he has clearly indicated that the only way he can get an erection is by getting a sloppy BJ from a pre-op trans woman sporting a Hitler 'stache while a chick dressed as an SS member penetrates his asshole with a loaded WWII vintage pistol.
I'm cool with him needing that for sexual release. A little sad for the fellow because I suspect that Nazi themed pairs of hookers that include one pre-op transsexual must be hard to find. But what do I know? I've never looked for such a pair.
However, I just don't like the fact that HE judges Brother LDK. Cap'n Stickpants is a wholesome dude that digs jizzin' in his trousers from a lapper and picking up civvies on the street ...cough...hookers...cough... for paid encounters. Ain't nothing wrong with that, as long as everybody is 18+ and nobody is coerced. Oooo...regarding the last point...LDK dude...maybe stick with the lap dancin'...some of the "civvies" you pick up may have pimps and you don't want to contribute to that shit...
And jerkoffson wonders why he is thought to be the narrowminded judgemental piece of shit that he is. Trying to compare adult same sex consensual sex with pedophiles? Are you fucking kidding?
I want to make myself VERY clear. Nothing I have stated is intended to pass judgement of any kind. I made a cognizant effort to stay away from that. My intention is/was to share a personal experience I had (and opinions based on that experience), in response to what was already being discussed, in hopes it would stimulate HEALTHY discussion.
My choice of words addresses the issue of what is natural from unnatural, for the purpose of HEALTHY discussion ONLY. Mother Nature herself is the only one in a position of judgement, to dictate what IS and IS NOT Natural. As I've already stated, the only thing the rest of us can do is voice opinions. I think Nature's LAWS speak loudly and clearly, on this front.
As for the issue of morality, although I respect the comments made by jerikson40 and zipman68, I prefer to stay away from that. Aside from the very poignant points made by zipman68, concerning children and consent, I'm just not too sure members of a strip club forum are in a position of judgement, to discuss right from wrong. I'll be clear; I know I'm not. I'm pretty sure neither is anyone else.
Lastly, for the record, I'm rather intrigued (and sometimes annoyed) by "feminine" homosexuality. However, nothing I have stated, to this point, should be misconstrued to conclude that I dislike lesbians (There is no hate in anything I've said). I want to be clear, and free of any possible tie to hypocrisy. I have been in several sexual situations, involving bi and/or lesbian women, and I've enjoyed every one of them! To those few of you who may undoubtedly think this statement contradictory to those I've previously made, I welcome your challenge to thwart my claims. However, be advised; I am prepared to vigorously defend my positions.
I don't think that's what he (jerickson40) is saying at all. Reading is fundamental BUT comprehension is GOLDEN!
Also, your name calling and insults help nothing. Expressing thought void of emotion is, by far, more efficacious than your current approach. You should try it ;).
As the father of a lesbian daughter I am offended by Pole doc's use of "natural" to imply that lesbianism is somehow "unnatural." You have the right to believe anything you wish but do not assume that choosing to claim lesbianism is not "natural" rather than not "normal" would be less offensive. Like Lopaw, I suspect you mean well but have a tendency to use clumsy and offensive language. I do think, however, that you have started a pretty good thread for discussion if we can keep it civil.
I agree 100% , Otto. Now wait for his "justification" to come.
Pole Doc - your posts come off as smug & condescending. Look- you and that shitbag jerkoffson have your opinions and we have ours. Debating it isnt going to change anyones mind or solve anything. And poor Capri got his thread jacked over a hot button topic that is better served on a different forum. Let's go back to chatting about T&A and whether or not lopaw will fly to Atlanta. I think that she would agree.
You are, of course, entitled to your opinion and I respect it. It is obvious to me that you have not read ALL of the comments I've made in this thread. I suggest going back to do so, before continuing.
Thanks for welcoming a HEALTHY, open discussion about it. Your comments, like those made by lopaw, I find refreshing.
sclvr5005:
I've attempted to "justify" nothing. All I've done is made an effort to clarify. I would, once again, suggest you go back and read through my comments but it is clear to me you won't. You are determined to twist my words and create your own fiction about what I'm conveying. Good luck with that (Reading is fundamental but COMPREHENSION is golden!).
I welcome your comments, if you think you can, as Otto22 has said, "keep it civil."
"You have the right to believe anything you wish but do not assume that choosing to claim lesbianism is not "natural" rather than not "normal" would be less offensive."
My motive wasn't to "offend" or "less offend" but rather, to clarify.
Pole_Doc stated @ lopaw:
"I truly meant it, when I said I didn't mean to use "normal." I sincerely meant to use the word "natural." However, I didn't take back the word "normal," due to insensitivity issues. I took back the word, because I truly meant to say "natural."
You just don't get it,do you you sanctimonious blowhard. Saying "unnatural" is just as offensive as "not normal" regardless of your so called "elements of nature" references.Did you know that are documented cases of same sex behaviour in nature? You keep saying that you don't mean to offend and then do so again in your next sentence. Its time for you to STFU already. You are not winning any support here. You are now looking like a troll begging for attention and a fight.
No, Sclvr5005, you don't get it. I'm neither trying to "offend" or "not offend." I'm merely attempting to make my meanings clear (don't give a fuck about attention). You're still rehashing shit I've already explained, everyone else has gotten, and has moved on from!
As to whether or not my words offend is completely up to the reader. I have no control over that. I can only promise to 1) Respect the opinions of others and 2) Address them using the clearest language I can muster, in a respectful manner, as I present my own (something you obviously haven't learned).
These are the only 2 things I have control over. Whether or not my comments offend others is completely subjective. That means there's no way for me to know what will, or will not, offend you. What one-person finds offensive, another may not. That is none of my business. I can only control the manner in which I address you and how I choose to react to the opinions you voice (respect).
As for the support I'm getting (I'm not necessarily looking for any), you obviously haven't been reading. There seem to be some who have stated they support the notion of civil discussion. Whether or not that takes place remains to be seen. However, as long as I'm addressed respectfully, I will respond in kind.
Curious, Sclvr5005, how old are you? I'm guessing 20s (Hell, IDK)? You just seem a rather acrimonious and defensive individual to me.
"Children cannot give meaningful consent, so any activities that involve an adult and a kid are illegal and SHOULD be illegal."
Seriously? You're telling me the only reason having sex with a small child deserves our wrath and hatred is because it lacks consent??? You can't be serious.
So is having sex with a goat fine, or is that bad also because you're never sure if the goat gave consent? What about having sex in public on Main St. in front of a bunch of kids walking home from school? Should you judge that? There's consent, so it's okay right? Well if you think these examples are okay and shouldn't be judged, then the vast majority of the public in most nations on the planet would strongly disagree with you. And I'm sure you can come up with many more pertinent examples. They are sexual practices that are wrong because they are wrong. How do we know they're wrong? Well, we are born with an internal knowledge of right and wrong. We may disagree on the specifics of some of those issues, but in general I think most people are in agreement on most of those things.
In any case, the entire issue of consent is irrelevant. My point is IF well meaning, rational individuals feel that some sexual practices are just plain wrong, and that those practices should be judged harshly by society, because they are ultimately bad for society, then dismissing those people as judgmental, fearful, ignorant, and full of hatred and intolerance is also very wrong. You may not agree with them, but dismissing them in that manner is shameful.
And that is my basic issue with the gay community. Not necessarily because of their practices, but because they are the masters of forcing their opinions on others. They feel no shame in dismissing and deriding and mocking those well meaning individuals who honestly feel that some sexual practices are basically wrong and should be judged by society.
"And that is my basic issue with the gay community. Not necessarily because of their practices, but because they are the masters of forcing their opinions on others. They feel no shame in dismissing and deriding and mocking those well meaning individuals who honestly feel that some sexual practices are basically wrong and should be judged by society."
OMFG. How DARE they! The nerve of gay people seeking equality and a peaceful life free from persecution and punishment!!! All of those "well meaning" old fucks like jerkoffson trying to deny them their rights and persecute them because, well after all they are "well meaning". This is the epitome of hypocritical bullshit spewed by the religious right and the very thinking that tries to justify the oppression of others due to their fear and ignorance. How DARE those nasty old gays force their desire to live their lives in peace be allowed to do so!!!! And of course jerkoffson isn't guilty of forcing HIS opinion on anyone, right?
People like jerkoffson and Pole Doc are completely clueless as to just how offensive they are. They either refuse to see it or they just don't care. Either way I'm done with this thread. Sorry Capri that it got this far, full of stupid nonsense when all you wanted to do was party with Lopaw. And believe me she is hella fun to hang with.
sclvr, consider this: OMFG. How DARE they! The nerve of pedophiles seeking equality and a peaceful life free from persecution and punishment!!! All of those "well meaning" old fucks like jerkoffson trying to deny them their rights and persecute them...How DARE those nasty old pedophiles force their desire to live their lives in peace be allowed to do so!!!!
IF some people equate the practice of homosexuality with other sexual practices such as pedophilia, then I'm sure you can understand how your comments would sound ridiculous, as I've shown above.
Now, in response to your comments about insensitivity, such as: "People like jerkoffson and Pole Doc are completely clueless as to just how offensive they are. They either refuse to see it or they just don't care."
