• Hello, this board in now turned off and no new posting.
    Please REGISTER at Anabolic Steroid Forums, and become a member of our NEW community!
  • Check Out IronMag Labs® KSM-66 Max - Recovery and Anabolic Growth Complex

Sexuality - for those interested

Muscle Gelz Transdermals
IronMag Labs Prohormones
Rocky_Road said:
To some people, finding their soul mate is a once in a lifetime, life changing thing. Ask Adrien. For you to say something like 'love a puppy' shows that you have yet to find yours. I'm sad for you.:(

I see that you are incapable of lighthearted fun and as judgemental and as intolerant as anyone else. How sad for you.
OD
 
Rocky_Road said:
I could be wrong, but maybe it's offensive to Minotaur that you refer to his sexuality as a "condition." It makes it sound like you're talking about a sickness or something. Maybe not. Just a guess.
"I could be wrong" but it might be offensive to others for you to presume that you are less "ignorant" than anyone else. Mental illness is a sickness. Why do you think the medical community made a comment? They certainly have no business commenting on morality or law. You have stated your opinion so I'd recommend letting others speak for themselves rather than trying to present yourself as a relational broker.

OD
 
OceanDude said:
I see that you are incapable of lighthearted fun and as judgemental and as intolerant as anyone else. How sad for you.
OD
And you're not? I seem to remember you judging me about my website.

Also, I would like to rephrase what I said before. I'm not sad for you. I'm sad for your wife.
 
Last edited:
OceanDude said:
"I could be wrong" but it might be offensive to others for you to presume that you are less "ignorant" than anyone else. Mental illness is a sickness. Why do you think the medical community made a comment? They certainly have no business commenting on morality or law. You have stated your opinion so I'd recommend letting others speak for themselves rather than trying to present yourself as a relational broker.

OD
You are wrong. I never claimed to be "less ignorant" than anyone. Thanks much. I also was not trying to present myself as a "relational broker." I was just tossing an idea out there. It was not a personal attack, unlike yours. I recommend you asking what someone means before assuming that you know everything like the pompus prick you seem to be. :thumb:
 
Rocky_Road said:
And you're not? I seem to remember you judging me about my website.

Also, I would like to rephrase what I sadi before. I'm not sad for you. I'm sad for your wife.

I have been attempting to avoid you like the plague since I have suspected all along that you are predisposed toward "flakiness". Clearly I failed in this attempt.

Again, you project an irrational prejudice or an inability to differentiate fact from fantasy. When you whined crocodile tears in a manner fit a Victorian prude over some light hearted adult banter (in a thread you elected to enjoin) I brought to your attention and to the others the highly conflicting evidence that made your faux prudish reaction highly inconsistent with your own illicit behavior. That is, you posted illicit pictures of erect male sexual organs all over your personal web site (all tattooed like dragons or snakes) all while claiming to be offended by some light banter of much less severity. I asked for a clarification on the objection and did not make an initial judgment. This is a normal human thing - ask for explanations of why they offended someone in one case but took no offense when they themselves do something much more extreme (no one likes a hypocrite and no one wants to falsely accuse in that department). After we got beyond all your crocodile tears you as much admitted you were not some innocent Victorian valued prude as you projected yourself and seemed to be at complete loss for explanation for the objection. But now, given your current personal attacks I can now conclude that you are a very unhappy person and will now elevate you from a state of "suspected flake" and judge you to be "certified flaky". In my case I won't artificially be "sad" for you (as you are for me) because I now am fairly certain that you really bring this onto yourself for confused emotional reasons or are presenting a front for some other agenda. But since your behavior is indeed "odd" and inconsistent I am now curious about if you really are a woman. So stop being, as in your prior expression, "a dick".

By the way my wife just saw your web site and said to tell you that "you are sick" and to save the sympathies for yourself.

OD
 
OceanDude said:
I have been attempting to avoid you like the plague since I have suspected all along that you are predisposed toward "flakiness". Clearly I failed in this attempt.

Again, you project an irrational prejudice or an inability to differentiate fact from fantasy. When you whined crocodile tears in a manner fit a Victorian prude over some light hearted adult banter (in a thread you elected to enjoin) I brought to your attention and to the others the highly conflicting evidence that made your faux prudish reaction highly inconsistent with your own illicit behavior. That is, you posted illicit pictures of erect male sexual organs all over your personal web site (all tattooed like dragons or snakes) all while claiming to be offended by some light banter of much less severity. I asked for a clarification on the objection and did not make an initial judgment. This is a normal human thing - ask for explanations of why they offended someone in one case but took no offense when they themselves do something much more extreme (no one likes a hypocrite and no one wants to falsely accuse in that department). After we got beyond all your crocodile tears you as much admitted you were not some innocent Victorian valued prude as you projected yourself and seemed to be at complete loss for explanation for the objection. But now, given your current personal attacks I can now conclude that you are a very unhappy person and will now elevate you from a state of "suspected flake" and judge you to be "certified flaky". In my case I won't artificially be "sad" for you (as you are for me) because I now am fairly certain that you really bring this onto yourself for confused emotional reasons or are presenting a front for some other agenda. But since your behavior is indeed "odd" and inconsistent I am now curious about if you really are a woman. So stop being, as in your prior expression, "a dick".

By the way my wife just saw your web site and said to tell you that "you are sick" and to save the sympathies for yourself.

OD
For someone who has been attempting to "avoid me like the plague", you sure like to respond to my posts and look at my website.

What irritates me about you is that you assume too much. I was joking when I said that what you wrote in the other thread made me fell "dirty." You "assumed" that I was serious and posted in your typical "holier-than-thou" manner. I never claimed to be "offended." I was not at a "complete loss for explanation for the objection." I assumed(yes, sometimes I do that,too.) that you understood that I was JOKING in my intial post. I apologize for this. I should have explained this to you at great lengths so that you would not consider me "flaky." Wow, crocodile tears? I didn't realize that my saying "ummm, for some reason, that made me feel dirty" as a joke no less, meant I was objecting, offended, trying to put on a front for a hidden agenda, etc. If I was truly offended, don't you think I would have said as much? You talk about "light banter", yet I've never seen you post anything "light." Pretty much just a bunch of :blah: :blah: :blah: . You need to lighten up.

