Brewer Twins and sex
KeNick1976
My brother and I have been watching the postings here and in other newsgroups
for a long time and decided to post this here. My brother and I are identical
twins. We like all the same things, we were always together in school growing
up and even took all the same classes in college. We had an upper class life in
Malibu where our father is an attorney. We are both good looking and have a lot
of friends. We just graduated from Pepperdine University and our grade point
average was only one point apart. With all this in common is it any wonder why
we are into each other?
My brother and I have been having sex since before we can remember. It started
out innocently enough but got more serious as we got older. We are now 22 and
besides doing everything "normal" together we still have sex with only each
other. We never had to tell each other we were gay, it was a given. There is
actually a lot we don't have to say out loud but most of you wouldn't
understand. I know we will get negative feedback from this but you have to
understand that there is a special bond between identical twins. We just got an
apartment together in Woodland Hills, CA. We also both got jobs at the same
company. Wierd? We don't think so! We intend to spend our lives together.
Whatever the Brewer Twins do or do not do with each other is not as abnormal as
you would all think and not all that uncommon. We just thought it was about
time that someone said something about the special bond between identical
twins.
Ken & Nick
Sarah Weinman
KeNick1976 wrote:
[boring history snipped]
Oh yeah, I really needed to know that. Although I think this post is a fake, if
not, get some therapy....sheesh.
Sarah
X-Nico
Ignore that bitter old woman. Never mind therapy, have you boys got an
agent? <g>
Time 2 Dye
"Ugh"...ok I need the E-meter and clear myself from that post.
David Migicovsky
KeNick1976 wrote in message
<199805231847...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
I have to say that whether or not your story is true, I don't find it in the
least bit surprising or shocking. I know too many gay men who've had sex
with their brothers (I don't have a brother, BTW) and frankly I'd be more
surprised to hear about twins (at least twins who are both gay) who *hadn't*
had sex together.
Earlier this year there was a documentary on twins that aired on (I think)
HBO in the states. There were a couple of twins in their 80s who lived
together, slept in the same bed, and had never spent a night apart. Although
it wasn't mentioned, it was perfectly obvious that they were lovers -- the
only other possibility was that they were 80-year-old virgins.
I think in many ways brothers are the gay male equivalent of lesbians to
straight men. There are damned few of us who wouldn't want to see it and gay
male pornography is filled with fake pairs of brothers.
| David Migicovsky, d m i g i c o v at m y n a dot c o m
| For Showbiz Gossip and More, click on news://alt.culture.fabulous
| Join the open ASG Mailing list at:
http://www.onelist.com/subscribe.cgi/asg
Lauren Matthews
On 23 May 1998 18:47:02 GMT, kenic...@aol.com (KeNick1976) wrote:
>My brother and I have been having sex since before we can remember. It started
>out innocently enough but got more serious as we got older. We are now 22 and
>besides doing everything "normal" together we still have sex with only each
>other.
I'm gonna be sick....there's a word for this "unusual" bond you two
have; it's called INCEST.
-laurie-
David Migicovsky
Lauren Matthews wrote in message <3567a490...@news.myna.com>...
And? It's also a private act between two consenting adults.
If you can present a rational argument why what they do harms anyone else in
any way, then go ahead and condemn it. If you can't, then it's really none
of your business.
Unlike, of course, your hacking and pirating of software, which harms a
great many people. Both that and incest are illegal, but you really have to
wonder which the police are more concerned about, two 22-year-olds having
consensual sex behind closed doors, or software pirates.
Subject: Re: playstation copy
From: no...@jose.com (Lauren Matthews)
Date: 1998/05/19
Message-ID: <3561a3c...@news.myna.com>
Newsgroups: alt.2600.hackerz
[More Headers]
[Subscribe to alt.2600.hackerz]
On Mon, 18 May 1998 22:16:24 +1000, ian merrett
<mer...@modemms.org.au> wrote:
>please tell me of a program to copy play station games
>
>
a really good one, specific for copying playstation games and not
just regular cd writing, is PSXCOPY.
-Laurie-
Subject: Re: HELP ME HACK
From: no...@jose.com (Lauren Matthews)
Date: 1998/05/17
Message-ID: <355e9eb1...@news.myna.com>
Newsgroups: alt.2600.hackerz
[More Headers]
[Subscribe to alt.2600.hackerz]
On Sat, 16 May 1998 14:10:54 +0200, "ZeD" <z...@swipnet.se> wrote:
>heya , I have never hacked before and now i wanna try some.
>
>i have heard the unix prog. are the best, shall i download linux or what
>????
>
>what i want is to hack a unix ftp
>
>PLZ HELP ME WITH MY HACKING!!!
>MAIL zed@swipnet.
A little too eager aren't we?? The best way to learn is to do things
yourself at first....
-laurie-
**********
Well I don't actually know which the police consider a more important crime.
I do know, I never got a press release like this about consensual adult
incest.
Attention News Editors:
OVER 500 PIRATE VIDEOCASSETTES SEIZED IN VIDEO PIRACY RAID PIRATE TAPES
BEING RECORDED AS RAID BEGAN PIRATE HAUL INCLUDES MAJOR TITLES NEVER
RELEASED ANYWHERE ON VIDEO PARAMOUNT'S THE RAINMAKER, WARNER'S THE POSTMAN
AND FALLEN
TORONTO, May 23 /CNW/ - The Ontario Region of the Film & Video Security
Office has removed over 500 videocassettes from the inventory of local video
pirates as a result of a fully authorized video piracy raid. Metropolitan
Toronto Police 32 Division Major Crime Unit, along with the FVSO's Max
Gordon,
have executed a search warrant at Plaza Video 2, 4949 Bathurst Street after
a
brief investigation following a tip on the FVSO's 24 Hour hotline. The
caller
had alleged that the store had illegal copies of major titles.
``Some of those cassettes had titles never released anywhere on video,''
Gordon said. They included Paramount's The Rainmaker and Warner's The
Postman
and Fallen.
Gordon added that the same three titles had been copied from studio
screeners or complimentary copies provided for retailers as `sample copies'.
The major studios customarily inform retailers that screeners are provided
for
screening purposes only, not for rental or sale.
``Moreover, we found two VCR's recording a pirate copy when we entered
with the search warrant,'' Gordon said. ``We also found sheets of
professionally-reproduced full colour labels, ready for application on the
pirate copies.''
Along with those titles, others confiscated in the raid amount to a
small
roster of currently popular titles: Columbia TriStar's Gattaca, As Good As
It
Gets and Starship Troopers, Disney's Flubber, Cop Land and Playing God, Fox
Video's Alien Resurrection, The Full Monty and Anastasia, MGM/UA's Red
Corner
and Tomorrow Never Dies, New Line/Alliance's Boogie Nights, Paramount's Kiss
The Girls, Universal's The Jackal and For Richer, For Poorer and Warner's
L.A.
Confidential.
As the raid wound down, he credited Toronto Police with the operation's
success. ``Their lightning quick response made this work,'' he said. ``They
went from taking over the investigation to getting the search warrant and
executing it in about 12 hours. Piracy raids don't get any better than
that.''
KeNick1976
We would like to thank David Migicovsky so much for writing his posts. We just
read it and have not felt so "normal" in a long time. We choose to disregard
the negative posts. Our original post was real and came out of a desperate
attempt to educate some people about the realities of identical gay twins. I
think David really "gets" how we live our lives. In truth, my brother and I
never intend on having sex with anyone but each other and do sleep in the same
bed. Growing up we always insisted on sharing the same room and we always slept
in the same bed. Thanks to what David wrote we now realize that there are
others out there like us. We wish we knew someone like him in real life. I
don't think our friends would be as accepting of how we choose to live our
lives. Our parents try to ignore what they know is going on and it is probably
better that they do. We know it is incest and that it is illegal but being gay
itself is still illegal in some states and we really don't give a fuck.
Ken and Nick
Andrew
David Migicovsky wrote:
> I have to say that whether or not your story is true, I don't find it in the
> least bit surprising or shocking. I know too many gay men who've had sex
> with their brothers (I don't have a brother, BTW) and frankly I'd be more
> surprised to hear about twins (at least twins who are both gay) who *hadn't*
> had sex together.
I am assuming you're not implying that more gay men have sex with their
brothers than straight men do with their sisters. If anything
brother-sister sex is much much more common because odds are both are
straight and thus could be attracted to each other. I am gay and have a
straight brother. We've never even experimented nor have I seen him
naked for as long as I can remember nor would I want to.
> Earlier this year there was a documentary on twins that aired on (I think)
> HBO in the states. There were a couple of twins in their 80s who lived
> together, slept in the same bed, and had never spent a night apart. Although
> it wasn't mentioned, it was perfectly obvious that they were lovers -- the
> only other possibility was that they were 80-year-old virgins.