You called me "jerkoffson". You called me an "old fuck". You called my comments the "epitome of hypocritical bullshit". You called me "clueless".
So tell me, are YOU completely clueless as to just how offensive YOU are? Or do you refuse to see it, or do you just not care?
But I'm certain the senior and self-righteous TUSCL forum members will immediately pounce on sclvr for being negative and insensitive and offensive, right?
I think you've made some very thought provoking comments. However, I'd like more clarity, concerning the apparent pedophilia/homosexual parallel. I'm not sure I follow you. You aren't comparing the two, are you?
As for Sclvr5005, I wouldn't worry about her. You're "casting your pearls" there. I don't know her so I can't pass judgement (the way she has) but based on how she posts, she seems to be quite a passionate (emotional) person. It is rather challenging to reason with that type - very disrespectful of opposing views.
You must not have been reading. I've been on her all day about how uncivil she's been (cursing, insulting, overreacting). She doesn't get it. She seems rather young (like my daughter - 23 yrs old and knows every damned thing).
"....concerning the apparent pedophilia/homosexual parallel. I'm not sure I follow you. You aren't comparing the two, are you?"
No. The only reason I mentioned pedophilia is that it is 1. A sexual practice and 2. It is a sexual practice that virtually everyone agrees is disgusting and abhorrent.
Since it is a clear, agreed upon sexual practice that everyone abhors, it serves as a good example on the thought process people might use. It highlights that for those people who classify homosexuality as a sexual practice that is ultimately bad for society, and worthy of our judgement, the thought processes for the two activities are similar.
I also believe that for many people, there is something of an internal response to the thought of both acts that is close to revulsion, which also generates the "this is just wrong" response.
Personally, the thought of fucking some guy up the butt is, for me, totally repulsive. Somewhat like the thought of some guy having sex with a little kid. Repulsive. So while they are totally different acts, they generate a similar "this is wrong" response.
Sorry if that's offensive to some, but I think many males will agree about what I'm saying is the typical response to gay sex.
@Pole_Doc - sclvr isnt female. He's a friend of mine who is -like you noted- passionate about civil rights. He is a good guy tho overzealous at times. Like you he means well but sometimes it comes out wrong. I also agree with him generally about what he's posted regarding insensitive statements. Yes as a gay woman I do find some of the things you and jerikson posted offensive and do not wish to discuss and validate my lifestyle here any longer. Like you said earlier we will just have to agree to disagree. So if you and jerikson would like to continue comparing notes, have at it. I'm moving on.I have a life to lead and those strippers asses out there ain't gonna spank themselves.
Why is it that the defenders of the gay lifestyle all get fed up and leave? sclvr bails, now Lopaw bails...
It sure seems like people finally run out of ammunition and start heading for the door. Doesn't speak too highly of those who claim to be so staunchly in support of "tolerance, and not being judgmental, and asking questions and learning about others so that our fear & ignorance do not breed hate and intolerance."
They call you ignorant and intolerant, then head for the door. I fear that all of this grand talk of tolerance only applies to tolerating THEM.
As far as the whole right and wrong thing goes, in regard to homosexuality, I'm not going there. I believe in live and let live. I get what you were trying to do with the parallel but I didn't care for the analogy much (too dangerously close - my opinion). It made me feel a bit uncomfortable (not offended though).
I tend to agree with you about the whole "tolerance crusade." It does seem like everyone is all "fuzzy and warm inside" about it, until tolerating an opposing view to what they want tolerated is involved; I concur with you.
Lopaw:
I apologize for thinking your friend was female. Should you give a response, how old is he? He seems young and intemperate.
Sorry you tucked and ran, especially seeing how you were one of those, last night, encouraging healthy discussion and debate. You disappoint me. Anyway, I tend to agree with you. This has gone on long enough. There isn't enough objectivity here for any good to come from it.
My GAWD jerikson40 dude...I've resisted the humorous slurs like Jerkoffson that others aim at you. But you make it hard.
Lowpaw and sclv5005 have stopped debating you because they've decided there is no point. After all, you've asserted that there "...are sexual practices that are wrong because they are wrong. How do we know they're wrong? Well, we are born with an internal knowledge of right and wrong."
I, on the other hand, am curious whether you can see how fundamentally irrational that is. Based upon your other post I doubt it, but it is entertaining to try. I'll stop when it is no longer entertaining.
So I'll bite. Yes, the problem withe pedophilia is lack of consent. Children simply don't have the life experience to evaluate the impact of sexual activity. Pedophiles HARM children by engaging in sexual activity. That harm is rooted in the fact that said activity is either directly coerced or extracted without meaningful consent. I had a good friend growing up who was abused and believe me it fucked him up. An adult imposed his will on him as a child and used him. And that caused lasting harm.
So what's more moral? My position of "we shouldn't directly harm vulnerable children?" or your position of "it is wrong because it is wrong". Mine is simply based on the fact that children don't have the life experience to consent so such a relationship is intrinsically exploitative and therefore morally wrong. Yours is based on what?
Animals? Can they give consent? Maybe Koko the gorilla. But who wants to fuck a gorilla? (Juice dude...no comments on this one). Again, human animal sex may injure animals. I don't like to be cruel to animals - to cause them harm. I do believe that animal testing of drugs and use of animals for food is OK, but even there you should minimize suffering. Animals don't have the moral status of other humans, but I wouldn't eat "pain intentionally maximized burgers". I also wouldn't be cool with fucking the cow. Unless you can find a cow that clearly communicates that it digs being fucked by a human...
Public sex? Again, if two uggos start fucking on Main Street they're invading my life without my permission. No consent. Now if they were two HAWT chicks...
Seriously though, the last is more subtle and -- in a different social milieu might be harmless. But in America it would be invading the lives of all viewers. Many of whom don't want said invasion of their lives. None of whom have consented.
Fine, zipman...if it's so important to prove you're right about consent then great. It's about consent.
But that's totally irrelevant to the points being made. If you don't see that, then there's not much more I can say. If you really think it's irrational to consider some things right and others wrong, then I'm just speechless.
We make laws against things because we think they might be ultimately harmful to individuals or society. Murder, pedophilia, stealing, rape...because they hurt people, based on our internal perception of "hurt". And if some people think that some sexual practices also ultimately "hurt" people or society, even if zipman disagrees, do we consider them irrational? Apparently you do. I don't.
Every "right or wrong" decision we make comes down to a basic, internal, gut feeling of what's good and bad, right or wrong. We're born with that knowledge. Pedophila is ultimately bad because, as you say, it ends up hurting people. Why is THAT bad? Who gives a fuck if it hurts someone else? Because to humans, thankfully, when somebody else gets hurt, our basic nature, our internal knowledge of right and wrong, tells us that's not good, and those things should be avoided. Why? Because presumably we care about each other's well being. So we make laws. It is irrelevant if it's consentual, or anything else. It's wrong because it leads to bad stuff, and we give a damn. The VAST majority of us will never be subjected to pedophilia. But thankfully we care enough about each other to give a damn and do something about it. And we judge harshly our fellow man when he does shit like that.
And, by the way, we also ALL are instilled with an internal knowledge that it's totally repulsive. And that's one indication that we're born with a knowledge of right and wrong at birth. It affects us physically. Just like if we see a dog being abused. Or someone being shot. It makes us sick, and it just reinforces our belief that we're doing the right thing when we make laws against it.
If someone tells us 50 years ago that smoking may cause cancer, and people think "are you fucking serious, everyone does it !!", do we call those scientists irrational? No, respectfully we say, hmmm, maybe he's got a point. You certainly don't tell them that they are just generating fear and hatred and prejudice against smokers. Well, maybe zipman does....
So unless you are absolutely confident and certain that the people who feel that homosexuality might be ultimately harmful to society are totally full of shit, and you have conclusive data to prove it, I suggest you step back a bit and stop slinging mud, and calling names just because you disagree. And not calling someone "jerk off son" is a good start. Because when you start slinging mud, then bail from an intelligent discussion, you lose all credibility, like so many people here have done.
Hmmm...I do not think jerikson40 is showing much evidence of reading comprehension here. I'll be brief in response. Probably not worth it, but this discussion hasn't reached the "not fun zone" yet...
I could go on with a philosophical discourse on the topic of "what is harm?" but that would hardly be brief. I'll just stipulate that harm is something that unjustly deprives one of their life or property or inflicts pain. Is that a reasonable definition for you? You seem comfortable enough conceding that things that harm others are indeed wrong.
Now let's look at the smoking example. We listened to scientists saying smoking is harmful because they were able to SHOW smoking was harmful. There was a mechanism (smoke contains chemicals that are mutagenic in tests) and statistical evidence that smokers experience specific cancers at an elevated rate. I don't see how this is at all analogous to your "I have innate knowledge that X is harmful" position.
Even with these data showing the harm of smoking we respect people's right to smoke if they make a informed decision to inhale. And agree not to blow smoke In other people's faces (what constitutes "blowing smoke in other folks' faces" has changed over the years, but the principle remains, but that is beside the point).
In contrast, you declare homosexuality wrong and provide no evidence. How is that the same as you smoking example?
This is probably it for me. Not much point in continuing. But I said it because I'm curious to see whether you respond and how you'll respond if you do.