You also assume that I am unhappy. Just the opposite as a matter of fact. I LOVE that I can invoke this type of reaction out of you. It"s great fun.;)

As far as whether or not I am a woman, why don't you ask Melissa? She's my best friend and has been for the last 12 years. She should be able to clear that up for you.

By the way, I couldn't care less what your wife thinks or says.
 
Last edited:
Rocky_Road said:
For someone who has been attempting to "avoid me like the plague", you sure like to respond to my posts and look at my website.

What irritates me about you is that you assume too much. I was joking when I said that what you wrote in the other thread made me fell "dirty." You "assumed" that I was serious and posted in your typical "holier-than-thou" manner. I never claimed to be "offended." I was not at a "complete loss for explanation for the objection." I assumed(yes, sometimes I do that,too.) that you understood that I was JOKING in my intial post. I apologize for this. I should have explained this to you at great lengths so that you would not consider me "flaky." Wow, crocodile tears? I didn't realize that my saying "ummm, for some reason, that made me feel dirty" as a joke no less, meant I was objecting, offended, trying to put on a front for a hidden agenda, etc. If I was truly offended, don't you think I would have said as much? You talk about "light banter", yet I've never seen you post anything "light." Pretty much just a bunch of :blah: :blah: :blah: . You need to lighten up.

You also assume that I am unhappy. Just the opposite as a matter of fact. I LOVE that I can invoke this type of reaction out of you. It"s great fun.;)

As far as whether or not I am a woman, why don't you ask Melissa? She's my best friend and has been for the last 12 years. She should be able to clear that up for you.

By the way, I couldn't care less what your wife thinks or says.
Oh you didnt take any of this serious did you? My gosh it was all in jest and I never take anything you say seriously. Can we kiss and make up?

OD
 
OceanDude said:
Oh you didnt take any of this serious did you? My gosh it was all in jest and I never take anything you say seriously. Can we kiss and make up?

OD
Of course I don't take you seriously. Who would? :)

As far as kissing and making up, The making up is fine but the kissing? It depends on how old you are.;)

Wait, nope, kissing is definatly out. I don't want to be just another notch in your belt of married women.:D
 
Rocky_Road said:
Wait, nope, kissing is definatly out. I don't want to be just another notch in your belt of married women.:D
Ouch, below the belt.
fighta.gif
 
Rocky_Road said:
Of course I don't take you seriously. Who would? :)

As far as kissing and making up, The making up is fine but the kissing? It depends on how old you are.;)

Wait, nope, kissing is definatly out. I don't want to be just another notch in your belt of married women.:D

Actually that rumor about me is much exaggerated. Who told you such? The truth is I have never been intimate with anyone other than my wife in marriage. Hmm, how good looking are you? I am a pretty good kisser if you ask me. If you don't believe me ask my wife - no wait that wouldn't work out :doh:

How about you just fly down here and do my gym clothes laundry and I will give you a hug? (wife is on business trip next week)
OD
 
OceanDude said:
Actually that rumor about me is much exaggerated. Who told you such? The truth is I have never been intimate with anyone other than my wife in marriage. Hmm, how good looking are you? I am a pretty good kisser if you ask me. If you don't believe me ask my wife - no wait that wouldn't work out :doh:

How about you just fly down here and do my gym clothes laundry and I will give you a hug? (wife is on business trip next week)
OD
My bad, I thought you said something about a married woman in a different thread. "I suddenly realized that I always must have had a deep chemistry for her that I was suppressing and just started kissing her and hugging her back. " Sorry if I'm wrong.

As far as how good looking I am... depends on what you like I guess.

The laundry? Well, I don't do ANY of the laundry in my house. FOr some reason my hubby likes to do that. ( hey . I'm not going to argue.)
Maybe I can send him down though......

 
Rocky_Road said:
My bad, I thought you said something about a married woman in a different thread. "I suddenly realized that I always must have had a deep chemistry for her that I was suppressing and just started kissing her and hugging her back. " Sorry if I'm wrong.

As far as how good looking I am... depends on what you like I guess.

The laundry? Well, I don't do ANY of the laundry in my house. FOr some reason my hubby likes to do that. ( hey . I'm not going to argue.)
Maybe I can send him down though......

Nope - on that post you missed the qualifier - that was before I was married. Hey, you could pay me no greater compliment though reading all my :blah: :blah: boring threads so thoroughly (but pay attention to the subtle details they are super important). That incident was about a woman who was married who had a jerk for a husband who wanted to divorce her and was already having an open affair with a woman 15 years his junior and telling his wife openly he did not want to be married anymore. He was even bringing the women into their house for sex - bad bad scene. So there was no cheating going on for anyone since it was already a destroyed relationship that she had fought to keep alive for 1 year and finally tossed in the towel after not being able to take the mental anquish.

I am getting a mixed message on the rest here - does it depend on "what I like" about your looks as to if I get a hug from you or your husband does my laundry? :funny:

There might be room for full compromise here - he can do the laundry and you can do the kissing so send a photo and I'll let you know if I think that might work. Heck post his picture in this thread - one of the guys here might like to swap on that arrangement and get a kiss from him :p .