I have identical twin female cousins and fortunately they come from a
family with strong moral teachings and they both have boyfriends. On the
other hand, they certainly are bonded that's for sure. I suppose I could
see where it would be real easy for gay twins to get involved. Identical
twins share a bond like no others.
> I think in many ways brothers are the gay male equivalent of lesbians to
> straight men. There are damned few of us who wouldn't want to see it and gay
> male pornography is filled with fake pairs of brothers.
On one hand I certainly can't morally condone twin lovers, but you've
got a point, they're a hell of a novelty to look at. It's as bad (or
good) as lesbian sisters would be to straight men.
Andrew
I know some identical twins. I can see how they share everything,
sometimes they are even annoying becuase they both repeat what the other
says. I tend to think it is a common mistake many parents make by
fostering too much twin bonding. For example the twins always were
dressed alike because it was so "cute". They shared everything and did
everything together almost to the extent they lost any individual
identity. But since most twins are bonded like that and many times
encouraged, it's easy to see how some end up sharing everything,
including sex. I can't morally condone that, besides the fact it is
incest, it can be real dangerous to develop that kind of codependency.
On the other hand for some reason there is something about that a lot of
people find a turn on. I had a friend who knew twins that sort of
seduced him at a young age and they would all have sex. He used to tell
me stories how they both knew exactly what the other liked. I suppose it
would be like stepping out of your body and having sex with yourself
(for better or worse). If you both live happily ever after then that's
great. But I'm sure you can't expect widespread acceptance even from the
gay community. It's something many people would like to watch but
wouldn't admit to it. Since I'm posting this anon I admit i'm the same
way.. I can't imagine having a sexual interest in my brother but it can
be interesting to hear about guys like you two. If you ever wanted to
post sexual stories on groups like alt.sex.stories I"m sure there's lots
of people who'd read it. ANd there's certainly a market for that in the
porno business. Even though I find the idea of sex with my brother
disgusting I admit I've spent my share of time looking at the Brewer
erotic photos...
David Migicovsky
KeNick1976 wrote in message
<199805240912...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
>We would like to thank David Migicovsky so much for writing his posts. We
just
>read it and have not felt so "normal" in a long time. We choose to
disregard
>the negative posts.
Well gosh, when I read the title "Brewer Twins and sex for David" I thought,
that sounds fair, when will they be over?
But seriously, the popularity of the twins indicates just how powerful the
twins fantasy is among gay men. It's not their recent pictures that made
them famous, it's the erotic ones they did for Bruce Weber. And certainly if
there was only one of them, he'd be just another one among the thousands of
unknowns who's had his nude picture on the Internet.
>Our original post was real and came out of a desperate
>attempt to educate some people about the realities of identical gay twins.
I
>think David really "gets" how we live our lives.
Well I can't say that I "get" it. I'm not a twin and don't even have a
brother. But I know that Dear Abby and Ann Landers never slept apart until
their honeymoons and slept wrapped in each other's arms. Did anything sexual
happen between them? We'll never know, but certainly they had a level of
intimacy that most women would not feel comfortable sharing with their
sister.
I've always assumed that for twins, having sex with each other is not much
more of a taboo than ordinary masturbation. Not every set of twins are close
enough to want to spend their lives together, but the only thing I find
shocking about twincest is when it doesn't happen.
In truth, my brother and I
>never intend on having sex with anyone but each other and do sleep in the
same
>bed. Growing up we always insisted on sharing the same room and we always
slept
>in the same bed. Thanks to what David wrote we now realize that there are
>others out there like us. We wish we knew someone like him in real life.
You probably do, if you know other gay men. In general I've found gay men to
be rather accepting of sexual differences. Yes, there are certainly gay men
who will work themselves up into a purple tizzy of condemnation of you, but
in my experience most would go "so what?" or "Can I watch?" And most of the
ones in a purple tizzy would *still* want to watch.
I
>don't think our friends would be as accepting of how we choose to live our
>lives. Our parents try to ignore what they know is going on and it is
probably
>better that they do. We know it is incest and that it is illegal but being
gay
>itself is still illegal in some states and we really don't give a fuck.
Personally I've never let the law be a consideration when it comes to
deciding my morality. When I came out, the legal age for gay sex in Canada
was 21 -- and I was 18. I, as an adult allowed to vote and drink, wasn't
about to wait three years before having sex. Now that I'm almost 40, due to
changes in the law and court rulings, it would be perfectly legal for me to
have sex with a 14 year old boy (or girl for that matter). I wouldn't
consider it for a minute.
I can't see who you're hurting in any way (no, parental reactions don't
count, anymore than they should count for someone being gay or in an
interracial relationship). I have to admit that if you were of opposite
sexes you'd be fairly high on my personal "ick" factor and I'd be *really*
worried about pregnancy, but I still wouldn't condemn you.
David, who now confesses to a certain curiosity about gay triplets!
David Migicovsky
Andrew wrote in message <356803D5...@aaa.com>...
>
>I am assuming you're not implying that more gay men have sex with their
>brothers than straight men do with their sisters. If anything
>brother-sister sex is much much more common because odds are both are
>straight and thus could be attracted to each other. I am gay and have a
>straight brother. We've never even experimented nor have I seen him
>naked for as long as I can remember nor would I want to.
I make no claims to understanding the twilight world of the heterosexual.
It's also well known that homosexuality runs in families -- while your
brother is straight, I know lots of gay men with gay brothers and in some
cases some experimentation went on while they were growing up. But most of
us can barely bring ourselves to spend Christmas with out siblings, let
alone a lifetime. <g>
>
>On one hand I certainly can't morally condone twin lovers, but you've
>got a point, they're a hell of a novelty to look at. It's as bad (or
>good) as lesbian sisters would be to straight men.
Not that it really matters if you or I can condone it or not, but I wonder
why. When passing judgement on other people's relationships I ask myself
some questions.
1. Is it consensual?
2. Are they harming others?
3. Are they harming each other?
4. Are they happy?
In another post you mention co-dependency and incest. Obviously they are
co-dependent to a degree unimaginable by most of us. But the ship sailed on
that a long time ago. Certainly their relationship has a far better chance
of success than any you or I are likely to have. As for incest, that's
merely a word. Can we come up with any real objections to it beyond those
that apply equally well to homosexuality or other forms of sexual expression
some people don't approve of? Someone "helpfully" contributed "get some
therapy." That therapy, if "successful" would have the result of leaving
them miserable, alone, unproductive and incapable of having a relationship
with anyone. I have a hard time seeing that as a desirable goal in order to
win the approval of a couple of straight chicks in Canada.
David, who has seen a fair number of gay couples who look and act so much
alike they may as well be twins anyway.
HUGBEARBOB
> have not felt so "normal" in a long time.
"Normal" is a relative term. What you are, and what you are doing, is indeed
"normal" for you. But, of course, it isn't necessarily normal for all male
twins, or even all male twins who happen to both be gay (but may not be
attracted to each other).
To address some other points brought up, several studies have indeed shown that
homosexuality "runs in the family," in that you are slightly more likely to be
gay or lesbian if you have a sibling that is as well. (Whether this is a
matter of "nature" or "nurture" is another debate I won't get into here.) And,
if you are one of identical twins, the likelihood is even greater.
FYI, I know a pair of identical twins who never really got along since boyhood
(lots of sibling rivalry) and one moved out of his parents' home at 16 to his
own place. It wasn't until they ran into each other at a gay bar at age 26
that either had a clue that the other one was gay.
Then again, I know a lesbian whose identical twin has resented her ever since
she "came out" in her late teens, because she felt threatened that this meant
she would "turn into a lesbian" as well.
David Migicovsky
Alexandra wrote in message <356971ab...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
>On Sun, 24 May 1998 05:45:58 GMT, "David Migicovsky"
><dmig...@see.sig> wrote:
>
>>Lauren Matthews wrote in message <3567a490...@news.myna.com>...
>>>On 23 May 1998 18:47:02 GMT, kenic...@aol.com (KeNick1976) wrote:
>>>
>>>>My brother and I have been having sex since before we can remember. It
>>started
>>>>out innocently enough but got more serious as we got older. We are now
22
>>and
>>>>besides doing everything "normal" together we still have sex with only
>>each
>>>>other.
>>>
>>>I'm gonna be sick....there's a word for this "unusual" bond you two
>>>have; it's called INCEST.
>>>
>>>-laurie-
>>
>>And? It's also a private act between two consenting adults.
>>
>>If you can present a rational argument why what they do harms anyone else
in
>>any way, then go ahead and condemn it. If you can't, then it's really none
>>of your business.
>>
>
>article in a popular newsgroup probably wasn't the smartest way to go.
>They posted in a newsgroup read by thousands. If they don't want a
>reaction, then they shouldn't have posted it. Right, wrong or
>indifferent, she has as much a right to her opinion as much as you do.