@zipperhead68 “I just don't like the fact that HE judges Brother LDKâ€
as always you have it wrong. i am NOT judging the mentally handicapped 12 year old boy who likes to sit in the corner laughing about cumming in his pants. but i am judging YOU for your incessant fantasizing about, encouraging, and preying upon a mentally handicapped 12 year old boy who likes to sit in the corner laughing about cumming in his pants.
yeah, yeah, yeah i know – i’m on your list and as soon as you and george soros get your fourth reich socialist utopia up and running i’ll be the first one you put in your death camp.
here’s a suggestion - why don’t you spend more time fantasizing about how you and george are going to do it right this time finishing the job to rid the world of people like me and spend less time fantasizing about how you are going to shove a live chicken up your ass while you play “good touch – bad touch†with lapdanceking82. sick fucking dumbass nazi
You have NO idea how refreshing it is to read healthy debate, without all of the acrimony (I'm not sure where all that DoctorPhil stuff came from though). You guys aren't agreeing but at least you're having the debate and you're not disrespecting one another - Kudos!
Concerning healthy debate (or the lack thereof), jerikson40, I have a "bit off topic" theory that may explain some of the insults we've been reading:
I've noticed an apparent tendency, of some visiting this forum, to not realize the 3 respective, distinct, and differing meanings of the words "to," "too," and "two." There are other examples of infelicitous applications I could mention but this will do, for now.
Interestingly enough, though, I've equally observed there seems to be a parallel between those who fall into the category of making these type of errors and a penchant for irascibly hurling insults and vulgarities at people expressing antithetical and, perhaps, unpopular views. This is often accompanied, or followed, by expressions of taking offense to something the intended target of the expletives said.
As I've stated before, what we choose to take offense to is completely subjective. What one person finds offensive, someone else may see as funny. What brings about an elegiac feeling for one group, instills a sense of satisfaction for another. There's no way to really know.
Obviously, the hurled insults, with the accompanied cursing, is a manifestation of the offense they've taken which, in turn, is a manifestation of some level of insecurity, or perhaps low self-esteem. This is definitely a recipe for the type of "thinned skinned," insulting and vulgar reactions we've witnessed.
There have already been studies done to support the notion of a parallel existing between poor grammar usage and low self-esteem. Note that there have been those, however, who have expressed taking offense to certain things stated in this thread, and they've done so respectfully, without emoting, insulting, or the implementation of infantile cursing. In expressing their displeasure, they did so with a certain level of writing prowess, void of the egregious errors found in the things posted by the other group in question. Certainly they took offense, as expressed, but were nowhere near as expressively "thinned skinned" about it.
Where am I going with this? In what may be my final post, on this thread, I wish to leave those who choose to accept it, a gift in two parts:
The first part is in the form of a suggestion. If you're one of those who struggles with grammar (either speaking or writing), in an attempt to better yourself, find a way to procure a book on grammar that will help clear some things up for you. I advise getting a small one you can place in your pocket and take on the go. There are also websites you can visit. The truth is that society judges us by the way we speak and write (try going on a job interview). Unfortunately, the current culture of text messaging is part of the problem but what can you do, go back to the days prior to cell phones? I don't think so.
The second part of the gift I wish to leave (which can serve well regardless of which group you happen to fall under) is in the form of a quote: "No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." - Eleanor Roosevelt. This is something I've taken with me through life and partially my reason for living boldly, as I do. As a result, I am rarely "offended" by anything. On those rare occasions when I am, it's usually by what people do, as opposed to what they say.
Now, I've lived long enough to know and realize that people are different. I get it; everyone isn't going to react to things in the same way. However, when people react defensively, there's usually an underlying, highly sensitive charged, reason behind it. Often times that reason is accompanied by some form of insecurity, which is usually manifested emotionally. If they're emotional while writing, it shows and the reader often gets a true sense of who they are grammatically. The cycle continues and on, and on, and on it goes.
Too deep for you? Am I reaching here; a bit of a stretch? Well, try applying the advice in the gift I left. See if your attitude about what you do, and do not find offensive doesn't change. If not, at the very least, the way you choose to respond to things certainly should. Don't believe me? Well, there's only one way to find out and you have nothing to lose, except for some of your insecurities and petulant nature, that is. If nothing else, in the end, you'll have improved your grammar. Good luck!
zipman sez: "In contrast, you declare homosexuality wrong and provide no evidence. How is that the same as you smoking example?"
Well, no, I don't think I ever declared homosexuality wrong in this discussion. Even if I did, the points I've been trying to make here focus solely on people's reactions (such as the gay community and its supporters), when others question or condemn a sexual practice that they, and others, feel may be harmful to society. I'm questioning the clear hypocrisy of those who want you to tolerate THEM, but they not only refuse to tolerate YOU, they mock you and deride you and condemn you and call you names. A perfect example of that is in this thread.
The next step, and an entirely different subject, is what evidence exists that makes some people BELIEVE that the practice of homosexuality might be harmful to society.
I only used the smoking example since it is clearly understandable. I never intended to say that there exists irrefutable scientific data to prove the harm of sexual practices like the data showing the harm of smoking. It was just an analogy.
Now if you want to discuss data showing homosexuality to be harmful or beneficial, then be my guest.
Pole_Doc....
I think your grammar/low self esteem suggestion is interesting to the point where you may have a point...
But I've developed a different hypothesis to explain the responses you generally see in online discussions. Could be totally bogus, and certainly doesn't apply to everyone, but it's surprising how often it seems to fit.
I basically divide people into two categories. I call them the Hearts and the Minds. And I closely associate them with Female and Male tendencies. The Minds having "Male" tendencies, and the Hearts having "Female" tendencies.
Now I realize a lot of people will go totally apeshit for even suggesting something so incredibly insensitive and gender biased and whatever else negative stuff they can call it. Well, sorry...
In any case, I think people in general can be classified by whether they are driven mostly by their minds or their hearts. Some people clearly seem to be driven by their emotions, and their instincts. They trust their feelings and their intuition over all else, and they place more importance in those feelings and intuitions than in any rational, logical analysis. As a result, their positions on various issues is the result of their feelings and intuition. As a result, often their knowledge of the facts, as well as depth of analysis or understanding, is lacking. Because to them it's just not important.
Others seem to be driven by their minds, and rational analysis. They tend to analyze situations, and trust their logic over their emotions and intuitions. They tend to think about things a lot and study issues in depth. And they seem to be totally devoid of any emotion or sympathy, which absolutely annoys the shit out of those who are driven by emotion.
I'll never forget being on a jury once, and we were judging a guy who was so clearly guilty that nobody in their right mind would find otherwise. His criminal history, the facts of the case, even a videotape showing him commiting the crime. But there was one older women who wouldn't budge from her belief that he was innocent. Her reasoning? "Aww, but look at him, and those eyes. He just CAN'T have done something like that". To her, no amount of facts or analysis would ever be as good as her feelings and intuition.
Anyway, I think what you see in online debates over issues is the Hearts vs the Minds. The Hearts tend to go for the emotional response. The Minds go for the analytical response.
And since the Hearts get their beliefs from their intuition and feelings, they generally don't have a depth of knowledge about the facts associated with the issues. Because those aren't nearly as important as the emotional and intuitive aspect. You don't NEED a lot of rational analysis to know that "intolerance, insensitivity, and injustice" are wrong. Why? Because they hurt people's feelings. Which is what is really important. Emotions and feelings. So when pressed for any factual depth in an issue, they are often limited to just their emotional and intuitive perspective. And at some point they run out of anything objective to respond with, and they get emotional and frustrated and give up. If you can't understand what, to them, are the obvious emotional points, then there's nothing to argue. Because the facts don't really matter.
The Minds, on the other hand, love to analyze and evaluate. When they discuss issues they feel more comfortable discussing those issues in great detail and depth. And that pisses the Hearts off immensely. It annoys the shit out of them because why the hell are these morons going into this great, boring detail on such an obvious issue?? You don't judge people, or be insensitive, because it will hurt their feelings !! Period !! What's to discuss??
So as a result, in discussions you'll see the Hearts give a response to an issue like "I think it's this way", with absolutely no supporting information whatsoever. Because it's not important. My intuition is important, all the rest of your ridiculous analysis is irrelevant. And when you press them, they get emotional and upset. Why? Because you're bugging them with this annoying analysis that is irrelevant, and they can't respond to. So after giving the debate a try, they soon get so angry and frustrated that they bail out. A completely emotional response.
Ever notice that there are virtually NO liberal-based political analysis and discussion shows? But FOX News is filled with conservative discussions and analysis. There's tons of conservative political shows. But virtually nothing from the liberals. Why? Well, it's the battle of the Hearts and the Minds. The liberals (Hearts) are not interested in all this annoying analysis, because it's irrelevant. There's no market for it. The conservatives (Minds) love it, and spend their lives nitpicking and discussing in nauseating detail.
By the way, that's why sometimes someone will post a fact or statistic, and others will respond by getting totally pissed. How can you argue with a fact? Well, to a Heart, what's more important is whether that fact might hurt someone's feelings.
I recall in a recent thread I posted a statistic from the FBI saying that 1/3 of all black males will be in prison at some point in their lives. Its a fact, but it is very offensive to some people. And the offense far outweighs the fact.