Sorry... that was just teasing on the latter point - that first compromise is still a possibility if you are willing (pending pics, as long as he don't bleach my black gym shorts). :nanner:

OD
 
OceanDude said:
Nope - on that post you missed the qualifier - that was before I was married. Hey, you could pay me no greater compliment though reading all my :blah: :blah: boring threads so thoroughly (but pay attention to the subtle details they are super important). That incident was about a woman who was married who had a jerk for a husband who wanted to divorce her and was already having an open affair with a woman 15 years his junior and telling his wife openly he did not want to be married anymore. He was even bringing the women into their house for sex - bad bad scene. So there was no cheating going on for anyone since it was already a destroyed relationship that she had fought to keep alive for 1 year and finally tossed in the towel after not being able to take the mental anquish.

I am getting a mixed message on the rest here - does it depend on "what I like" about your looks as to if I get a hug from you or your husband does my laundry? :funny:

There might be room for full compromise here - he can do the laundry and you can do the kissing so send a photo and I'll let you know if I think that might work. Heck post his picture in this thread - one of the guys here might like to swap on that arrangement and get a kiss from him :p .

Sorry... that was just teasing on the latter point - that first compromise is still a possibility if you are willing (pending pics, as long as he don't bleach my black gym shorts). :nanner:

OD
Well, I knew that YOU weren't married but the woman was. That is why I said "I don't want to be just another notch in your belt of married women." I don't know why you think that implied that YOU were married at the time. Maybe I should have explained it more thoroughly for you. I never said anything about cheating either. I said "married", which she was.

After discussing this with my wonderful hubby, he decided that it probably wasn't a good idea for him to do your laundry. Sorry. He didn't seem to want to wash another guys gym shorts. Go figure.

The "kissing" is probably going to have to be out. I have the feeling you're quite a bit older than I am and it'd be like kissing my dad. :thumb: Hugs are always possible, but as I already stated, the laundry is out. Maybe you could instead send your wife up here to do mine??? Let me know.
 
Rocky_Road said:
Well, I knew that YOU weren't married but the woman was. That is why I said "I don't want to be just another notch in your belt of married women." I don't know why you think that implied that YOU were married at the time. Maybe I should have explained it more thoroughly for you. I never said anything about cheating either. I said "married", which she was.

After discussing this with my wonderful hubby, he decided that it probably wasn't a good idea for him to do your laundry. Sorry. He didn't seem to want to wash another guys gym shorts. Go figure.

The "kissing" is probably going to have to be out. I have the feeling you're quite a bit older than I am and it'd be like kissing my dad. :thumb: Hugs are always possible, but as I already stated, the laundry is out. Maybe you could instead send your wife up here to do mine??? Let me know.
Hey, never underestimate the power of a good hug I always say! ;) I'll send ya an airplane ticket to collect on the hug and take my chances on the kissy-kissy thing. But that's not an essential protocol for a "makeup" session anyway unless you were to insist. Let's just forget the laundry thing then too since we men can usually go a week or two on the gym shorts before they are in critical need of washing. You would not want my wife to do your laundry she has a terrible way of losing the left socks and leaves me to folding and ironing. I think I need to renegotiate that arrangement.

OD
 
OceanDude said:
Hey, never underestimate the power of a good hug I always say! ;) I'll send ya an airplane ticket to collect on the hug and take my chances on the kissy-kissy thing. But that's not an essential protocol for a "makeup" session anyway unless you were to insist. Let's just forget the laundry thing then too since we men can usually go a week or two on the gym shorts before they are in critical need of washing. You would not want my wife to do your laundry she has a terrible way of losing the left socks and leaves me to folding and ironing. I think I need to renegotiate that arrangement.

OD
Sounds good. Just send it to:

Certified Flake
423 Victorian Prude Dr.
Sickville, MI 49785

I'll be watching the mail.......:)
 
Rocky_Road said:
Sounds good. Just send it to:

Certified Flake
423 Victorian Prude Dr.
Sickville, MI 49785

I'll be watching the mail.......:)
HAHA :rofl: :funny:
I think I know exactly where that is. Right next door to the shirtless biker guy with the tattooe of a dragon climbing up his belly from underneath his Levis waistband who's selling pet gerbils from his Harley?

Oh, forgot to mention, in the spirit of forgiveness I met you halfway on the airline ticket so it's only booked one way. You will still need to book the return ticket yourself. If it proves too hard to get a good return seat back to Sickville you can always take your pick of one of the two spare rooms and stay till a flight opens up. But Since my wife will not be home to cook for at least a week, unless you like smoothies, you will have to do all the grocery shopping and cooking.
;)
OD
p.s. I make an awesome smoothie.
 
cjrmack said:
Why don't you 2 just do it and get it over with?
The fundamental problem that we are working through comes down to what the meaning of what the word "it" is. So far I think we are "good to go" for hugs. :thumb: ;) :D
OD
 
OceanDude said:
HAHA :rofl: :funny:
I think I know exactly where that is. Right next door to the shirtless biker guy with the tattooe of a dragon climbing up his belly from underneath his Levis waistband who's selling pet gerbils from his Harley?

Oh, forgot to mention, in the spirit of forgiveness I met you halfway on the airline ticket so it's only booked one way. You will still need to book the return ticket yourself. If it proves too hard to get a good return seat back to Sickville you can always take your pick of one of the two spare rooms and stay till a flight opens up. But Since my wife will not be home to cook for at least a week, unless you like smoothies, you will have to do all the grocery shopping and cooking.
;)
OD
p.s. I make an awesome smoothie.
You've been to Sickville before?? Is my neighbors house where you get your gerbils?? Amazing!! What a small world.....

Of course I'll take care of my return flight. If I have to stay for a few days, I'll be just fine. About the smoothies. Not my fave, but, lucky for you I have taken numerous culinary arts courses and, not to toot my own horn or anything, I'm a darn good cook. :thumb:
 
Muscle Gelz Transdermals
IronMag Labs Prohormones
Rocky_Road said:
You've been to Sickville before?? Is my neighbors house where you get your gerbils?? Amazing!! What a small world.....