>
No saying she doesn't. But as you yourself have said on the subject of
felching,
Why is that disgusting? People do it because it makes them happy and
they derive pleasure from each other while they are doing it. How is
that gross? No, "disgusting" is when someone brutalizes another
person by inflicting psychic, physical or emotional pain. "Gross" is
when one person feels they have the right to denigrate another just
because they think they are somehow superior.
No dear, ~that~ is vomit material.
David Migicovsky
HUGBEARBOB wrote in message
<199805241835...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
>> have not felt so "normal" in a long time.
>
since
>she "came out" in her late teens, because she felt threatened that this
meant
>she would "turn into a lesbian" as well.
Well as Miss Lo used to quote in her sig, "I'm turning on, and you're just
turning"
David, who doesn't know the quote, but assumes it's appropriate.
A
I hate to see this turn into a alt.sex.homosexual disscution but I'll go
along a little longer before people start telling us to move it over to
one of the alt.sex discussion groups.
David Migicovsky wrote:
> I make no claims to understanding the twilight world of the heterosexual.
> It's also well known that homosexuality runs in families -- while your
> brother is straight, I know lots of gay men with gay brothers and in some
> cases some experimentation went on while they were growing up. But most of
> us can barely bring ourselves to spend Christmas with out siblings, let
> alone a lifetime. <g>
It has been well known homosexuality runs in families? I suppose that's
true since homosexuals have to come from somewhere, they don't sprout
out of the ground :) I don't think that all the homosexuals in the world
come from a few families in the world.. on the other hand if you believe
the 10% theory (which I do, at least 10%) the odds are that in any
family with 50 members 5 of them will be gay then in that case. In other
words I don't think that 90% of the gays in the world come from 2% of
the families in the world, to restate. What studies are you thinking of
anyway, the Kinsey reports? Someone should do another Kinsey-like study,
it would be interesting to see how the results are different than from
the 1950's. Also I have heard the theory that identical same sex twins
have a higher probability of both being gay than only one being gay.
That's pretty obvious considering they'd probably share any genetic
predisposition and any other environmental influences.
> Not that it really matters if you or I can condone it or not, but I wonder
> why. When passing judgement on other people's relationships I ask myself
> some questions.
>
> 1. Is it consensual?
> 2. Are they harming others?
> 3. Are they harming each other?
> 4. Are they happy?
Your criteria is certainly a valid one if you wish to pass a secular
judgement on people. Of course in this day and age anyone who condemns
what the feel is an immoral behavior on religious grounds is shunned. So
while they may pass the secular test for their behavior they won't ever
pass my religious test. But that's my beleifs, it's a free country and
anyone can choose their own. Maybe there's a cult out there that
woriships twin lovers..
> In another post you mention co-dependency and incest. Obviously they are
> co-dependent to a degree unimaginable by most of us. But the ship sailed on
> that a long time ago. Certainly their relationship has a far better chance
> of success than any you or I are likely to have. As for incest, that's
> merely a word. Can we come up with any real objections to it beyond those
> that apply equally well to homosexuality or other forms of sexual expression
> some people don't approve of? Someone "helpfully" contributed "get some
> therapy." That therapy, if "successful" would have the result of leaving
> them miserable, alone, unproductive and incapable of having a relationship
> with anyone. I have a hard time seeing that as a desirable goal in order to
> win the approval of a couple of straight chicks in Canada.
Well they could probably use some thearpy but not to "cure" their
homosexuality, it would be to work on their codependency. I've heard
about many twins that fall into depression or whatever else becuase of
that becuase they don't any individuality. In some ways it is probably
like being in your own little Borg collective. It seems harmonious since
you both seem to think as one, but there's no individuality becuase they
are always together, always acting as one. Now there's certainly worse
problems in the world to worry about.. if they seem to live happily ever
after then great .. it's certainly not as bad as the gang or drug
problem out there.. but even the twins I know who seem a little odd and
dysfunctional becuase they are always together and can't function for
very long without the other. There's one other thing -- in your test #2,
are they hurting others? -- no one has factored in the rest of their
family. Maybe if they were orphans and the folks who raised them had
passed on then it wouldn't be an issue. It's one thing to ask a family
to accept someone's homosxuality. It's another thing to ask them to
condone incest. Yes incest is just "a word" to you, but to many people
and famlies it means something. I'm lucky enough to have caring parents
who are supportaive of me even though I'm gay. But if I was having sex
with my brother I wouldn't expect them to be supportive at all. If
nothing else the public humiliation those twins must cause their family
is hurtful. Today we have this culture where anything goes as long as it
is what feels good. TO hell with everyone else, their hurt doesn't count
for anything becausing I'm doing what *feels* good.. Just becuase I am
gay and my parents still love me doesn't give me an excuse to go out and
live a public lifestyle that would be an embarassment to them. That's
the problem I have with my bretheren and sisteren (is that a real word?)
in the gay community. Becuase the world discriminates against gays but
*we* know better, then that gives us carte blance to behave any way we
want to in the name of overcoming bigotry. If we're ever going to really
overcome it, we're going to have to show the world that just becuase
we're gay doesn't mean we're not decent, moral people. It is analogous
to african american's justifying bad behavious becuase it is a "black
thing". Just becuase society wrongs a minority doesn't make bad behavior
right. With freedom comes responsibility.. just my 2 cents
worth..
MickeyCT
David writes:
<<Well as Miss Lo used to quote in her sig, "I'm turning on, and you're just
turning"
David, who doesn't know the quote, but assumes it's appropriate.>>
The quote is from Mart Crowley's "Boys in the Band". Harold's lighting up a
joint (turning on) and commenting to Michael about his hateful comments
(turning).
Mickey :-)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
O_O http://www.geocities.com/broadway/2180
/_\ C'mon, Get Happy@ http://www.geocities.com/hollywood/5255
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
David Migicovsky
A wrote in message <35687F6A...@ck.net>...
>>
You have not come up with a single argument that is not used with equal
validity against homosexuality. I do not accept them as valid arguments
against homosexuality, and therefore will not debate them as arguments
against anything else.
If you want to use a religious argument against something that's fine -- but
if you are debating me that means the argument is at an immediate end,
because your basic premise is one I unequivocally reject as a citizen of a
country with freedom of religion.
There is a school of thought when it comes to sexuality that says
homosexuality is acceptable, under certain circumstances, but that other
consensual forms of adult sexual expression are not. The members of this
school tend to be, not surprisingly, conservative homosexuals who would
almost certainly, if they were not homosexual themselves, condemn
homosexuals.
That's just not the way I work. Something doesn't have to be part of my
sexual repertoire to get my "seal of approval."
David, who would much rather read a tasteful post about consensual adult
incest than one of Urkel's pornographic rants any day.
X-Nico
Time 2 Dye wrote:
>
> "Ugh"...ok I need the E-meter and clear myself from that post.
You also need to learn to quote, so we'll know which one was "that
post".
(And if it was mine, then you also need to get over yourself and develop
a sense of humor.)
David Migicovsky
Mike Cohen wrote in message ...
>In article <35687F6A...@ck.net>,
>A <o...@ck.net> wrote:
>
>| > I make no claims to understanding the twilight world of the
>heterosexual.
>| > It's also well known that homosexuality runs in families -- while your
>| > brother is straight, I know lots of gay men with gay brothers and in
>some
>| > cases some experimentation went on while they were growing up. But most
>of
>| > us can barely bring ourselves to spend Christmas with out siblings, let
>| > alone a lifetime. <g>
>
>siblings, but I'm not sure if they're gay.
>
That was actually me you were quoting. I know at least four gay men with one
or more gay brothers. I probably know more, but I don't know everyone well
enough to know details about their families. And I do know two gay men with
straight twins (only one identical though).
I should mention that only one of the four with gay brother(s) has actually
had sex with his brother. <g>
Michael Ritchie
>On one hand I certainly can't morally condone twin lovers, but you've
>got a point, they're a hell of a novelty to look at. It's as bad (or
>good) as lesbian sisters would be to straight men.
An honest question: what does morality have to do with gay
male twin lovers? They cannot reproduce, so the taboo
against incest (which came about, I assume, because of the
high probability of birth defects) would seem to mean
little. Granted, it seems a bit strange when one first thinks
about it, but the way the poster discussed his situation,
it made sense to me. As I said, this is an honest question.
What is immoral about these lovers?
--M.
David Migicovsky
Michael Ritchie wrote in message ...
I know! I know! Nothing.
The only argument I've seen in this thread so far that is remotely valid is
that it could hurt their parents. However, throughout time parents have been
hurt by their children's choice of partner. Too old, too young, wrong race,
wrong sex -- the list is endless.
My take on that is pretty simple -- if you are going to be hurt by your
child's choice of partner, ultimately you care more about some notion of
propriety than you do about your child. That said, it's a rare parent who
could stand up beaming proudly at her son's commitment ceremony to her other
son. And it happens rarely enough that opinion isn't likely to change much.