Jerikson dude... I'm a bit puzzled by your hearts/minds dichotomy (into which I read the implication that you place yourself on the "minds" side). After all, you seem to be asserting in other posts that "we just know" certain things are wrong. No attempt to evaluate harm to others directly or indirectly and balance with individual rights. That would seem to be the ultimate "hearts" position.
I made an argument that certain practices should be judged negatively because some objective information indicates those practices are harmful. You seemed to take the position that humans have intrinsic knowledge that certain things are wrong. I actually agree with that contention to some degree, though you take into areas that are pretty clearly learned (i.e., established by the social milieu) rather than truly inate.
Now you seem to be backpedaling on your stance regarding homosexuality. Perhaps we did not understand your position and you should define it clearly. What exactly are you saying about homosexuality? Do you believe it to be harmful to anybody? If so, do you actually have evidence or is it just "innate knowledge"?
"...you seem to be asserting in other posts that "we just know" certain things are wrong.....That would seem to be the ultimate "hearts" position."
For the life of me, I cannot figure out how you came to that conclusion.
"Now you seem to be backpedaling on your stance regarding homosexuality"
Again, I don't think I ever stated my stance regarding homosexuality. For my part, this discussion has only focused on peoples' responses when others dare to suggest it MIGHT be harmful.
If you READ what I wrote, that's pretty clear.
So, if you now want to re-direct the discussion towards the rightness or wrongness of homosexuality, tell us, what is YOUR position on homosexuality, and what is the data upon which you base your position?
"Pole_Doc....
I think your grammar/low self esteem suggestion is interesting to the point where you may have a point..."
You seem to have an understandably, not so clear view of what I wrote. Although I see low self-esteem as a by product of what I was describing (a part of the "cycle" I mentioned), I do not necessarily see it as being the main cause.
Remember, there were 2 groups in disagreement. One group made their opposition to the things voiced by you (myself as well) very clear, while they DID NOT hurl insults and vulgarities. The other group made their opposition clear, while they DID hurl insults and vulgarities. The former displayed a much better command of grammar than the latter.
I enjoyed reading your "Hearts" and "Minds" analysis and find it rather agreeable. However, as you've already pointed out, our theories are coming from two slightly different angles. As I'm sure you'll agree, both of the groups I've mentioned, in the previous paragraph, would be classified in your "Hearts" category, whereas my analysis classifies them separately.
Either way, I find both hypotheses equally interesting. By the way, as a member of the black male demographic, I find the FACT you presented to be on point. I stand here officially NOT OFFENDED! Now it's a valid point to be placed on the table for open and honest discussion (not saying we do that..I'm just making a point).
Why couldn't those in this thread, who tucked and ran, do that? Learn to take your "feelings" out of it. Stand in there, like an adult, and have the debate! It's their loss. They missed an opportunity to educate and perhaps convert. I for one was looking forward to learning more about these other documented homosexual species, mentioned by Sclvr5005, said to be found in nature. Who knows, he could've gotten me to say, "Thank you for teaching me that. I stand corrected." Now, I guess we'll never know.
69 comments
I have a question. It may sound like a stupid question, and I suppose it is, but it's something that has always had me scratching my head about lesbians. And gay males too, I suppose...
I realize lesbians are attracted to other females. So why so so many lesbians dress up and/or act like males? I mean, the standard picture most of us have of a lesbian is a woman with short hair (like a male), who dresses like a male, and perhaps even acts like a male. Why would that attract another lesbian who, presumably, is not attracted to males but rather to other females?
And that's one thing I have trouble understanding about someone like you who goes to strip clubs featuring beautiful women. Aren't you attracted to women who dress and act like males?
The same goes for gay males. For many of us, our standard picture of a gay male is someone acting very much like a female. I realize that's not always the case, but it seems kinda strange.
Are there, like degrees of gayness, where for those who aren't fully gay they're still attracted to the opposite sex so other gays try to meet that need. And then for those who are fully gay you don't have to change genders to attract them. Like you going to a strip club. Wouldn't some lesbians rather go to a "butch" club where the women are dressing and acting like men?
See my point? It just seems confusing to me.
As a straight male, could you ever be attracted to a man who looked and acted and dressed as a woman? Or a woman who looked and acted and dressed as a man? Probably not. That's what we're talking about.
Why do gays go to such extremes to change their behavior and look and clothes so that they appear to be another gender? If you're attracted to other women, why would you want those women to be like a man?
lol Capri you tell everybody that!
Same with gay men. Maybe a portion of the gay male population, for whatever reason, were fucked over by women for so long that they said, fuck it I want a man...as long as he still looks and acts like a woman.
Hell, who knows. It just seems interesting to me. Anyway, thanks.
I was involved with a very attractive, "femme," so-called lesbian. I say "so-called" because as I've posted before, she's come to the realization she also likes DICK. When I first met her, she was dating a guy on the rebound from a harsh break up with a (stud/butch) woman.
She knew nothing about dating men but decided women were no longer for her. Very skillfully, I was able to squeeze my way into the view of her attention and she began to find me more appealing than the guy she was seeing. He eventually became history.
Things were humming along between us quite well and then, her ex- girlfriend (the harsh breakup) began coming back into the picture. She eventually went back that way. As she explained it to me, "It's that dominance that gets me!" Apparently, the "studs" tend to be quite aggressive in their approaches and that's what the "femmes" like.
What I didn't like, though, was how "secretive" we had to be about our dating relationship (or even the friendship that followed) after that. It was as though her gay friends could never know she ever tried DICK, or was friends with a straight man, and God forbid if the girlfriend ever found out!
I'm not saying we should've been broadcasting our business to the world but the last time I was involved in that level of secrecy, I was in high school. I'm a grown ass man who lives boldly! I am who I am and not afraid to be myself. She seemed to be living two different lives (hypocritical/duplicitous). She reminds me of a closeted gay person, in reverse (afraid to come out about being bi or possibly even potentially, eventually straight). I didn't like that. I played along for a while, though, for her sake. At the time, she had my loyalty and respect.
With me, she seemed honest about her sexuality, telling me that she doesn't want to limit her options in that area, or anything else in life. She would also admit to not being able to come clean about it with her gay friends. She even went as far to say once, "I don't even like the (black) gay community. It's too small, here in Atlanta, and everyone knows everyone else and is in everybody else's business!"
Anyway, we eventually fell out. The day came when I needed her to have my back (health related) and after all her empty promises to be there, she let me down. It was the most insensitive thing I had ever experienced in my life! After that, my loyalty began to wane and the respect I once had for her disappeared. I felt/feel no need to be secretive any longer. The loyalty that once kept my mouth shut was no longer there. I shared my experience and she found out about it. She no longer wished to continue our friendship after that.
She thinks I'm trying to "expose" her (she's very self-centered and would think it's all about HER). However, from my point of view, it's not about exposing her as much as it being about doing "me." I'm a person of many experiences. This is only one of them. I have the right to share my experiences with whomever I please. After all, they're mine.
Personally, I think a femme who wants a butch ain't really gay, especially if she gets off by penetration! She's kidding herself to think otherwise.
And it sounds like that chick your talking about is bi, not gay. Big difference.
#OnlyTimeWillTell
And my rationale to explain that is that the "gayness" is in most part a learned behavior and attitude, based on bad experiences with the opposite sex. It seems that, deep down, most women really want men, and most men really want women. And the only reason people change in that regard is the result of bad experiences with the opposite sex that causes people to "decide" to be gay.
Now I know this is very contrary to what the gay community wants people to believe, and I'm sure that there is a portion of the gay population that, for whatever reason, really does prefer the same sex to whatever degree. But I see so much evidence that so many gay people still prefer some/many/most aspects of the opposite sex. I just don't know any way to make sense of that other than that many/most gay people "decide" to become gay.
I'm sure I wrong though.
homo
Allow me to be clear. The statements made in my last paragraph have NOTHING to do with me thinking, or hoping "I still might have a shot." You must not have understood the things I wrote. I've lost quite a bit of respect for this woman, as a person. That has less to do with her sexuality and EVERYTHING to do with her inability to keep her word.
As for her being bi, that is mainly the point I was trying to make. Remember what I said about her reminding me of a closeted gay person, in reverse? Perhaps you should go back and read it again. Your commentary gives me the impression you failed to understand what I composed.
@Jerikson40: You may need to go back and read my story again as well. I clearly stated that it was AFTER the harsh breakup with her ex (a stud/butch) that she decided to try men. This girl has been fucking other girls since middle school.
The statements in my last paragraph are simply based on the LOGIC that if you're a woman who achieves orgasm via penetration (especially in the ass), and you are attracted to masculinity, why not just be with a man? Even this girl had to admit, "Ain't nothing like the real thing, Baby!"
Now, I'm not trying to say that's how it's supposed to go between gay women. I don't understand that and ain't tryna understand it (Like I said, "That shit ain't normal!") but what I'm saying only makes sense! IT'S LOGICAL.