Of course I'll take care of my return flight. If I have to stay for a few days, I'll be just fine. About the smoothies. Not my fave, but, lucky for you I have taken numerous culinary arts courses and, not to toot my own horn or anything, I'm a darn good cook. :thumb:

Awesome, but around here that would buy you an extended ticket to stay indefinatly and we might not want to let you go back...

Hmmmm.... :hmmm: food for thought

OD
 
Hi John,
Sorry I did not get back to you sooner. Your long comments took me some time to read through and I wanted to give them full thought. I appreciate that you seemed to take great effort to be objective and are clearly sensitive to generalizing counter points rather than attacking on a personal basis. That is a refreshing departure to the norm here at IM. Unfortunately I had to make my reply long to since there is a lot of material. I really would rather chill out on this topic but felt obliged to give you a reply.

Comments Embedded:

John H. said:
Hi Ocean,

To UNDERSTAND anything you (meaning anyone here throughout this) must OEN MIND and BE OBJECIVE about all things. Without that you understand - and learn - nothing. Truthfully or accurately or completely.
I have no generic problems with this assertion but to point out that the scientific principal does not always guarantee a solution since observations are limited to ability to perceive and understand without influencing that which is observed. Also, not all those in society are scientists and some think we have been greatly misled in only seeking to study and understand those things that have a financial motive or political force behind them for some ???special interest???. [OD]

You mention the "psychological" - if you will notice this book was authored by the MEDICAL community - the American Medical Association. There findings are based on their research - SO FAR. It is ongoing.
The psychological community I am certain has its own leading and specific specialized science journals but in a general sense the medical community at large is an umbrella for all branches. Clearly the report had a reference to psychological distress and did not feel the need to make a differentiation that it was published in the context of only medicine or medical science. I understand that research continues. [OD]

By YOUR rational, anything that "sounds insane to me" - "must be". THAT is NOT being accurate, complete, honest, objective, etc. YOU (meaning anyone likeminded) are just postulating what "you believe" to be "true" WITHOUT accurate FACTS.
That is precisely my point I wanted to make. These days, there are ???facts??? and then there are ???opinions and conjectures??? from all kinds of organizations, special interest groups and individuals expressed as probable facts. This latter kind of ???fact??? that come from special interest group sponsored studies are always dubious to me. We all have the fundamental right to decide for ourselves what we accept as ???reasonable??? and truthful and worthy of respect do we not? The way the process works for Facts in Science is they must be ???sold??? to the science community before they are accepted from a majority of its members. Even then there is almost always a consenting minority view that casts a shadow of a doubt on most anything (ironic that minority views have this kind of power isn???t it?). Similarly facts at large, no matter where they extend from, must be ???sold??? to the populace at large for them to be accepted as community truth otherwise they might as well have never been discovered as facts. The main point of argument here being that they must be credible and accepted by a large number of people.
No doubt some in society would likely feel more comfortable that some facts were best left unknown or unacknowledged too. And then we have the presumption of infallibility ??? even accepted facts can later be found to be dead wrong or inadequate approximations of nature or phenomenon etc. As you already indicated there is much ongoing research and theory and the implication is a lot of unknown answers. I was alluding to the ???fact??? that the research is based on fuzzy theories and that the branch of science (psychology) performing the research had a dubious legacy and track record. I essentially challenged the legitimacy of the standard since I have legitimate cause for concern (and some suspicions about agenda and balance). Clearly I am not currently ???buying??? the research from this body of study since I do not have faith in its ability nor the objectivity in its motives. From my personal perspective I don not believe that their pedigree and track record is a sufficient consideration to warrant trust of infallibility on a very important topic. This is a personal decision that is based on my own high standards for quality (I never buy ???bargain??? or ???good??? and seek out ???premium???). But I think, that a majority of people also feel this way and in general I think people are growing increasingly uncomfortable with the popular practice of trusting special interest researchers to do all their own thinking and trust them to tell us what is "right or wrong" without thinking it through for ourselves. I think that most people prefer to run any info these days through the old ???common sense??? sieve before relying on anything. Of course our populace of rugged individualists will at times have those among us who are more predisposed to be blindly obedient and sheepish or submissive with respect to believing anything they are told to be the truth; the 3% ???oddity??? pattern seems to be statistically present in most every process in nature and human behavior. In this sense I (and I think a majority of people) are seeing that through the pretense (or inability) of science to present concrete answers we have assertions and conjectures and opinions being presented as ???theoretical or probable fact???. This is not comforting nor credible nor acceptable to most individual sensibilities. This I think are observed by average people (including myself) to have elements of religion that require us to have faith to believe in the infallibility and sincerity and credibility of those high priests of science that come up with this stuff. It seems in fact that what use to be ???objective??? science has somehow managed to enlighten itself to seemingly heavenly standards and push out much of what use to rightfully be the delegated domain of religion and now come full circle to become a faith based science; but without the traditional religious figures and characters. Spooky stuff. Thus, from this current-event perspective, when it comes to a call of faith (e.g. when such have a conflict with what science is telling them and what their common sense is telling them) I think people tend to prefer to fall back to basics and trust the original experts in ???faith??? (e.g. the religions) over the other non-religious communities (e.g. medical, science, etc.). Homosexuals, like any arbitrary special interest group, just prefer to chose the competing standard that seems to works to their greatest benefit and which they can control or shape (through research grants and political lobbying). So Let???s be honest here as you say. I am not different than most others in this regard. [OD]