Getting this thing vaguely back to showbiz, I remember a TV movie in which
Megan Follows fell for step-brother Dermot Mulroney, summarized as follows
in the IMDb:
Sin of Innocence (1986) (TV)
When David, a widower with a teenaged son, marries Vicki, who is divorced
and has a teenaged daughter, it's sure to be a happy family. But the kids,
Tim and Jenny, become romantically attracted to each other. Which makes
David and Vicki VERY uncomfortable, and Vicki's ex-husband, Andy, furious.
It's no longer a happy family in this household.
At the same time, on the soap opera Another World, a character's birth
daughter and adopted son (or the other way around), who were raised
separately, fell in love and got married. The mother/mother-in-law to both
was delighted
It does seem that blended families and other modern facts of life force us
to re-evaluate our definitions of incest and what's acceptable. I *think* I
remember reading that the Law Reform Commission in Canada recommended
dropping the laws, which are never properly enforced anyway -- they're only
used when other crimes are being committed anyway.
Jules57
>If the original post by Ken & Nick is truthful and not some fake post, people
>should be encouraging them to get couseling.
>
>
If they are happy why do they need counseling?
Just wonderin',
Jules W.
KeNick1976
We didn't know that our original post, which was triggered by talk of the
Brewer Twins, was going to cause such a debate. We posted it to educate but
have found the posts and the e-mail we received interesting. We are not hurt by
the negative posts since it was expected and we have recieved many positive
e-mails and support within the posts in the newsgroup.
Just to add to everyone's comments. We DO NOT need therapy because WE do not
have a problem. If we were alone, unhappy, lacked self-worth, had trouble
making friends, were unhappy with our looks or a host of many other reasons we
would seek therapy but it is not the case. To add to that, we are NOT
co-dependant (a very over used word). We also do not choose to exploit our
looks by modeling or doing porn. It is actually laughable to think we would do
such a thing but you would have to know us to understand what we mean. This is
by no means a put down to the Brewer Twins. To each his own, live and let live,
etc. We are just as blond and blue eyed as the Brewer Twins but do not choose
to use our looks as a career even though we have been asked several times.
Our original post has helped us enormously. We are much more comfortable with
our relationship and our love for each other. Our relationship is much more
than just sex. We realize that we don't have to tell our parents or friends
what we do behind closed doors and we doubt anyone would ever ask. In addition,
we don't need a commitment ceremony since we are more related and commited to
each other than anyone can be if you can understand what we are talking about.
And just to get the record straight, we are not hurting anyone, especially our
parents. We are very close with our parents and we think that deep down inside
they know what is going on and they seem to be fine about it even if that means
don't ask, don't tell.
In a way this newsgroup has served as our therapy so thanks to you all.
Ken & Nick
AnnOnO...@hotmail.com
In article <199805250341...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
moody...@aol.com (Moodychick) wrote:
>
> >That said, it's a rare parent who could stand up beaming proudly at her
son's
> commitment ceremony to her other son.
>
people
> should be encouraging them to get couseling.
>
>
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Joe
I guess the problem I struggle with here the most as a gay male is that
I also have religous beliefs. I see this slippery slope mentality most
people have: "if it feels good and doesn't seem to hurt anyone, it must
be OK". Now I am far from a right wing conservative. That doesn't mean I
abandon all religous beliefs. What people here are talking about is
subjective morality or situational morality. This may be OK from a legal
point of view. We tend to define crime based on its effect on society
and not on the fact that many believe some higher power says it is
wrong. Well that's fine when for setting bare minimum standard for the
survial of society. It doesn't help anyone aspire to anything better
than the bare minimum. So while I may agree that 2 concenting adults
should be allowed to do whatever they like behind closed doors, that
doesn't mean I have to condone it on a moral basis. I won't be
hypocritical here, I've done my share of things I regret. I'm far from
perfect but that doesn't mean anything goes. Some state senator in
Alaska during debate of a bill to ban same sex marriage stated something
to the effect that [paraphrasing] " 2 men or 2 women should no more be
married than a man and a goat or two dogs " or something like that. That
argument is of course a fallacy becuase the union of two human beings is
different than a human and animal or anything else. On the other hand it
makes one think, where do we draw the line? Only when there is a clear
victim? How about a man and a dog? I've talked to someone who has sex
with a dog regularly. He will tell you how the dog enjoys it as much as
he does. Well the subjective moralists will tell you this is fine
becuase it's not hurting anyone. That may be true but for those who
beleive in a higher power can we really think that the supreme being
would condone this type of behavior? I guess what I'm getting at is that
there doesn't always have to be a victim for something to be wrong. The
easy way out would be to say live and let live .. and these days it is
the popular culture to reject any kind of religion. So where do we draw
the line? As long as no one is being hurt than anything goes huh? I
guess we will all have to decide what we believe in according to our
conscious. If twin lovers do not beleive what they do is wrong then I
guess they'll find out when they meet their maker as we all will. I
guess we all have the right to beleive what we want. I'm certainly not
going to make it my life's work to condemn Ken and Nick or anyone else
like that. We have a lot more serious problems to worry about. And even
if there's a side of me that finds it a bit intriguing, if not a turn
on, that doesn't make it right necessairly. I have lots of feelings some
more virtious than others.. just because something feels good doesn't
make it right.. we'd just be hedonists then... as for Ken and Nick, even
if I can't condone your lifestlye in good conscious, I still respect you
both as human beings and wish you well..
Papaleonardos
On Sun, 24 May 1998 23:38:55 GMT, spam...@nowhere.edu (Mike Cohen)
>siblings, but I'm not sure if they're gay.
>
But did they ever have sex together?
Chris
David Migicovsky
Joe wrote in message <35692EE7...@uess.com>...
>I guess the problem I struggle with here the most as a gay male is that
>I also have religous beliefs. I see this slippery slope mentality most
Yadda yadda yadda... another fag who's conveniently opened up his religious
morality just enough to let himself in the door while slamming it shut for
everyone else. As the Church Lady would say, isn't that conveeeeeeeenient?
And incidentally, posting from the same place as the guy who was posting in
this thread as "Andrew:" Funny, isn't it, how us immoral types in this
thread aren't the ones who are hiding?
Path:
news.randori.com!WCG!ais.net!newshub.tc.umn.edu!lynx.unm.edu!not-for-mail
From: Andrew <a...@aaa.com>
Newsgroups: alt.showbiz.gossip
Subject: Re: Brewer Twins and sex
Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 05:26:13 -0600
Organization: ISP
Lines: 34
Message-ID: <356803D5...@aaa.com>
References: <199805231847...@ladder03.news.aol.com>
<c2N91.141$q5.3...@news.randori.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: musca.unm.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (X11; U; Linux 2.0.32 i486)
Xref: news.randori.com alt.showbiz.gossip:44629
Path:
news.randori.com!WCG!ais.net!newshub.tc.umn.edu!lynx.unm.edu!not-for-mail
From: Joe <g...@uess.com>
Newsgroups: alt.showbiz.gossip
Subject: Re: Brewer Twins and sex
Date: Mon, 25 May 1998 02:42:15 -0600
Organization: G
Lines: 43
Message-ID: <35692EE7...@uess.com>
References: <199805231847...@ladder03.news.aol.com>
<199805250554...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: musca.unm.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (X11; U; Linux 2.0.32 i486)
Xref: news.randori.com alt.showbiz.gossip:44892
Bill
KeNick1976 wrote:
>
<snip>
>
> Our original post has helped us enormously. We are much more comfortable with
> our relationship and our love for each other. Our relationship is much more
> than just sex.
>
> Ken & Nick
Do you wear fez's and Charlie Brown shirts too?
SINEQUAN0N
WHO IN THE HELL ARE THE BREWER TWINS?
Nancy Brown
SineTAG Solutions
Macintosh Solutions Providers
email: sin...@earthlink.net
HUGBEARBOB
>I guess the problem I struggle with here the most as a gay male is
>So while I may agree that 2 concenting adults
I have to condone it on a moral basis. I won't be
>hypocritical here, I've done my share of things I regret.
Talk about needing counseling ... !
JC
On 25 May 1998 16:41:27 GMT, sineq...@aol.com (SINEQUAN0N) wrote:
>WHO IN THE HELL ARE THE BREWER TWINS?
>Nancy Brown
OH THANK GOD...I thought I was the ONLY person on earth that doesn't
know!<G>
JC
GoodMrngGl
In article <199805250359...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, jul...@aol.com
(Jules57) writes:
>>If the original post by Ken & Nick is truthful and not some fake post,
>people
>>should be encouraging them to get couseling.
>>
>>
>
>If they are happy why do they need counseling?
>
>Just wonderin',
>
>Jules W.
*******>
What I want to know is, are they mirror twins, i.e., my right is your left,
.............could make a better fit, no?
Annette (looking in the mirror.................nah..................)
>
julesdlr
God, how I miss Akbar and Jeff! I haven't seen a "Life in Hell" strip
in ages. This made me laugh for a very long time!