Right now I'm just waiting for lopaw to straighten you out on a few things that I personally think you are incredibly wrong about. For one if all lesbians who like penetration really liked dick, there would be no demand for strap ons. Did you think they are only used in pornos? Your logic is typical of a guy who doesn't have a clue about this and so you have come to a conclusion based on the little sexual world that you know, hence you stating that it is not "normal". Well its obvious that you don't know dick about it. Yes the pun was intended.
You are falsely accusing me of things I haven't said. Take a deep breath.... Get your emotions in check... Okay? Here's a review:
You said I stated:
"For one if all lesbians who like penetration really liked dick, there would be no demand for strap ons."
What I actually stated:
"... if you're a woman who achieves orgasm via penetration (especially in the ass), and you are attracted to masculinity, why not just be with a man?" NOTICE THE QUESTION MARK? Also, the word "DICK" is nowhere to be found in my statement. Let's continue...
You stated:
"Your logic is typical of a guy who doesn't have a clue about this ... Well its obvious that you don't know dick about it."
When I've already stated:
"Now, I'm not trying to say that's how it's supposed to go between gay women. I don't understand that and ain't tryna understand it."
No need for redundancy. Admittedly I don't know "dick" about it, thus my QUESTION in the previous example. Let's continue...
You said:
"... you have come to a conclusion based on the little sexual world that you know, hence you stating that it is not 'normal''..."
Here's where you've got me! I DID wrongfully use the word "normal." For that, I sincerely apologize. I did not mean to use that word. What I meant to say is that shit ain't "natural." I base my logic on "the little sexual world that I know," that cats know, that dogs know, that birds know, that fish know, that reptiles know, that insects know, that flowers know, etc, etc, etc...
Now calm down... Take a deep breath. I am NOT passing judgement. I'm merely basing my comments upon the laws of nature, that's all.
I do appreciate HEALTHY debate. Let's try to remain calm, okay? Also, make sure you read my comments correctly before firing upon them. Thanks!
@Pole_Doc-
I'm sure in your own way you mean well and are just trying to explain your thoughts on this very complicated subject, but sclvr has you on several accounts. Sexual orientation and gender identity are very complex issues that befuddles even us gay folk. Alot of your presumptions are a stretch at best. Yes your ex seems to be bi rather than gay - she has alot of nerve claiming that lez title! Simple enough. But because a lesbian likes penetration (anywhere) does not mean that she secretly likes men or she should "just be with a man". If it were that simple I'm sure that she would be with a man. But then she'd be a terrible lesbian, right? Don't forget that when her partner's strap-on comes off, that partner is now brandishing a pussy, so our girl is getting the best of both worlds, along with all of the other fem qualities that her butchie may possess. So yes - even if she wants a butch she may still be very very gay. It may sound convoluted to you and me, but it makes sense to her. And that's all that really matters to her & her partner. Often logic is out the window when the heart (and genitals) want what they want.
Thank you for realizing that using the phrasing "not normal" was insensitive. But changing that to "unnatural" wasn't much better. You seem like a nice enough guy so I don't think that you meant to offend. Please be cognizant of how you phrase things because you never know who is reading. To me my sexual world is very natural - it's all I know and all that I want, just as your sexual world is natural to you. Ours is not to judge, but to ask questions and learn about others so that our fear & ignorance do not breed hate and intolerance.
lol that last sentence would have made a great public service announcement ;)
Thank you for keeping your comments void of emotion. It makes no sense to me when people get angry over other people's right to different and varying opinions. They're not weapons; they're just opinions and everyone's entitled to at least one.
Now, let's dissect your comments:
"Sexual orientation and gender identity are very complex issues that befuddles even us gay folk. Alot of your presumptions are a stretch at best."
I'm not sure what "presumptions" you are speaking of. I didn't "presume" anything. As I attempted to show in my response to sclvr5005, I made it clear in my comments that I DON'T understand this type of sexuality, which therefore infers that I concur with your assessment, concerning its complexities. That is why I posed a QUESTION in my comments, as I admitted to my lack of knowledge. I can not make a "stretch" on a presumption that doesn't exist.
Reading is truly fundamental BUT comprehension is golden! All you have to do is go back and read the words I chose to use. They speak for themselves.
Here's your next comment:
"... because a lesbian likes penetration (anywhere) does not mean that she secretly likes men or she should 'just be with a man' ..."
Again, go back and read the words I carefully took the time to choose. I said NOTHING about lesbians (I didn't even use the word "lesbian") secretly liking men, based on their enjoyment of penetration! Again, I didn't PRESUME anything. What I posed was a QUESTION based on the LOGIC of being attracted to masculinity. Again, I NEVER claimed to know ANYTHING about the issue, thus the reason for the QUESTION. If anything, it was inferred that someone make sense of it for me.
Your next comments:
"...If it were that simple I'm sure that she would be with a man. But then she'd be a terrible lesbian, right?"
As you've already stated (and I pointed out in my story), she's more bi than gay. She really shouldn't be calling herself gay. However, she's gotta figure that one out for herself. To answer your question, Yes, she does make a terrible lesbian. From what I hear, she and the girlfriend have recently broken up. I would guess she's probably in the midst of an identity crisis, right about now. Who knows, she may end up with a man next. BTW, sclvr5005, this in no way means "I have a shot," or I want one. The girl lacks honor and I'm no longer interested.
Your next comments:
"It may sound convoluted to you and me, but it makes sense to her. And that's all that really matters to her & her partner. Often logic is out the window when the heart (and genitals) want what they want."
This is where I say, "I don't understand that and I ain't tryna understand it." Thanks for admitting that LOGIC is tossed to the wind here. That's the most sensible thing I've read all night.
Your final comments I will address in this response:
"Thank you for realizing that using the phrasing "not normal" was insensitive. But changing that to "unnatural" wasn't much better."
This is where we may bump heads and have to agree to disagree. I truly meant it, when I said I didn't mean to use "normal." I sincerely meant to use the word "natural." However, I didn't take back the word "normal," due to insensitivity issues. I took back the word, because I truly meant to say "natural."
It is not my intent to offend. However, I have no control over what people CHOOSE to be offended by. I stand by my comments, as an incontrovertible fact of NATURE. That is why I chose the examples I used, when referencing sclvr5005's comments concerning "the little sexual world that I know." I intentionally mentioned various species of NATURE to stress a point and to show that "sexual world" mentioned by sclvr5005, isn't so "little" after all. Only NATURE can dictate what is natural and what is not. All the rest of us can do is voice opinions. I think NATURE speaks for itself.
Now, please DO NOT take my words and twist them to mean that I'm "intolerant" or I'm filled with "hate" or that I'm "judgmental." That simply would not be true (Hell, I just told you about a lesbian I dated). However, I can no more call your lifestyle natural than I can say the sky is red! It doesn't mean I have a problem with the sky. All it means is that facts dictate the sky is blue and facts are stubborn things.
I hope this doesn't hinder our ability to converse and debate, Lopaw. I rather enjoy you. This debate, by far, has proven to be more edifying than any I've had tonight. I find you rather stimulating. Please don't be offended by my positions. I mean it when I say there's careful thought and compassion behind each word I choose. Please know and understand this.
And she said no fucking way. What's more to discuss? We turned a stupid thread into an interesting discussion. Just because it's too difficult for you to understand doesn't mean everyone is a "troll".
And while that does sound nice, I'm sure you'll agree that in some cases, our job IS to judge. Sometimes we SHOULD judge others. And sometimes hate and intolerance IS called for.
If, for example, a pedophile rapes a young child, our judgement, hatred and intolerance is not only called for, it's mandatory. Even though HE might be certain in his own mind that his sexual world is totally justified and normal.
There is right, and there is wrong.
The real question is in what situations do sexual (and other) preferences demand judgement, hatred, and intolerance. Or some portion of those. Just because the pedophile tells us "you shouldn't judge me because your fear and ignorance is breeding intolerance and hatred", doesn't mean we should listen to him.
So objectively, for those well meaning people who place certain sexual practices in a similar category, I'm sure we can agree that, for them, at least we can understand their judgement, hatred and intolerance.
"And she said no fucking way"
Guys. People's plans change. Traveling half way across the country to hang with strip club junkies from the internet for a night just isn't going to be a high priority for most if anything more important comes up. Get over it already and your belief that it shows something sinister about the people who dropped out all ready. Where does it rank in importance on a scale of 1 to 100? 4? 5?
Children cannot give meaningful consent, so any activities that involve an adult and a kid are illegal and SHOULD be illegal. I do have sympathy for an 18 year old dude that screws his 17 year old girlfriend (or vice versa) and don't think folks like that should be on sex offender registries. But some states already have exceptions for cases where the couple is close in age. All probably should. But cases where an adult seeks out anybody under 18? Nope...that deserves judgement and it gets judgement.
Likewise, anything done that eliminates meaningful consent -- anything from roofies to threats and all in between -- is also uncool. And does get judged.
There is a lot of difference between somebody who wants to fuck someone of the same gender or wants their partner to cross dress or something like that and somebody who takes advantage of others. I'm not going to judge the former.
Even is that somebody else is DoctorPhil. I'm not bothered by the fact that he has clearly indicated that the only way he can get an erection is by getting a sloppy BJ from a pre-op trans woman sporting a Hitler 'stache while a chick dressed as an SS member penetrates his asshole with a loaded WWII vintage pistol.