Additionally you mention "... no real reliable standard for what constitutes 'normal' mental health..." - anyone MUST REMEMBER that there is VARIETY - VARIATION in ALL THINGS in life and living INCLUDING Sexuality. What YOU (meaning anyone here) "consider" to be "normal" or not may not BE FACT. WHO would you "select" to BE the "judge" of what "is normal" or "not normal"?
Ideally I???d select God to be the judge of what he thought was normal. Since he is not on speaking terms with everyone these days, fortune for many, we do have quite a bit of literature that gives an opinion on his take of things (ref. the published works reviewed by a body of esteemed religious leaders describing Sodom & Gomorrah [the etymology for the English term ???sodomy???; from the homosexual proclivities of the men of the city in Gen 19:1-11]). But I am certain that you want to discount that standard as not coming from an ???environment that is acceptable to you.??? I say fine then, let???s be even more fair about and toss it back and rhetorically ask ???what standard would you chose???? I am certain you would not chose one that did not promote your own interests or pleasures. Ain???t variety grand? But why pick and chose at all? Everyone has an opinion and in a Democracy that is suppose to mean ???majority prevails???. But that does not produce the desired outcome for the homosexual group since that is an environment and social system which it finds unacceptable. In the end, lacking any standard that works to your benefit, you would have us go to anarchy where the only rule would be ???if it feels good do it???. The danger with that of course is some would take that as call to go bash homosexuals since some in society would no doubt derive great pleasure from that. I myself am not predisposed to this behavior but caution that is a possible outcome if the government is petitioned by homosexual special interest groups to legislate the ???respect??? of individuals that is divorced from their behavior (of any conceivable behavior no matter how individually repulsive) as a condition of staying within the law. That would in my opinion, at some point of exceeding the majority of personal indifference levels, spark a societal war (which we are currently in btw) that would move from the confines of free assembly to actual blood letting. [OD]

I Certainly we have been told - especially by the "religious community" that, for example BiSexuality and Homosexuality, are "not natural" - NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH - OR ACCURATE. To the contrary, BiSexuality and Homosexuality ARE natural most definitely. They are - just as is Heterosexuality - VARIATIONS of Sexuality.
Just as we all have differences in intelligence we all have our opinions of truth don???t we? No doubt you hold your self to be more enlightened in this regard than all the combined centuries of study contributed from the various morally based religions? Do we accept this assertion of yours as a matter of religious faith or humanistic faith? One way or the other it is faith. I am skeptical but will not turn my back on the possibility that they are natural ??? but only in the sense that ???accidents??? happen in nature. The worm, possessing both sexes can copulate with itself to reproduce. A heterosexual retard can reproduce with its opposite. An intelligent homosexual can not reproduce naturally it can only compel opposite others through payment or reciprocation of favor (or pressure) to do that for them. One would think it should be a regressive condition. So perhaps it is a learned or elected behavior after all?[OD]

Let's go to your statement of "normal mental health" - I COULD, as could anyone else, consider "normal mental health" to be the USING AND ABUSING of another for Sexual gratification which many certainly are guilty of with respect to the Heterosexual community - ALL the time (and NOT "knocking" anyone necessarily here) Heterosexual people brag and boast about their conquests - people they USE for their Sexual gratification. This could be considered "normal" since many here DO this - so then I have to ask you if you were setting the "standard" or "norm" would this USING and / or ABUSING of another be a proper standard for what is "normal"? And I am not forgetting that SOME BiSexual and Homosexual people are also guilty of this...
Simple direct question, simple direct answer ??? Deviant behavior is improper from a moralistic perspective. Absent a moral standard then anything goes and society goes out the window since the most overbearing would dominate and dictate their will on anyone. But I caution you that "bragging and boasting" are like facts of both kinds ??? some are absolute truth others are conjecture or fantasy. ;) No matter how much wind is put behind them utterance of truth should in theory not be a cause for worry unless they have a criminal weight on an individual. Why would anyone care to associate with these kind of people anyway when we all have the right of association? [OD]

I can say that observing Nature can set the "standard" of what is natural. And that would include Human Beings since Human Beings ARE a part of the Natural World - whether you, I, or anyone else agree, disagree, accept, etc. - THAT IS A FACT.

The FACT that there IS VARIETY - VARIATION - IN ALL THINGS IS to deny life itself! And that variety IS IN ALL THINGS - INCLUDING SEXUALITY. So why would you or anyone else DENY the fact of Heterosexuality, BiSexuality and Homosexuality? Each has ANYWAYS EXISTED in ALL areas of the world - throughout history. Did YOU "choose" to BE Heterosexual? WHEN did you "MAKE that choice" - the SAME applies to everyone else. It IS AS BORN surely as the color of your skin. And not to get this subject confused - as some like to do - with murder, Sexuality and its variation has nothing to do with "murder". We are speaking of Sexuality, NOT murder.
Too many questions to tackle at one time ??? send research money. Of course the fallacy of relying on observation is that it is not infallible ??? observation can effect behavior. Ever notice how some species of monkeys masturbate when being looked at (maybe it depends on how cute you are)? How many do the same thing when they are not being looked at? Who knows? I agree that humans (in all their diverse forms) are a part of the environment and that is unfortunately what homosexuals often find to be objectionable to their environment - the majority class. Those diverse individuals, each with their own opinion, present a frustration to homosexuals when they find that the majority can not be persuaded to accept them or to make themselves available to facilitate and accommodate their personal desires. ;) So we have partial agreement here ??? there is diversity of opinion we just need to get you to respect that the majority are entitled to theirs too. But I would caution against an argument that appeals to behaviors that have always existed in nature throughout history since history has shown that behaviors deemed inappropriate have resulted in persecution, death and even divine punishment. Pardon the association but as a point of argument recall that once you include humanity into the Nature mix then we see that Nature has always had its share of psychopaths, murderers, molesters, saints, visionaries and all manner of diverse behavior. Diversity is always not so grand and at times saintly. The religious have called one extreme set of these behaviors "good" and the other "evil". That is in fact what our law is based on ??? moral standards. Since some special interest groups have succeeded in partially marginalizing some of the religious influence in this country (ironically, pragmatically cloistered them into the closet where the homosexuals use to be) we now have a set of laws emerging that are more based on consent and less on morals. This creates a standard which is abhorrent to the moral sensibilities of the religious (majority?) since it now becomes OK in law to "abuse" or do anything short of murder if someone are of the age and consent and permit it (they had this option under the old law too since they could always elect to not report it [or wait until it was convenient to do so e.g. relational blackmail]). Not to get off topic but it???s also interesting to note in your hypothesis that ???denying variation in all things is to ignore life??? is essentially why we have as a society that now routinely denies life to millions of unborn children whose only crime is that they are dependent on their mothers during gestation and are different with respect to age, size and ability to express a direct opinion on their desire to live. It would seem that society as a whole is insensitive to not just the homosexual agenda here. But I digress. The point being if humanity is part of Nature as you assert then absent a moral standard no one should expect consistent and uniform fairness or compassion principal since we clearly have such a wide variety of opinions on what constitutes ???acceptable??? behavior.[OD]