Sincerely,
Jules
A
David Migicovsky wrote:
>
> Joe wrote in message <35692EE7...@uess.com>...
> >I guess the problem I struggle with here the most as a gay male is that
> >I also have religous beliefs. I see this slippery slope mentality most
> Yadda yadda yadda... another fag who's conveniently opened up his religious
> morality just enough to let himself in the door while slamming it shut for
> everyone else. As the Church Lady would say, isn't that conveeeeeeeenient?
You're wrong there, I hold myself to the same standards I advocate for
twins or anyone else. I never said any behavior I want to engage in is
OK while other people's aren't. I'm not out there saying it's OK for me
to screw around as long as its not your brother. Of course sir I'd like
to know what standards you use to judge behavior? Is there anything you
believe is wrong just becuase it is wrong not becuase it hurts someone?
If you don't believe in any other values than hedonism that's your
choice. But don't accuse someone of being hypocitical without even
knowing their views on other issues. I guess becuase I said I was gay
you just assumed that meant I was out criusing the parks while
condemning twin lovers.
> And incidentally, posting from the same place as the guy who was posting in
> this thread as "Andrew:" Funny, isn't it, how us immoral types in this
> thread aren't the ones who are hiding?
Give me a break, no one's hiding except from the spammers and would be
flammers. If there's different names or whatever its just for the heck
of it... besides it's not releveant anyway unless you just want to
attack the person instead of the issues.
I guess everyone's said all there is to be said on the topic so we can
let it drop, after you get in the last word of course. Regards....
David Migicovsky
JC wrote in message <3569b896...@news.enter.net>...
They are identical twin brothers who rose to fame on the Internet as a
result of a series of nude homoerotic photographs they did for Bruce Weber.
At one time these photographs were easy to find, but most sites no longer
have them. Most people on earth have no idea who they are. They're pretty
much a gay men's Internet phenomenon, which does of course mean that most of
the women in ASG know about them too.
David Migicovsky
A wrote in message <3569CA73...@adda.you.com>...
>> Yadda yadda yadda... another fag who's conveniently opened up his
religious
>> morality just enough to let himself in the door while slamming it shut
for
>> everyone else. As the Church Lady would say, isn't that
conveeeeeeeenient?
>
>You're wrong there, I hold myself to the same standards I advocate for
>twins or anyone else. I never said any behavior I want to engage in is
>OK while other people's aren't. I'm not out there saying it's OK for me
>to screw around as long as its not your brother.
Nor did I say anything to imply I thought you did. You are saying that it's
OK for you to be gay and to have gay sex. Whatever your religion is, I bet
most adherants disagree with you vehemently, as does the official policy of
your religion. You have probably chosen to ignore those aspects of your
religion, while still using your religious beliefs to attack others who
don't measure up to your personal standards.
>Of course sir I'd like
>to know what standards you use to judge behavior? Is there anything you
>believe is wrong just becuase it is wrong not becuase it hurts someone?
No, in order for me to consider something wrong for other people I have to
have a reason why it is wrong. "Just because it's wrong" doesn't cut it. If
something doesn't harm others, I have no objection to it whatsoever, whether
or not I choose to engage in it myself.
>If you don't believe in any other values than hedonism that's your
>choice. But don't accuse someone of being hypocitical without even
>knowing their views on other issues. I guess becuase I said I was gay
>you just assumed that meant I was out criusing the parks while
>condemning twin lovers.
You're putting words in my mouth. Nor could I care less if you cruise the
parks -- as long as you're not interfering with others' enjoyment of the
park.
>
>> And incidentally, posting from the same place as the guy who was posting
in
>> this thread as "Andrew:" Funny, isn't it, how us immoral types in this
>> thread aren't the ones who are hiding?
>
>Give me a break, no one's hiding except from the spammers and would be
>flammers. If there's different names or whatever its just for the heck
>of it... besides it's not releveant anyway unless you just want to
>attack the person instead of the issues.
You have now used three different aliases. You may consider that irrelevant.
I do not. You lack the courage of your convictions.
>I guess everyone's said all there is to be said on the topic so we can
>let it drop, after you get in the last word of course. Regards....
If you don't want a reply, don't ask me direct questions. I didn't ask you
any.
Jamie L. Wernitznig
In article <24ka1.609$q5.17...@news.randori.com>,
"David Migicovsky" <dmig...@see.sig> wrote:
=>JC wrote in message <3569b896...@news.enter.net>...
=>>On 25 May 1998 16:41:27 GMT, sineq...@aol.com (SINEQUAN0N) wrote:
=>>
=>>>WHO IN THE HELL ARE THE BREWER TWINS?
=>>>Nancy Brown
=>>
=>> OH THANK GOD...I thought I was the ONLY person on earth that doesn't
=>>know!<G>
=>>
=>>JC
=>
=>
=>They are identical twin brothers who rose to fame on the Internet as a
=>result of a series of nude homoerotic photographs they did for Bruce
Weber.
=>At one time these photographs were easy to find, but most sites no longer
=>have them. Most people on earth have no idea who they are. They're pretty
=>much a gay men's Internet phenomenon, which does of course mean that most
of
=>the women in ASG know about them too.
I'd never heard of them before this thread either, but on a lark I tried
"www.brewertwins.com" and voila! The twins official website.
Talk about eye candy....yum.
________________ Jamie Wernitznig - MacGrrrl ________________
jam...@his.com
jamie...@aol.com <--Pick an address, any address...
jam...@newsguy.com
cjkr...@earthlink.net
O.K., I'm convinced. Keith and Derek Brewer aren't gay. My question
is . . . do they have sex with each other?
Mr Alias
David Migicovsky wrote:
> Nor did I say anything to imply I thought you did. You are saying that it's
> OK for you to be gay and to have gay sex. Whatever your religion is, I bet
> most adherants disagree with you vehemently, as does the official policy of
> your religion. You have probably chosen to ignore those aspects of your
> religion, while still using your religious beliefs to attack others who
> don't measure up to your personal standards.
I don't recall condoning gay sex, maybe that was someone else using one
of my aliases .. *laugh* In any event I don't agree that gay sex is
moral in the eyes of my religon either, although I don't pretned to have
all the answers either.
> You have now used three different aliases. You may consider that irrelevant.
> I do not. You lack the courage of your convictions.
Anything you say there.. I don't see what using my real name has to do
with the courage of one's convictions. Everyone hides behind the
computer anyway, I have no reason to believe your name is the real name
anyway. If you want to infer things be my guest I don't care who sends
what on here I'm more interested in discussing the topics than writing
down people's names.
Ok you caught me, I'll fess up.. I'm really Pat Buchanon ...
Grnbrier
no...@jose.com (Lauren Matthews) wrote:
>I'm gonna be sick....there's a word for this "unusual" bond you two
>have; it's called INCEST.
Thank you for hitting the nail on the head, laurie. I once knew some people who
committed (gulp) ADULTERY!! (I'm gonna be sick too.) Next thing ya know, people
are gonna be experimenting with SEX BEFORE MARRIAGE (barf, puke). What IS this
world coming to?
Doogie
>-laurie-
Snake142
This story makes me think how great it would be if Neve Campbell had a twin
sister!!! :)
David Migicovsky
Miss Lo wrote in message <3570408b....@news.earthlink.net>...
>>
>How can any self respecting gay man NOT know that quote?!?
>
>Anyway - leave me out of this sick mess.
>
> ********************
>
Considering you brought yourself into it...
Anonymous
I don't know whether the original post was a troll, but I enjoyed it and
have enjoyed the principled assertions by David M, especially about the
slammed closet door.
If you twins out there are real, and for anyone else lurking and maybe
drooling, I offer the observation that twin-twin sex is not all that
different from self-self sex, which most everyone practices. The fallacy
to avoid is that you must be monogamous with each other, just as no one
should avoid a partner just because he masturbates.
So, you twins may be gay or bisexual; and it's not a great leap to suppose
you could develop sexual relationships outside your twin-twin bond in
addition to your twin-twin comfortable sexual understanding. Not that you
must, but not that you shouldn't. You will always be close, so if you can
find others to relate too also, that may enrich your relationship with each
other.
The trick is to find others--men or women or both--who can accept you
plural or you individual while understanding your twin-twin bond.
Unfortunately for you, our society's limited and parochial ways of making
sexual rules don't have a special clause about twins. Good luck to you!
JustinNYC
I am not going to quote anyone who posted. I just sat here and read all 52
posts and got a big woody that I will have to take care of soon. I agree with
David Mi.......whatever his name is and think that whatever these lucky guys do
in the sack is their own business, and I wish I could go into business with
them. The thought of two identical twins getting it on is too much for my mind
to absorb at 5:30am (I have insomnia). I am 32 years old and only wish I had
someone who I loved and loved me to come home to at night. Instead, I come
home, watch TV, jerk off and go to sleep. On weekends I go to Splash to find
some stranger to have sex with because I don't think Mr. Right is going to come
along. Ken and Nick are lucky to have found love because wherever you find
love, it is still love.