I'm cool with him needing that for sexual release. A little sad for the fellow because I suspect that Nazi themed pairs of hookers that include one pre-op transsexual must be hard to find. But what do I know? I've never looked for such a pair.
However, I just don't like the fact that HE judges Brother LDK. Cap'n Stickpants is a wholesome dude that digs jizzin' in his trousers from a lapper and picking up civvies on the street ...cough...hookers...cough... for paid encounters. Ain't nothing wrong with that, as long as everybody is 18+ and nobody is coerced. Oooo...regarding the last point...LDK dude...maybe stick with the lap dancin'...some of the "civvies" you pick up may have pimps and you don't want to contribute to that shit...
My choice of words addresses the issue of what is natural from unnatural, for the purpose of HEALTHY discussion ONLY. Mother Nature herself is the only one in a position of judgement, to dictate what IS and IS NOT Natural. As I've already stated, the only thing the rest of us can do is voice opinions. I think Nature's LAWS speak loudly and clearly, on this front.
As for the issue of morality, although I respect the comments made by jerikson40 and zipman68, I prefer to stay away from that. Aside from the very poignant points made by zipman68, concerning children and consent, I'm just not too sure members of a strip club forum are in a position of judgement, to discuss right from wrong. I'll be clear; I know I'm not. I'm pretty sure neither is anyone else.
Lastly, for the record, I'm rather intrigued (and sometimes annoyed) by "feminine" homosexuality. However, nothing I have stated, to this point, should be misconstrued to conclude that I dislike lesbians (There is no hate in anything I've said). I want to be clear, and free of any possible tie to hypocrisy. I have been in several sexual situations, involving bi and/or lesbian women, and I've enjoyed every one of them! To those few of you who may undoubtedly think this statement contradictory to those I've previously made, I welcome your challenge to thwart my claims. However, be advised; I am prepared to vigorously defend my positions.
I don't think that's what he (jerickson40) is saying at all. Reading is fundamental BUT comprehension is GOLDEN!
Also, your name calling and insults help nothing. Expressing thought void of emotion is, by far, more efficacious than your current approach. You should try it ;).
I must, however, I do appreciate your passion!
Pole Doc - your posts come off as smug & condescending. Look- you and that shitbag jerkoffson have your opinions and we have ours. Debating it isnt going to change anyones mind or solve anything. And poor Capri got his thread jacked over a hot button topic that is better served on a different forum. Let's go back to chatting about T&A and whether or not lopaw will fly to Atlanta. I think that she would agree.
You are, of course, entitled to your opinion and I respect it. It is obvious to me that you have not read ALL of the comments I've made in this thread. I suggest going back to do so, before continuing.
Thanks for welcoming a HEALTHY, open discussion about it. Your comments, like those made by lopaw, I find refreshing.
sclvr5005:
I've attempted to "justify" nothing. All I've done is made an effort to clarify. I would, once again, suggest you go back and read through my comments but it is clear to me you won't. You are determined to twist my words and create your own fiction about what I'm conveying. Good luck with that (Reading is fundamental but COMPREHENSION is golden!).
I welcome your comments, if you think you can, as Otto22 has said, "keep it civil."
"You have the right to believe anything you wish but do not assume that choosing to claim lesbianism is not "natural" rather than not "normal" would be less offensive."
My motive wasn't to "offend" or "less offend" but rather, to clarify.
Pole_Doc stated @ lopaw:
"I truly meant it, when I said I didn't mean to use "normal." I sincerely meant to use the word "natural." However, I didn't take back the word "normal," due to insensitivity issues. I took back the word, because I truly meant to say "natural."
No, Sclvr5005, you don't get it. I'm neither trying to "offend" or "not offend." I'm merely attempting to make my meanings clear (don't give a fuck about attention). You're still rehashing shit I've already explained, everyone else has gotten, and has moved on from!
As to whether or not my words offend is completely up to the reader. I have no control over that. I can only promise to 1) Respect the opinions of others and 2) Address them using the clearest language I can muster, in a respectful manner, as I present my own (something you obviously haven't learned).
These are the only 2 things I have control over. Whether or not my comments offend others is completely subjective. That means there's no way for me to know what will, or will not, offend you. What one-person finds offensive, another may not. That is none of my business. I can only control the manner in which I address you and how I choose to react to the opinions you voice (respect).
As for the support I'm getting (I'm not necessarily looking for any), you obviously haven't been reading. There seem to be some who have stated they support the notion of civil discussion. Whether or not that takes place remains to be seen. However, as long as I'm addressed respectfully, I will respond in kind.
Curious, Sclvr5005, how old are you? I'm guessing 20s (Hell, IDK)? You just seem a rather acrimonious and defensive individual to me.
Seriously? You're telling me the only reason having sex with a small child deserves our wrath and hatred is because it lacks consent??? You can't be serious.
So is having sex with a goat fine, or is that bad also because you're never sure if the goat gave consent? What about having sex in public on Main St. in front of a bunch of kids walking home from school? Should you judge that? There's consent, so it's okay right? Well if you think these examples are okay and shouldn't be judged, then the vast majority of the public in most nations on the planet would strongly disagree with you. And I'm sure you can come up with many more pertinent examples. They are sexual practices that are wrong because they are wrong. How do we know they're wrong? Well, we are born with an internal knowledge of right and wrong. We may disagree on the specifics of some of those issues, but in general I think most people are in agreement on most of those things.
In any case, the entire issue of consent is irrelevant. My point is IF well meaning, rational individuals feel that some sexual practices are just plain wrong, and that those practices should be judged harshly by society, because they are ultimately bad for society, then dismissing those people as judgmental, fearful, ignorant, and full of hatred and intolerance is also very wrong. You may not agree with them, but dismissing them in that manner is shameful.
And that is my basic issue with the gay community. Not necessarily because of their practices, but because they are the masters of forcing their opinions on others. They feel no shame in dismissing and deriding and mocking those well meaning individuals who honestly feel that some sexual practices are basically wrong and should be judged by society.
"And that is my basic issue with the gay community. Not necessarily because of their practices, but because they are the masters of forcing their opinions on others. They feel no shame in dismissing and deriding and mocking those well meaning individuals who honestly feel that some sexual practices are basically wrong and should be judged by society."
OMFG. How DARE they! The nerve of gay people seeking equality and a peaceful life free from persecution and punishment!!! All of those "well meaning" old fucks like jerkoffson trying to deny them their rights and persecute them because, well after all they are "well meaning". This is the epitome of hypocritical bullshit spewed by the religious right and the very thinking that tries to justify the oppression of others due to their fear and ignorance. How DARE those nasty old gays force their desire to live their lives in peace be allowed to do so!!!! And of course jerkoffson isn't guilty of forcing HIS opinion on anyone, right?
People like jerkoffson and Pole Doc are completely clueless as to just how offensive they are. They either refuse to see it or they just don't care. Either way I'm done with this thread. Sorry Capri that it got this far, full of stupid nonsense when all you wanted to do was party with Lopaw. And believe me she is hella fun to hang with.
IF some people equate the practice of homosexuality with other sexual practices such as pedophilia, then I'm sure you can understand how your comments would sound ridiculous, as I've shown above.
Now, in response to your comments about insensitivity, such as: "People like jerkoffson and Pole Doc are completely clueless as to just how offensive they are. They either refuse to see it or they just don't care."
You called me "jerkoffson". You called me an "old fuck". You called my comments the "epitome of hypocritical bullshit". You called me "clueless".
So tell me, are YOU completely clueless as to just how offensive YOU are? Or do you refuse to see it, or do you just not care?
Let's see.....I'll get my popcorn...
I think you've made some very thought provoking comments. However, I'd like more clarity, concerning the apparent pedophilia/homosexual parallel. I'm not sure I follow you. You aren't comparing the two, are you?
As for Sclvr5005, I wouldn't worry about her. You're "casting your pearls" there. I don't know her so I can't pass judgement (the way she has) but based on how she posts, she seems to be quite a passionate (emotional) person. It is rather challenging to reason with that type - very disrespectful of opposing views.
You must not have been reading. I've been on her all day about how uncivil she's been (cursing, insulting, overreacting). She doesn't get it. She seems rather young (like my daughter - 23 yrs old and knows every damned thing).
No. The only reason I mentioned pedophilia is that it is 1. A sexual practice and 2. It is a sexual practice that virtually everyone agrees is disgusting and abhorrent.
Since it is a clear, agreed upon sexual practice that everyone abhors, it serves as a good example on the thought process people might use. It highlights that for those people who classify homosexuality as a sexual practice that is ultimately bad for society, and worthy of our judgement, the thought processes for the two activities are similar.
I also believe that for many people, there is something of an internal response to the thought of both acts that is close to revulsion, which also generates the "this is just wrong" response.
Personally, the thought of fucking some guy up the butt is, for me, totally repulsive. Somewhat like the thought of some guy having sex with a little kid. Repulsive. So while they are totally different acts, they generate a similar "this is wrong" response.
Sorry if that's offensive to some, but I think many males will agree about what I'm saying is the typical response to gay sex.