It has always been my belief that people MUST be of age and ability of consent and give that consent freely. Using and / or abusing someone - regardless of Sexuality - is I believe wrong. That you (meaning anyone here again) care about and respect those you are with is paramount REGARDLESS of the Gender of those involved. If a "standard" is to be applied to anything, this is the "standard" which I would apply to personal Sexual relationships with others - that they EACH CARE HONESTLY about each other.
It looks like you are trying to push a moral based standard on the rest of society. I don???t think you can appeal to this on one hand and on the other reject the conventional moral view without sounding inconsistent. The fundamental problem I have with your philosophy and ideas on this is that you pretty much want to cherry pick the standards based on what works best to maximize your personally comfort (e.g. a little of morality, a little of common sense, a little of ???hey if it feels good???, a little of common law etc.).[OD]

Remember Sexuality IS a private matter between two people - who are of age and ability of consent and give that consent freely. In all honestly it is no one else's business unless those involved give their consent to "making it" someone else's business. Sexuality is I believe naturally a PRIVATE matter. Sexuality and Sex are not the "business of" the government or even religion. Period. And it has been made the "BUSINESS OF" government and religion because it has been realized by them to be "profitable" to get into that "business" by them. A profit motive is something I have not ever considered. But you are stating opinion here on it being a private matter between any arrangement of sexes and consenting adults without any supporting evidence, fact or proof. Not that I really disagree in the conventional sense though. You should be consistent with your earliest complaint about this matter. But here is where logic fails us because behind closed doors we all have a cloistered/closet environment. Outside beyond those doors we have a heterogeneous environment (contrasted with homogeneous environment) of varying western society full of competing and conflicting standards (e.g. morality based, legal based, humanity based, individual interpretation based and anarchy etc.). In this environment, where the majority or ???common??? standard prevails (and homosexuals have an unacceptable environment), if anyone (homosexual, heterosexual, pervert, child abuser, thief, etc.) tries to get outside the envelope on the acceptable standard we can have an explosive reaction; depending on what social system was attacked and what social class member or numbers were in the vicinity at the time of the infraction. Frankly, most heterosexuals probably could care less that homosexuals can somehow find a way to derive what they think are approximate expressions of love through what they consider weird sexual practices behind closed doors. But outside I still personally think homosexuals would be better off to try to blend in and wear social camouflage or be prepared for the inevitable social conflicts.[OD]
Take Care, John H.
OK you to OD [OD]
 
Last edited:
"Stop being Gay if submitted to psychotherapy"?

Vieope said:
I think being gay comes more from social and psycological influences than genetics. Someone could stop being gay if submitted to psychotherapy?

Hi Vieope,

I think that anyone that "says" they "have been changed" and are "no longer" (for example) Homosexual are either lying - to themselves or to others". This includes Psychotherapists who say this. If there is a "change" it more accurately could be attributed to that person NOT being Homosexual in the first place. A person's skin color certainly can not be changed and I believe so to is it true of a person's Sexuality.

Social and psychological "influences" certainly play a role in most anything but as you (meaning anyone here) ARE AS BORN does not change. I think being truthful that IF a person "changes" it is NOT because they have "changed" but that they realize accurately WHO they truly are.

Take Care, John H.
 
How true

Minotaur said:
Are you drawing a comparison between homosexuals and rapists, child molesters, murderers and suicide bombers? If you are, it's offensive, because there is no comparison by even the wildest stretch of imagination. I could only chalk up belief in such a comparison to the most profound and abject ignorance.

The point of the statement "Most emotional problems that occur in Homosexuals are cause by a sense of alienatiion from living in an unaccepting environment" is that we homosexuals have had it beaten (sometimes literally) into our heads that there is something wrong with us, when there is not. So to avoid familial and societal rejection, many of us have lived closeted lives, and lived lies. Some of us have even married women and raised children, giving the illusion that we are straight. All to appease society and hide our true natures. How sad.

Hi Montaur,

How true. This could be turned around and applied to Heterosexual people too if the situation existed with them - if THEY were the one's being hated, inaccurately understood, etc.

It sure would be interesting if "a religion" came along - like so many have done - and all of a sudden "had a vision" and stated that HETEROSEXUAL people were "all of a sudden" wrong (forget the argument for argument's sake about reproduction aspects for a minute) and HETEROSEXUAL Sex was "declared" "unnatural" and "wrong" and "sinful". What "that religion" would be saying would not be based on FACT but on a "belief" "that religion believes" which is what "religion" is based on more often than not. And those "beliefs" are utilized only as a form of controlling others without any basis in fact that is accurate and complete. Certainly HETEROSEXUAL people WOULD THEN UNDERSTAND what it is like to be discrimated, hated, etc. and they certainly would then UNDERSTAND what it is to have taken away or lose their most basic of rights....

Take Care, John H.
 
OceanDude said:
I knew someone would project this example in a way designed to invoke a value and outrage response (e.g. the operative term is ???offensive???). So now I must ask by what standard or value system do you claim legitimacy at expressing outrage? Is it poor or conditional judgment at my intent or perhaps it extends from some belief that you have a unique and self evident right to tell anyone else what we should find sensible and acceptable to ourselves?