One comment to the jerk who can't spell the word "because", GET A DICTIONARY!
I think Ken and Nick have a long and happy life together and I am sure that
they will. I will go to bed now and dream that I have a twin that I could boff,
then I will relieve the tension from between my legs and curl up with my
blankie! Goodnight.
David Migicovsky
Mr Alias <4th_...@it.mustbe.a.govt.conspiracy.com> wrote in message
<356A2BD1...@it.mustbe.a.govt.conspiracy.com>...
>David Migicovsky wrote:
>
>> Nor did I say anything to imply I thought you did. You are saying that
it's
>> OK for you to be gay and to have gay sex. Whatever your religion is, I
bet
>> most adherants disagree with you vehemently, as does the official policy
of
>> your religion. You have probably chosen to ignore those aspects of your
>> religion, while still using your religious beliefs to attack others who
>> don't measure up to your personal standards.
>
>I don't recall condoning gay sex, maybe that was someone else using one
>of my aliases .. *laugh* In any event I don't agree that gay sex is
>moral in the eyes of my religon either, although I don't pretned to have
>all the answers either.
>
Oh just go back into the closet until you can get over yourself. If I
understand you correctly, you think gay sex is wrong, but are gay. You think
incest is wrong, but are turned on by it. And you think the twins have a
problem? Who the hell are you, you anonymous conflicted fuck, to lecture
other people on their morality?
David Migicovsky
Anonymous wrote in message <6kduoc$l...@basement.replay.com>...
>
>If you twins out there are real, and for anyone else lurking and maybe
>drooling, I offer the observation that twin-twin sex is not all that
>different from self-self sex, which most everyone practices.
This is quite true. I would imagine that for many twins, the other one's
body is as familiar as his own. To expect that to stop at the genitals is
silly.
>The fallacy
>to avoid is that you must be monogamous with each other, just as no one
>should avoid a partner just because he masturbates.
They don't *have* to be monogamous. One thing we can be sure of -- there is
absolutely NO societal pressure on them to only be with each other. If they
choose to be though, why not? I'm sure they know by now that there would be
no shortage of willing partners. <g>
But if one continues the masturbation analogy, I'm not looking for anyone
else to give me a hand job, because no one can do it better than I can. If I
found a partner who fulfills all my other needs better than anyone else
possibly could, I can't imagine why I'd be looking elsewhere.
frank w elliott jr
JC (m...@overhere.com) wrote:
: On 25 May 1998 16:41:27 GMT, sineq...@aol.com (SINEQUAN0N) wrote:
:
: >WHO IN THE HELL ARE THE BREWER TWINS?
: >Nancy Brown
:
: OH THANK GOD...I thought I was the ONLY person on earth that doesn't
: know!<G>
Utterly forgettable twin twinks.
"What's a 'twink'?"
:
: JC
Michael Ritchie
>I guess the problem I struggle with here the most as a gay male is that
>I also have religous beliefs. I see this slippery slope mentality most
>people have: "if it feels good and doesn't seem to hurt anyone, it must
>be OK". [...]
>So while I may agree that 2 concenting adults
>should be allowed to do whatever they like behind closed doors, that
>doesn't mean I have to condone it on a moral basis[...]
What is the basis in your particular moral system that makes
incest immoral? The very good reasons why there are taboos
against it, as I noted in previous posts, are because of the
problem of the potential of birth defects resulting from a union
of brother and sister and the potential for abuse when an adult
parent engages in a sexual relationship with a child. This
case seems to have neither problem. It seems to be two people
of the same age who passionately love each other. They will
not have children, and I assume that neither one is a "victim"
(and even so, there is potential for victimization in most intimate
relationships).
>On the other hand it
>makes one think, where do we draw the line? Only when there is a clear
>victim? How about a man and a dog? I've talked to someone who has sex
>with a dog regularly. He will tell you how the dog enjoys it as much as
>he does. Well the subjective moralists will tell you this is fine
>becuase it's not hurting anyone. That may be true but for those who
>beleive in a higher power can we really think that the supreme being
>would condone this type of behavior?
Comparing twin lovers to people who fuck animals is pretty
silly. I assume they are both thinking, feeling, communicating
human beings, not out to hurt or exploit each other (again, no more
than any two people in a relationship have the ability to
hurt and exploit each other). I have no fear condemning
bestiality, but I still don't see where the immorality lies in the
situation of gay twin lovers.
--M.
Buster Crab
ritc...@osu.edu:
>I assume they are both thinking,
>communicating, feeling human beings
>not out to hurt or exploit each other.
As if their *intentions* guarantee such a result! It's the height of
human arrogance
to believe in the sanctity of our "good
intentions" and to believe, additionally,
that we can know all the consequences of our actions for ourselves and
for others.
As if the received wisdom of eons of world history and culture has no
guiding value
whatsoever. As if the responses and reactions of other "thinking,
communicating, feeling human beings" are
without any weight or value at all.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"I should have been a pair of ragged claws scuttling across the floors
of silent seas."
--T.S. Eliot
"The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock."
See a picture of me at:
http://www.busterthecrab.com/
Yadda
David Migicovsky wrote:
> Oh just go back into the closet until you can get over yourself. If I
> understand you correctly, you think gay sex is wrong, but are gay. You think
> incest is wrong, but are turned on by it. And you think the twins have a
> problem? Who the hell are you, you anonymous conflicted fuck, to lecture
> other people on their morality?
All I can say is that it is ashame you have to resort to personal
attacks. I don't have any conflicts on a moral level. Sure my animal
urges may conflict with what I feel is right. We all have temptations
but that doesn't make it ok to give into any temptation we want. When we
are angry some of us are tempted to hit the person we're angry at. When
broke some of us may be tempted to rob a bank. We don't becuase
something tells us it is wrong, or at a minimum we fear the
consequences. I don't believe that being gay entitles me to any behavior
anymore so than if I was straight would it ok to engage in any kind of
behavior. I respect people's rights to choose to engage in any legal
behavior they want, it doesn't mean I have to condone it. It's leagl to
be a total jerk to people ( we won't name any names here ) but that
doesn't mean I have to support people behaving like jerks. People have
the right to be a jerk and I have the right to not support it.
I don't care if you agree with me but at least I respect your opinions
enough to not engage in personal attacks. So much for tolerance and
diversity..
Buster Crab
ritc...@osu.edu:
>Just tell me why it's so taboo. That's
>all I'm asking is for just one glimmer of
>reasoning here.
If you can argue that sexual relationship between twin brothers, in and
of itself, constitutes a positive human ideal, one to be emulated and
encouraged, then, no,
it should not be taboo.
But I'd like to see you try to do that.
Michael Ritchie
In article <6kfl2s$elg$1...@newsd-143.iap.bryant.webtv.net> Web...@webtv.net (Buster Crab) writes:
>ritc...@osu.edu:
>>I assume they are both thinking,
>>communicating, feeling human beings
>>not out to hurt or exploit each other.
>
>As if their *intentions* guarantee such a result! It's the height of
>human arrogance
>to believe in the sanctity of our "good
>intentions" and to believe, additionally,
>that we can know all the consequences of our actions for ourselves and
>for others.
And you could say the exact same thing about any
two people together in any intimate relationship.
>As if the received wisdom of eons of world history and culture has no
>guiding value
>whatsoever.
Just tell me why it's so taboo. That's all I'm asking is for
just one little glimmer of reasoning here.
>As if the responses and reactions of other "thinking,
>communicating, feeling human beings" are
>without any weight or value at all.
Now you're just trying to put stupid words in my
mouth. If you can't speak more clearly, perhaps you
should just shut up about this.
--M.
MLYoung
>An honest question: what does morality have to do with gay
>male twin lovers? They cannot reproduce, so the taboo
>against incest (which came about, I assume, because of the
>high probability of birth defects) would seem to mean
>little.
Umm, actually the incest taboo seems to quite a bit
more complicated. It's the one universal taboo in human
society and is thought by many anthropologists as a means
of forcing exchanges between families.
It's really not the same as homosexuality, for which different
societies have different degrees of tolerance. Incest is
always taboo--though definitions of incest differ. Have
yet to find a group that approves of mother/son or mother/
daughter incest however.
--margaret
Granted, it seems a bit strange when one first thinks
MLYoung
>What is the basis in your particular moral system that makes
>incest immoral? The very good reasons why there are taboos
>against it, as I noted in previous posts, are because of the
>problem of the potential of birth defects resulting from a union
>of brother and sister and the potential for abuse when an
Oh, by the way, that's not really correct. Or rather, yes,
it is, but the chances of defects being brought in by an
outsider to a closed social group are higher than mating
within a genetically healthy closed group.
It really a social, more than biological taboo. Animals
form incestuous pairings all the time.
--margaret
James Jorden
Buster Crab wrote:
> As if the received wisdom of eons of world history and culture has no
> guiding value whatsoever.