@Pole_Doc - sclvr isnt female. He's a friend of mine who is -like you noted- passionate about civil rights. He is a good guy tho overzealous at times. Like you he means well but sometimes it comes out wrong. I also agree with him generally about what he's posted regarding insensitive statements. Yes as a gay woman I do find some of the things you and jerikson posted offensive and do not wish to discuss and validate my lifestyle here any longer. Like you said earlier we will just have to agree to disagree. So if you and jerikson would like to continue comparing notes, have at it. I'm moving on.I have a life to lead and those strippers asses out there ain't gonna spank themselves.
Peace out.
Why is it that the defenders of the gay lifestyle all get fed up and leave? sclvr bails, now Lopaw bails...
It sure seems like people finally run out of ammunition and start heading for the door. Doesn't speak too highly of those who claim to be so staunchly in support of "tolerance, and not being judgmental, and asking questions and learning about others so that our fear & ignorance do not breed hate and intolerance."
They call you ignorant and intolerant, then head for the door. I fear that all of this grand talk of tolerance only applies to tolerating THEM.
No comments about HIS incredibly offensive and insensitive statements? Or does he get a pass because he's for "civil rights"?
Yeah, that's it....tolerate ME, but I don't have to tolerate you.
As far as the whole right and wrong thing goes, in regard to homosexuality, I'm not going there. I believe in live and let live. I get what you were trying to do with the parallel but I didn't care for the analogy much (too dangerously close - my opinion). It made me feel a bit uncomfortable (not offended though).
I tend to agree with you about the whole "tolerance crusade." It does seem like everyone is all "fuzzy and warm inside" about it, until tolerating an opposing view to what they want tolerated is involved; I concur with you.
Lopaw:
I apologize for thinking your friend was female. Should you give a response, how old is he? He seems young and intemperate.
Sorry you tucked and ran, especially seeing how you were one of those, last night, encouraging healthy discussion and debate. You disappoint me. Anyway, I tend to agree with you. This has gone on long enough. There isn't enough objectivity here for any good to come from it.
Lowpaw and sclv5005 have stopped debating you because they've decided there is no point. After all, you've asserted that there "...are sexual practices that are wrong because they are wrong. How do we know they're wrong? Well, we are born with an internal knowledge of right and wrong."
I, on the other hand, am curious whether you can see how fundamentally irrational that is. Based upon your other post I doubt it, but it is entertaining to try. I'll stop when it is no longer entertaining.
So I'll bite. Yes, the problem withe pedophilia is lack of consent. Children simply don't have the life experience to evaluate the impact of sexual activity. Pedophiles HARM children by engaging in sexual activity. That harm is rooted in the fact that said activity is either directly coerced or extracted without meaningful consent. I had a good friend growing up who was abused and believe me it fucked him up. An adult imposed his will on him as a child and used him. And that caused lasting harm.
So what's more moral? My position of "we shouldn't directly harm vulnerable children?" or your position of "it is wrong because it is wrong". Mine is simply based on the fact that children don't have the life experience to consent so such a relationship is intrinsically exploitative and therefore morally wrong. Yours is based on what?
Animals? Can they give consent? Maybe Koko the gorilla. But who wants to fuck a gorilla? (Juice dude...no comments on this one). Again, human animal sex may injure animals. I don't like to be cruel to animals - to cause them harm. I do believe that animal testing of drugs and use of animals for food is OK, but even there you should minimize suffering. Animals don't have the moral status of other humans, but I wouldn't eat "pain intentionally maximized burgers". I also wouldn't be cool with fucking the cow. Unless you can find a cow that clearly communicates that it digs being fucked by a human...
Public sex? Again, if two uggos start fucking on Main Street they're invading my life without my permission. No consent. Now if they were two HAWT chicks...
Seriously though, the last is more subtle and -- in a different social milieu might be harmless. But in America it would be invading the lives of all viewers. Many of whom don't want said invasion of their lives. None of whom have consented.
But that's totally irrelevant to the points being made. If you don't see that, then there's not much more I can say. If you really think it's irrational to consider some things right and others wrong, then I'm just speechless.
We make laws against things because we think they might be ultimately harmful to individuals or society. Murder, pedophilia, stealing, rape...because they hurt people, based on our internal perception of "hurt". And if some people think that some sexual practices also ultimately "hurt" people or society, even if zipman disagrees, do we consider them irrational? Apparently you do. I don't.
Every "right or wrong" decision we make comes down to a basic, internal, gut feeling of what's good and bad, right or wrong. We're born with that knowledge. Pedophila is ultimately bad because, as you say, it ends up hurting people. Why is THAT bad? Who gives a fuck if it hurts someone else? Because to humans, thankfully, when somebody else gets hurt, our basic nature, our internal knowledge of right and wrong, tells us that's not good, and those things should be avoided. Why? Because presumably we care about each other's well being. So we make laws. It is irrelevant if it's consentual, or anything else. It's wrong because it leads to bad stuff, and we give a damn. The VAST majority of us will never be subjected to pedophilia. But thankfully we care enough about each other to give a damn and do something about it. And we judge harshly our fellow man when he does shit like that.
And, by the way, we also ALL are instilled with an internal knowledge that it's totally repulsive. And that's one indication that we're born with a knowledge of right and wrong at birth. It affects us physically. Just like if we see a dog being abused. Or someone being shot. It makes us sick, and it just reinforces our belief that we're doing the right thing when we make laws against it.
If someone tells us 50 years ago that smoking may cause cancer, and people think "are you fucking serious, everyone does it !!", do we call those scientists irrational? No, respectfully we say, hmmm, maybe he's got a point. You certainly don't tell them that they are just generating fear and hatred and prejudice against smokers. Well, maybe zipman does....
So unless you are absolutely confident and certain that the people who feel that homosexuality might be ultimately harmful to society are totally full of shit, and you have conclusive data to prove it, I suggest you step back a bit and stop slinging mud, and calling names just because you disagree. And not calling someone "jerk off son" is a good start. Because when you start slinging mud, then bail from an intelligent discussion, you lose all credibility, like so many people here have done.
I could go on with a philosophical discourse on the topic of "what is harm?" but that would hardly be brief. I'll just stipulate that harm is something that unjustly deprives one of their life or property or inflicts pain. Is that a reasonable definition for you? You seem comfortable enough conceding that things that harm others are indeed wrong.
Now let's look at the smoking example. We listened to scientists saying smoking is harmful because they were able to SHOW smoking was harmful. There was a mechanism (smoke contains chemicals that are mutagenic in tests) and statistical evidence that smokers experience specific cancers at an elevated rate. I don't see how this is at all analogous to your "I have innate knowledge that X is harmful" position.
Even with these data showing the harm of smoking we respect people's right to smoke if they make a informed decision to inhale. And agree not to blow smoke In other people's faces (what constitutes "blowing smoke in other folks' faces" has changed over the years, but the principle remains, but that is beside the point).
In contrast, you declare homosexuality wrong and provide no evidence. How is that the same as you smoking example?
This is probably it for me. Not much point in continuing. But I said it because I'm curious to see whether you respond and how you'll respond if you do.
as always you have it wrong. i am NOT judging the mentally handicapped 12 year old boy who likes to sit in the corner laughing about cumming in his pants. but i am judging YOU for your incessant fantasizing about, encouraging, and preying upon a mentally handicapped 12 year old boy who likes to sit in the corner laughing about cumming in his pants.
yeah, yeah, yeah i know – i’m on your list and as soon as you and george soros get your fourth reich socialist utopia up and running i’ll be the first one you put in your death camp.
here’s a suggestion - why don’t you spend more time fantasizing about how you and george are going to do it right this time finishing the job to rid the world of people like me and spend less time fantasizing about how you are going to shove a live chicken up your ass while you play “good touch – bad touch†with lapdanceking82. sick fucking dumbass nazi
are we in the "not fun zone" yet? dumbass
You have NO idea how refreshing it is to read healthy debate, without all of the acrimony (I'm not sure where all that DoctorPhil stuff came from though). You guys aren't agreeing but at least you're having the debate and you're not disrespecting one another - Kudos!
I've noticed an apparent tendency, of some visiting this forum, to not realize the 3 respective, distinct, and differing meanings of the words "to," "too," and "two." There are other examples of infelicitous applications I could mention but this will do, for now.
Interestingly enough, though, I've equally observed there seems to be a parallel between those who fall into the category of making these type of errors and a penchant for irascibly hurling insults and vulgarities at people expressing antithetical and, perhaps, unpopular views. This is often accompanied, or followed, by expressions of taking offense to something the intended target of the expletives said.
As I've stated before, what we choose to take offense to is completely subjective. What one person finds offensive, someone else may see as funny. What brings about an elegiac feeling for one group, instills a sense of satisfaction for another. There's no way to really know.
Obviously, the hurled insults, with the accompanied cursing, is a manifestation of the offense they've taken which, in turn, is a manifestation of some level of insecurity, or perhaps low self-esteem. This is definitely a recipe for the type of "thinned skinned," insulting and vulgar reactions we've witnessed.
There have already been studies done to support the notion of a parallel existing between poor grammar usage and low self-esteem. Note that there have been those, however, who have expressed taking offense to certain things stated in this thread, and they've done so respectfully, without emoting, insulting, or the implementation of infantile cursing. In expressing their displeasure, they did so with a certain level of writing prowess, void of the egregious errors found in the things posted by the other group in question. Certainly they took offense, as expressed, but were nowhere near as expressively "thinned skinned" about it.