For the time being assume only the possibility that I was attempting to illustrate the illogic and prejudiced consideration in the medical community???s assumptive assertion (where there no dissenting views? Who is the pope of the medical community?). The premise that article had was based solely on the context of the homosexuals view of what was ???unacceptable??? to him and that I find to be unholistic since if he is at all human how he feels is clearly a reflection on how society at large views what is acceptable to it as well. In the larger view of what is ???acceptable???, fundamentally this is an issue of who the audience or group is. I find it unacceptable and ???offensive??? and hypocritical that a homosexual would object to the notion that only they are entitled to the implicit considerations of social accommodation.

That said, it is still the opinion of a great many of society that you are all not normal. Statistically speaking, anything outside of 2 sigmas of standard deviation (about 3%) is not normal. That is not to say that another non-normal human is anything less than human. I have seen handicapped people get by just well in life with the proper training and therapy. But then again I do not consider the 3% of geniuses or other people that often think they are more special than others to be normal either.

That all said, on a personal basis I am not without compassion for those that suffer alienation of any form. Given the vast vacuum of the universe life appears to be statistically rare in proportion to vastness and it would seem logical to assert that it is a thing to be valued in all its forms. But there are forms of life that are harmful to other forms of life (viruses and worms are quite content to breed with themselves in a dung pile as much as they are in a human host). Clearly there is a hierarchy to life and a preference for higher order in who or what decides which can live with which. Nature has consistently dictated this for millennium but Nature is rarely compassionate and that which is not in harmony with it usually perishes or is held in check. It may be that society might someday accept what you would have it call ???normal??? but ultimately it is Nature that will determine if Society is permitted to exist.

It might be more noble to subordinate one???s own desires and hold in check the behavior that most of society finds objectionable. I think this would earn a lot more respect than trying to ram rod what many believe to be a lifestyle choice down the throats of those that find the behavior (not the person) abhorrent and unnatural. No matter what kind of political and social laws are passed we all have the fundamental constitutional right of free association. Government will never effectively legislate a law that succeeds in making anyone respect and accept behaviors that they find personally repugnant.


OD

Hi Ocean,

You are not seeing the woods for the trees.

The "medical community's assumptive assertion" you speak of - the statement in the book (above cited) was based on research to date (2004) by the Medical Community. Like all research I would assume there are some who do not agree and some that do. That is something that exists everywhere. The Medical Community as a whole and based on all the research done thusfar is what that statement reflects. Go to the book and on page 468 read the statement for yourself. Surely that statement was not made without considering what it is they SAID in its entirety. I am very sure that statement was made VERY carefully. And I am equally sure they did not say all they wanted to say about the subject. To read the "all" you would have to read all the research and all the findings and all the conclusions from all viewpoints. That IS how this statement (on page 468 of the FAMILY MEDICAL GUIDE) was made. Just as any other statement made in that book.

Remember I correct my quote (shortly after making my original statement) from the book because of a typographical error I made in transcription: "acceptable" was what I wrote down and I meant to write "unaccepting"... (Sometimes I type slower than my thinking and I do make mistakes but I corrected it). I made that notation after being made aware of the mistake I made.

Remember too that just because "Society" says "this" or "that", what is generally "accepted" by "Society" is not always truthful, accurate, honest, complete, etc. An example I can think of immediately is that most in "Society" "accept" those that happen to be Heterosexual and just use and or abuse others for their own Sexual gratification. HONESTLY CARING about another never really enters into it. You hear it all the time: "I f*cked her brains out", "Damn was she hot", "She was tight", and then move on to the next conquest....

The "opinions" of Society are many times very wrong, inaccurate, dishonest, etc. Just because "Society" says this or that does NOT make it so or right, etc. "Society" very often does not "get their facts" straight. "They" just perpetuate what "everyone else says" without any regard to THE FACTS. The mere restating something - even if it is wrong - somehow takes on a "truthfulness" - that is also something that "religion" does. "Religion" will sometimes keep saying something - even if what is said is very wrong or inaccurate - and after awhile people "just accept" because they have heard it so often they end up believing without any regard to any accuracy or truthfulness. "Religion" often uses brainwashing to get their message across and to control others. Look at Iraq - an example of brainwashing today - that whole region of the world is in complete tumoil because of "religious beliefs". They murder each other and others around the world that do not "agree" with their "religion"...

Man has always made the attempt to destroy himself. Religion and religious beliefs have always been at the forefront of that destruction - along with government.

You state: "...itmight be more noble to subordinate one's own desires and hold in check the behavior that most of society holds objectionable." And you go on about "ram roding"... Are you saying that anyone who is wanting their most basic of Human Rights to GIVE THEM UP just because someone SAYS what those rights which are basic are somehow wrong without any regard to fact just to gain someone else's "respect"? That pure bull! Hell I could apply that to you as well if I find something I automatically "consider" to be "wrong" just because "I feel" it is "wrong" and then state that YOU should no longer do whatever just because I "feel" what you are doing is "wrong"... without any regard of fact, accuracy, honesty, completeness, etc.

I think you are allowing your book learning to interfere with your education. Just because YOU find something to be personally repugnent does not make it "so". Have you ever considered that YOU may be wrong and have you HONESTLY made the effort to find out the accuracy of your "personal repugnance"?

Take Care, John H.
 
:yawn:

I was walking with my first gf, it was 1987 and someone called us fags. So what? My opinion of myself wasn't hingeing on what some one else thought of me. It wasn't near as scary as being in MS and having people follow myself and my black friend out to the car because they ASSUMED we were a couple.

What happend to someone like Matt Shephard was devastating, but in general I believe most people are indifferent to tolerant. No one is shoving their heterosexuality in your face why feel the need to shove homesexuality in theirs?

As far as being misunderstood, misunderstanding is the human condition brought on by the limitations of language, assumption that you can understand anothers life experience,and the arrogance of forgetting that none of us are no better or no worse than any of God's creatures.
 