The "received wisdom of eons of world history" until quite recently
insisted that all mental illness was caused by demonic possession, that
Africans were subhuman and incapable of living in civilization, that
beating children regularly was the only way to assure their growing into
moral adults, and that men raped women as a matter of course. Those are
some ideas that were considered "received wisdom" only a few hundred
years ago.
Incest was practiced in many societies as late as the early Christian
era. Certain middle eastern royal families invariably paired off uncle
with niece, cousin with cousin, and even brother with sister.
Cleopatra's first husband, remember, was her brother Ptolomey. The
first evidence of disapproval of incest we can find is in the Old
Testament, which is no more than about 3500 years old. Logically, it
seems that if the ban on incest had to be codified, then incest must
have been less than rare.
I think there's a genetic/survival aspect to the incest taboo: in
general, the greater the variety of the gene pool, the more variation in
dependents, and therefore the greater chance of survival of the race.
But, keep in mind, that same "primal urge" that discourages incest also
encourages men to have as many sexual partners as possible.
--
james jorden
jjo...@ix.netcom.com
latest opera gossip from parterre box:
http://www.anaserve.com/~parterre/lacieca.htm
MLYoung
><HTML><PRE>We would like to thank David Migicovsky so much for writing his
>posts. We just
>read it and have not felt so "normal" in a long time.
Ummm, honey, I don't think "normal" is the word here--you're
not fitting the norms. I don't say that as a moral judgment,
just a fact.
We choose to disregard
>the negative posts. Our original post was real and came out of a desperate
>attempt to educate some people about the realities of identical gay twins. I
>think David really "gets" how we live our lives. In truth, my brother and I
>never intend on having sex with anyone but each other and do sleep in the
>same
>bed. Growing up we always insisted on sharing the same room and we always
>slept
>in the same bed.
In other words, neither of you has any idea how to relate
intimately to people who are not exactly like you. Am I the
only one who doesn't wonder about the emotional development,
of lack of, here? Certainly, there's no sign of being autonomous
individuals.
But then, I don't want a mate who's just like me.
Thanks to what David wrote we now realize that there are
>others out there like us. We wish we knew someone like him in real life. I
>don't think our friends would be as accepting of how we choose to live our
>lives. Our parents try to ignore what they know is going on and it is
>probably
>better that they do. We know it is incest and that it is illegal but being
>gay
>itself is still illegal in some states and we really don't give a fuck.
In other words, your "friends" don't know the most essential
facts about you. Basically, you guys are a closed system
and isolated. I'd say an inability to connect with people
who are not your genetic duplicate is a serious problem.
To David: I'd say they're hurting each other--over
enmeshment has nasty emotional effects.
--margaret
>
>Ken and Nick
>
>
>
>Subject: Re: Brewer Twins and sex for David
>Path:
>lobby03.news.aol.com!newstf02.news.aol.com!audrey01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
>From: kenic...@aol.com (KeNick1976)
>Newsgroups: alt.showbiz.gossip
>Lines: 16
>Message-ID: <199805240912...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder01.news.aol.com
>X-Admin: ne...@aol.com
>Date: 24 May 1998 09:12:40 GMT
>Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
>References: <199805231847...@ladder03.news.aol.com>
>
></PRE></HTML>
MLYoung
>> As if the received wisdom of eons of world history and culture has no
>> guiding value whatsoever.
>
>The "received wisdom of eons of world history" until quite recently
>insisted that all mental illness was caused by demonic possession, that
>Africans were subhuman and incapable of living in civilization, that
>beating children regularly was the only way to assure their growing into
>moral adults, and that men raped women as a matter of course. Those are
>some ideas that were considered "received wisdom" only a few hundred
>years ago.
>
>Incest was practiced in many societies as late as the early Christian
>era.
Sorry, James. You're wrong. Varioius cultures have
allowed marriage between people that would be
considered incestuous by our cultural definitions, but
not by theirs. All cultures have some form of the
incest taboo.
Certain middle eastern royal families invariably paired off uncle
>with niece, cousin with cousin, and even brother with sister.
>Cleopatra's first husband, remember, was her brother Ptolomey.
In Ancient Egypt, Ancient Hawaii and the Incas, brother/sister
pairings were permitted among the highest ranks--sort of
a way of proclaiming their divinity. Different degrees of
cosanguinity were allowed at different ranks.
As for cousin marriages--some types are usually considered
incestuous, others not. Usually, it had to do with making sure
one married outside one's clan. Mating with a cousin in
one's clan would be insist and forbidden, while marriage to
a first cousin outside the clan is often the most desirable
marriage.
The
>first evidence of disapproval of incest we can find is in the Old
>Testament, which is no more than about 3500 years old.
Ummm, no.
Logically, it
>seems that if the ban on incest had to be codified, then incest must
>have been less than rare.
>
>I think there's a genetic/survival aspect to the incest taboo: in
>general, the greater the variety of the gene pool, the more variation in
>dependents, and therefore the greater chance of survival of the race.
Nope. Incest taboos don't follow that pattern. They do follow
a pattern that helps ensure alliances and a social structure than
extends beyond the family.
As for laws regarding it, well, you need a fairly complex
society for codification of social laws. You have incest
taboos in very simple nonliterate cultures. As I said, it's
universal.
Incest is not biologically repugnant to us. It is socially.
To take a look at the twins--they're a closed system; it's
basically a world of two. They have no intimates, confidantes,
besides themselves. They don't connect, or form alliances
with anyone else. On a large scale, human society would
break down if we all just mated among our siblings, were
concerned only about the well-being of our family.
While the twins may not actively harming anyone else;
it's doubtful that their lives benefit anyone else's. It's
amusing to me that they want to think of themselves
as "normal" because it's only as a deviation from the
norm that what their behavior is pretty harmless.
>But, keep in mind, that same "primal urge" that discourages incest also
>encourages men to have as many sexual partners as possible.
Nope. As any Freudian would tell you, there's a primal
urge toward incest. <g>
--margaret
>
>--
>james jorden
>jjo...@ix.netcom.com
>latest opera gossip from parterre box:
> http://www.anaserve.com/~parterre/lacieca.htm
>
>
>Subject: Re: Brewer Twins and sex
>Path:
>lobby01.news.aol.com!newstf02.news.aol.com!portc01.blue.aol.com!ais.net!i
x.netcom.com!news
>From: James Jorden <jjo...@ix.netcom.com>
>Newsgroups: alt.showbiz.gossip
>Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 12:41:22 -0400
>Organization: parterre box
>Lines: 33
>Message-ID: <356C42...@ix.netcom.com>
>References: <ritchie.1.3...@osu.edu>
><6kfl2s$elg$1...@newsd-143.iap.bryant.webtv.net>
>Reply-To: jjo...@ix.netcom.com
>NNTP-Posting-Host: nyc-ny73-17.ix.netcom.com
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>X-NETCOM-Date: Tue May 26 11:41:35 PM CDT 1998
>X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NC320 (Win95; I)
>
></PRE></HTML>
David Migicovsky
MLYoung wrote in message
<199805270802...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
>
>To David: I'd say they're hurting each other--over
>enmeshment has nasty emotional effects.
>
Well perhaps they are -- although I doubt they could harm each other as much
as most couples manage to over the course of a relationship.
I have to say, of the people who have spoken against the relationship, you
are the only one who seems to have put some thought into what you're saying.
You haven't convinced me by any means, and you certainly won't convince them
(people in love, even those in horribly, obviously destructive
relationships, do not listen to advice of this nature), but at least your
arguments can't be dismissed out of hand.
James Jorden
MLYoung wrote:
> >Incest was practiced in many societies as late as the early Christian
> >era.
>
> Sorry, James. You're wrong. Varioius cultures have
> allowed marriage between people that would be
> considered incestuous by our cultural definitions, but
> not by theirs. All cultures have some form of the
> incest taboo.
Yes, you are right. There is a taboo in most societies against incest,
but that still does not mean that it is unknown. As for judging whether
an incestuous relationship can be happy and successful (by whatever
criteria) we have almost no data, because we define all these
relationships as abusive and abnormal. Therefore, in a sense, the
experimental sample is tainted before we can examine it. Around 1900 it
was difficult for pyschiatrists and sociologists to believe that it was
possible to find a happy, well-adjusted homosexual -- because the
overwhelming weight of medical science at that time defined
homosexuality as severe mental illness. What chance did a happy,
well-adjusted homosexual have to develop in such an atmosphere? Now,
when we live in a society that is somewhat more accepting of that sexual
orientation, we see that gay people can and do lead perfectly "normal"
lives, whether in or out of the closet.
My biggest objection to Buster Crab's posting was his insistence that he
could both perceive and understand "the received wisdom of eons," which
of course in many cases is based on superstition and misinformation.