Where am I going with this? In what may be my final post, on this thread, I wish to leave those who choose to accept it, a gift in two parts:
The first part is in the form of a suggestion. If you're one of those who struggles with grammar (either speaking or writing), in an attempt to better yourself, find a way to procure a book on grammar that will help clear some things up for you. I advise getting a small one you can place in your pocket and take on the go. There are also websites you can visit. The truth is that society judges us by the way we speak and write (try going on a job interview). Unfortunately, the current culture of text messaging is part of the problem but what can you do, go back to the days prior to cell phones? I don't think so.
The second part of the gift I wish to leave (which can serve well regardless of which group you happen to fall under) is in the form of a quote: "No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." - Eleanor Roosevelt. This is something I've taken with me through life and partially my reason for living boldly, as I do. As a result, I am rarely "offended" by anything. On those rare occasions when I am, it's usually by what people do, as opposed to what they say.
Now, I've lived long enough to know and realize that people are different. I get it; everyone isn't going to react to things in the same way. However, when people react defensively, there's usually an underlying, highly sensitive charged, reason behind it. Often times that reason is accompanied by some form of insecurity, which is usually manifested emotionally. If they're emotional while writing, it shows and the reader often gets a true sense of who they are grammatically. The cycle continues and on, and on, and on it goes.
Too deep for you? Am I reaching here; a bit of a stretch? Well, try applying the advice in the gift I left. See if your attitude about what you do, and do not find offensive doesn't change. If not, at the very least, the way you choose to respond to things certainly should. Don't believe me? Well, there's only one way to find out and you have nothing to lose, except for some of your insecurities and petulant nature, that is. If nothing else, in the end, you'll have improved your grammar. Good luck!
Well, no, I don't think I ever declared homosexuality wrong in this discussion. Even if I did, the points I've been trying to make here focus solely on people's reactions (such as the gay community and its supporters), when others question or condemn a sexual practice that they, and others, feel may be harmful to society. I'm questioning the clear hypocrisy of those who want you to tolerate THEM, but they not only refuse to tolerate YOU, they mock you and deride you and condemn you and call you names. A perfect example of that is in this thread.
The next step, and an entirely different subject, is what evidence exists that makes some people BELIEVE that the practice of homosexuality might be harmful to society.
I only used the smoking example since it is clearly understandable. I never intended to say that there exists irrefutable scientific data to prove the harm of sexual practices like the data showing the harm of smoking. It was just an analogy.
Now if you want to discuss data showing homosexuality to be harmful or beneficial, then be my guest.
I think your grammar/low self esteem suggestion is interesting to the point where you may have a point...
But I've developed a different hypothesis to explain the responses you generally see in online discussions. Could be totally bogus, and certainly doesn't apply to everyone, but it's surprising how often it seems to fit.
I basically divide people into two categories. I call them the Hearts and the Minds. And I closely associate them with Female and Male tendencies. The Minds having "Male" tendencies, and the Hearts having "Female" tendencies.
Now I realize a lot of people will go totally apeshit for even suggesting something so incredibly insensitive and gender biased and whatever else negative stuff they can call it. Well, sorry...
In any case, I think people in general can be classified by whether they are driven mostly by their minds or their hearts. Some people clearly seem to be driven by their emotions, and their instincts. They trust their feelings and their intuition over all else, and they place more importance in those feelings and intuitions than in any rational, logical analysis. As a result, their positions on various issues is the result of their feelings and intuition. As a result, often their knowledge of the facts, as well as depth of analysis or understanding, is lacking. Because to them it's just not important.
Others seem to be driven by their minds, and rational analysis. They tend to analyze situations, and trust their logic over their emotions and intuitions. They tend to think about things a lot and study issues in depth. And they seem to be totally devoid of any emotion or sympathy, which absolutely annoys the shit out of those who are driven by emotion.
I'll never forget being on a jury once, and we were judging a guy who was so clearly guilty that nobody in their right mind would find otherwise. His criminal history, the facts of the case, even a videotape showing him commiting the crime. But there was one older women who wouldn't budge from her belief that he was innocent. Her reasoning? "Aww, but look at him, and those eyes. He just CAN'T have done something like that". To her, no amount of facts or analysis would ever be as good as her feelings and intuition.
Anyway, I think what you see in online debates over issues is the Hearts vs the Minds. The Hearts tend to go for the emotional response. The Minds go for the analytical response.
And since the Hearts get their beliefs from their intuition and feelings, they generally don't have a depth of knowledge about the facts associated with the issues. Because those aren't nearly as important as the emotional and intuitive aspect. You don't NEED a lot of rational analysis to know that "intolerance, insensitivity, and injustice" are wrong. Why? Because they hurt people's feelings. Which is what is really important. Emotions and feelings. So when pressed for any factual depth in an issue, they are often limited to just their emotional and intuitive perspective. And at some point they run out of anything objective to respond with, and they get emotional and frustrated and give up. If you can't understand what, to them, are the obvious emotional points, then there's nothing to argue. Because the facts don't really matter.
The Minds, on the other hand, love to analyze and evaluate. When they discuss issues they feel more comfortable discussing those issues in great detail and depth. And that pisses the Hearts off immensely. It annoys the shit out of them because why the hell are these morons going into this great, boring detail on such an obvious issue?? You don't judge people, or be insensitive, because it will hurt their feelings !! Period !! What's to discuss??
So as a result, in discussions you'll see the Hearts give a response to an issue like "I think it's this way", with absolutely no supporting information whatsoever. Because it's not important. My intuition is important, all the rest of your ridiculous analysis is irrelevant. And when you press them, they get emotional and upset. Why? Because you're bugging them with this annoying analysis that is irrelevant, and they can't respond to. So after giving the debate a try, they soon get so angry and frustrated that they bail out. A completely emotional response.
Ever notice that there are virtually NO liberal-based political analysis and discussion shows? But FOX News is filled with conservative discussions and analysis. There's tons of conservative political shows. But virtually nothing from the liberals. Why? Well, it's the battle of the Hearts and the Minds. The liberals (Hearts) are not interested in all this annoying analysis, because it's irrelevant. There's no market for it. The conservatives (Minds) love it, and spend their lives nitpicking and discussing in nauseating detail.
Anyway, that's my story and I'm sticking to it...
I recall in a recent thread I posted a statistic from the FBI saying that 1/3 of all black males will be in prison at some point in their lives. Its a fact, but it is very offensive to some people. And the offense far outweighs the fact.
Hearts vs. Minds.
I made an argument that certain practices should be judged negatively because some objective information indicates those practices are harmful. You seemed to take the position that humans have intrinsic knowledge that certain things are wrong. I actually agree with that contention to some degree, though you take into areas that are pretty clearly learned (i.e., established by the social milieu) rather than truly inate.
Now you seem to be backpedaling on your stance regarding homosexuality. Perhaps we did not understand your position and you should define it clearly. What exactly are you saying about homosexuality? Do you believe it to be harmful to anybody? If so, do you actually have evidence or is it just "innate knowledge"?
For the life of me, I cannot figure out how you came to that conclusion.
"Now you seem to be backpedaling on your stance regarding homosexuality"
Again, I don't think I ever stated my stance regarding homosexuality. For my part, this discussion has only focused on peoples' responses when others dare to suggest it MIGHT be harmful.
If you READ what I wrote, that's pretty clear.
So, if you now want to re-direct the discussion towards the rightness or wrongness of homosexuality, tell us, what is YOUR position on homosexuality, and what is the data upon which you base your position?
"Pole_Doc....
I think your grammar/low self esteem suggestion is interesting to the point where you may have a point..."
You seem to have an understandably, not so clear view of what I wrote. Although I see low self-esteem as a by product of what I was describing (a part of the "cycle" I mentioned), I do not necessarily see it as being the main cause.
Remember, there were 2 groups in disagreement. One group made their opposition to the things voiced by you (myself as well) very clear, while they DID NOT hurl insults and vulgarities. The other group made their opposition clear, while they DID hurl insults and vulgarities. The former displayed a much better command of grammar than the latter.
I enjoyed reading your "Hearts" and "Minds" analysis and find it rather agreeable. However, as you've already pointed out, our theories are coming from two slightly different angles. As I'm sure you'll agree, both of the groups I've mentioned, in the previous paragraph, would be classified in your "Hearts" category, whereas my analysis classifies them separately.
Either way, I find both hypotheses equally interesting. By the way, as a member of the black male demographic, I find the FACT you presented to be on point. I stand here officially NOT OFFENDED! Now it's a valid point to be placed on the table for open and honest discussion (not saying we do that..I'm just making a point).
Why couldn't those in this thread, who tucked and ran, do that? Learn to take your "feelings" out of it. Stand in there, like an adult, and have the debate! It's their loss. They missed an opportunity to educate and perhaps convert. I for one was looking forward to learning more about these other documented homosexual species, mentioned by Sclvr5005, said to be found in nature. Who knows, he could've gotten me to say, "Thank you for teaching me that. I stand corrected." Now, I guess we'll never know.