Oh!

OceanDude said:
Hi John,
Sorry I did not get back to you sooner. Your long comments took me some time to read through and I wanted to give them full thought. I appreciate that you seemed to take great effort to be objective and are clearly sensitive to generalizing counter points rather than attacking on a personal basis. That is a refreshing departure to the norm here at IM. Unfortunately I had to make my reply long to since there is a lot of material. I really would rather chill out on this topic but felt obliged to give you a reply.

Comments Embedded:

Hi Ocean,

After reading what you said - book length almost - I decided I have to go work out damn hard to be able to reply just to calm myself down!

I will say that you have brought up the Bible. While doing that did you remember that the Bible was written roughly 250 YEARS AFTER the death of Christ? Who accurately remembers anything even a day after something happening let alone 250 YEARS! The Bible was written by MEN not God, not Christ. They will do Their own They need no one else to do for Them! Certainly since God is said to have created Human Beings He is well aware of Human Beings' tendency to get things wrong!

Have you read this book: FORBIDDEN FRIENDSHIPS, by Michael Rocke (Oxford University Press)? It discusses Sexual relationships Men had in Florence Italy circa 1400-1500 A. D. - almost FIFTY PERCENT of the Men in that town THAT THEY KNOW OF (that "were caught"!) WERE Sexually involved with each other. We are talking about almost half of the Male population BEING Sexually involved with each other and I am sure Florence Italy is not the only place where that happened. Read the book and get back to me on your thoughts. It (the book) is based on evidence that still exists. See the bibliography at the end of the book.

Take Care, John H.
 
John H. said:
While doing that did you remember that the Bible was written roughly 250 YEARS AFTER the death of Christ? Who accurately remembers anything even a day after something happening let alone 250 YEARS! The Bible was written by MEN not God, not Christ. They will do Their own They need no one else to do for Them! Certainly since God is said to have created Human Beings He is well aware of Human Beings' tendency to get things wrong!

I do not want to get involved in this thread, nor start a religeous debate, but I wanted to say AMEN to that part of your post! :)
 
John H. said:
Hi Ocean,

After reading what you said - book length almost - I decided I have to go work out damn hard to be able to reply just to calm myself down!

I will say that you have brought up the Bible. While doing that did you remember that the Bible was written roughly 250 YEARS AFTER the death of Christ? Who accurately remembers anything even a day after something happening let alone 250 YEARS! The Bible was written by MEN not God, not Christ. They will do Their own They need no one else to do for Them! Certainly since God is said to have created Human Beings He is well aware of Human Beings' tendency to get things wrong!

Have you read this book: FORBIDDEN FRIENDSHIPS, by Michael Rocke (Oxford University Press)? It discusses Sexual relationships Men had in Florence Italy circa 1400-1500 A. D. - almost FIFTY PERCENT of the Men in that town THAT THEY KNOW OF (that "were caught"!) WERE Sexually involved with each other. We are talking about almost half of the Male population BEING Sexually involved with each other and I am sure Florence Italy is not the only place where that happened. Read the book and get back to me on your thoughts. It (the book) is based on evidence that still exists. See the bibliography at the end of the book.

Take Care, John H.
John,
Hi. Not withstanding your current discomfort I am pleased that I have caused you an occasion to increase the intensity of your workouts. Stress has consistently proved to be necessary growth factor. It will likely invoke a positive metabolic growth factor for you. I am also pleased that at least one of us has gotten something out of this interaction; sadly it had no such effervescence effect for me. While hitting those weights you may want to ponder the fact that society currently already permits all manner of bi-lateral relationships which fall short of intimacy for same sex social interaction. Then ponder why is it necessary for sexual intimacy to be a required expression of love when there are so many other societally acceptable ways? When you think about it I think you will see that in reality, these days, sex is oftentimes used as a mechanism for ego gratification, conquest, domination or a simple self pleasuring physical high (among both hetero and homo couples). Even in conventional hetero encounters I suspect that there are many couples who have never gotten past the focus on the physical response and touched and achieved the greater mutual pleasures and satisfaction available at the deeper emotional level. No one is perfect or consistent in this of course but absent the need or intention to procreate it really just resolves to be for the pleasure of one, or both. Absent sexual intimacy, I suspect no one in society would object to the notion of close friendships of any variety. Intimacy has many diverse forms and sexual intimacy is only one.

On the Forbidden Relationships invitation I am going to pass because although I may have a personal interest in increasing my knowledge and insight on a wide range of subjects I can not knowingly contribute monetary payment for a book that will likely extend financial benefit to organizations that have a contempt for much of what I believe in (religious principals and acceptable social behavior). The library is out too since I don't want my name associated with the material. So you have a catch-22 condition and the precise challenge that I previously mentioned about any special interest group that is faced with "selling" their agenda, 'facts' (of the second kind) and lifestyle choices to the populace at large. These kind of books are usually ineffectual though. Their marketing appeal is to specialized and too constrained (e.g. a probably by the same demographic of the advocating market group or in this case 3% of populace +/- 1%). So the market apeals usually degrades into a narrow interest market (e.g. cloistered) and become support materials to the constituency that are able and willing to pay to advocate a particular life style to make them feel euphoric (I avoided the "gay" word) about being participants in a particular social practice. No doubt there will be a few new interested buyers and new recruits. But I chose to not be one.

Take Care John.

Hugs for all,

OD
 
I understand...

Robert DiMaggio said:
I do not want to get involved in this thread, nor start a religeous debate, but I wanted to say AMEN to that part of your post! :)

Hi Rob,
I understand. All I am interested in in ANY subject is getting to the "bottom of it" - the TRUTH ACCURATELY, COMPLETELY AND THOROUGHLY as is Humanly possible. And to HONEST UNDERSTANDING. Anything else in any subject helps no one. God would Himself want just that I feel.

Take Care, John H.
 
Back
Top