The points you make, about isolation from society and so forth, strike
me as more immediately pressing concerns, not least because they are
concerns these guys can act on. Frankly, there's nothing anyone can do
about "received wisdom," except, of course, to try to understand that in
many cases, that "wisdom" is just an unconcious echo of our own
prejudices.
If these guys are writing to a newsgroup about their relationship and
otherwise have told no one, they do seem to need to talk to someone, if
only about their relationship to society. Feeling the need to keep so
important a secret can be very stressful, both personally and on a
relationship.
David Migicovsky
Buster Crab wrote in message
<6kg2b3$h3p$1...@newsd-142.iap.bryant.webtv.net>...
ritc...@osu.edu:
>>Just tell me why it's so taboo. That's
>>all I'm asking is for just one glimmer of
>>reasoning here.
>
>If you can argue that sexual relationship between twin brothers, in and
>of itself, constitutes a positive human ideal, one to be emulated and
>encouraged, then, no,
>it should not be taboo.
>
>But I'd like to see you try to do that.
I'd like to see anyone do that about most forms of human behaviour that are
not taboo.
Do I consider heterosexual marriage a positive human ideal, one to be
emulated and encouraged? Absolutely not. It is an incredibly flawed
institution. Do I condemn it for those people who find value in it? Of
course not.
Jack...@fauxaol.com
On Wed, 27 May 1998 19:58:54 -0400, James Jorden <jjo...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Yes, you are right. There is a taboo in most societies against incest,
The question is, could a budding society survive that did not have taboos
against incest?
Probably not. Any primitive society that allowed widespread incest would likely
have disappeared very quickly.
JP
KeNick1976
We are sick of watching the posts by Maragret. Just because we don't have sex
with other people you seem to think we don't have friends besides each other.
Well, you are wrong. We both have a lot of friends and have made friends on our
own. Yes, we do share those friendships with each other after we make them but
why should that be wrong? We confide in these friends about problems or issues
in our lives. Our sex life isn't a problem.
Why do you feel we have to tell people that we have sex with each other? Why do
you see it as the most important aspect of our lives? Anyone who knows us can
see that we are close but they probably don't assume that we have sex with each
other. We just moved into our first apartment a few days ago. The apartment is
a one bedroom with a queen size bed in the bedroom. We have had friends and
family over since moving in and they all saw that there is one bed. We aren't
hiding anything or even ashamed, we just don't choose to tell anyone that we
have sex together. If they figure it out, fine. If they ask us, we will say it
is none of their business because it isn't.
Besides listening to people like Margaret, we have also recieved offers from
talk show producers to be on talk shows and people begging for pictures of us.
That is not what we are about so please stop. Yes, I know we started the whole
thing but enough is enough.
David Migicovsky
KeNick1976 wrote in message
<199805271606...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
>we have also recieved offers from
>talk show producers to be on talk shows and people begging for pictures of
us.
That has nothing to do with the special aspects of your relationship though.
They're just amazed that anyone in ASG is getting laid regularly. <g>
cjkr...@earthlink.net
I'm always taken aback when I hear anyone speak of traditions that exist
in "all cultures."
First, we know very little about most cultures. Second, while some
traditions, ritualized heterosexuality for example, are found in many
cultures, there are so many variations between and within cultures that
to draw universal truths from these traditions creates a kind of
ethnocentric/heterocentric caricature. Third, the statement in this
post that brother/sister pairings were permitted in ancient Egypt among
"the highest ranks" (that is, only among the highest ranks) is not
demonstrably true. We know much less about most ancient Egyptians than
we do about the Pharaonic class and, while this point is still debated,
there is possible evidence that marriage between siblings occurred, and
were approved of, in all social classes. Fourth, the argument that some
sexual relations that Westerners consider incestuous are not defined as
such in societies where they are condoned follows a circular logic. Of
course, where certain acts or relationships are not taboo, they are not
called by names that invoke that taboo. The poster seems to be digging
for a universal, inborn moral standard, arguing that since incest taboos
of some kind supposedly exist everywhere than they must reflect a basic
truth. But they don't exist everywhere in the same ways, they don't
necessarily exist everywhere in any way, and if they did, they could
still be wrong everywhere.
MLYoung wrote:
>
> Sorry, James. You're wrong. Varioius cultures have
> allowed marriage between people that would be
> considered incestuous by our cultural definitions, but
> not by theirs. All cultures have some form of the
> incest taboo.
>
> >--
> >james jorden
> >jjo...@ix.netcom.com
> >latest opera gossip from parterre box:
> > http://www.anaserve.com/~parterre/lacieca.htm
> >
> >
Buster Crab
james jorden:
>Frankly, there's nothing anyone can
>do about "received wisdom" except, of
>course, to try to understand that in many
>cases that "wisdom" is just an
>unconscious echo of our own prejudices.
Please! And your personal perceptions
of the situation under discussion here could be "just an unconscious
echo" of your *own* prejudice.
Individual perception is so limited, so prone to the projection of
personal fantasy, so unreliable a guide to a broader reality that to
dismiss historical
norms and precedents is hubristic, to say the least. Would you use
only your
immediate perceptions and emotional responses to evaluate and critique
operatic works and performances? Or does your broad general knowledge
of the subject, derived from history and *other people's* experiences
and wisdom, play a role, too?
>Heterosexual marriage....is an incredibly
>flawed institution. Do I condemn it for
>those people who find value in it? Of
>course not.
I think it's comical to argue, as David does, that anything people find
value in
should not be condemned even if one regards that concern or goal as
flawed.
Using *that* logic, is there *any* way of
establishing a non-solipsistic view of human conduct?
I think Margaret is on the right track when
she cites the destructive effects of "enmeshment." This might be an
example of a norm that is built into human experience itself and which
is reflected in the establishment of "alliances and a social structure
beyond the family."
Frankly, I wouldn't trust the statements of our passionate twins
regarding the nature of their own happiness or contentment with their
choice (assuming it is not a troll post to begin with....)...it's like
the Hollywood couples whose press releases on how satisfying their
marriage is, is
a prelude to filing for divorce. I would rather stake my judgment on a
mixture of my own understanding of life and the "received wisdom" of
human society and
culture. From that mix can come something like the balanced view
exemplified by Margaret's posts.
------------------
Notice I worked in "Hollywood" in order to qualify the topic as "showbiz
gossip."
Jack...@fauxaol.com
On Wed, 27 May 1998 09:07:36 -0700, cjkr...@earthlink.net wrote:
>I'm always taken aback when I hear anyone speak of traditions that exist
>in "all cultures."
>First, we know very little about most cultures. Second, while some
>traditions, ritualized heterosexuality for example, are found in many
>cultures, there are so many variations between and within cultures that
>to draw universal truths from these traditions creates a kind of
>ethnocentric/heterocentric caricature. Third, the statement in this
>post that brother/sister pairings were permitted in ancient Egypt among
>"the highest ranks" (that is, only among the highest ranks) is not
>demonstrably true. We know much less about most ancient Egyptians than
>we do about the Pharaonic class and, while this point is still debated,
>there is possible evidence that marriage between siblings occurred, and
>were approved of, in all social classes. Fourth, the argument that some
>sexual relations that Westerners consider incestuous are not defined as
>such in societies where they are condoned follows a circular logic. Of
>course, where certain acts or relationships are not taboo, they are not
>called by names that invoke that taboo. The poster seems to be digging
>for a universal, inborn moral standard, arguing that since incest taboos
>of some kind supposedly exist everywhere than they must reflect a basic
>truth. But they don't exist everywhere in the same ways, they don't
>necessarily exist everywhere in any way, and if they did, they could
>still be wrong everywhere.
Of course incest was "wrong," as was homosexuality in ALL early cultures.
Only a well established culture could allow itself the luxury of these sorts of
relationships. The trick to developing a strong culture in the first place is to
have the strongest males breeding the strongest females and makin' lots of
strong little babies.
Why do you think they did all that furious dancin'? Helps weed out the wimps.
JP....who used to be able to dance all night long, both vertical and horizontal.
David Migicovsky
Buster Crab wrote in message
I think it's comical to argue, as David does, that anything people find
value in
should not be condemned even if one regards that concern or goal as
flawed.
Excuse me? Would you care to quote me saying that or something similar? I
didn't think so.
Below is the statement you misinterpreted. I am merely saying that that the
fact that it does not constitute a universal positive human ideal is not
sufficient grounds to make it taboo. Demonstrate how it is actively harmful
to others, and I will reconsider it.
In other words, I condemn rape, I condemn child abuse, I condemn bestiality,
I condemn necrophilia. I condemn any form of sexual activity in which clear,
competent consent is not possible.
If it is this consent is possible and present, I will not condemn the
relationship, no matter how personally distasteful I may find it. As it
happens, I don't find what they're doing distasteful at all. I would find a
scat scene extremely distasteful though, and hope I never see one. Even the
delicate description that occasionally pop up here are hard for me to
handle. That doesn't mean I condemn it.
>If you can argue that sexual relationship between twin brothers, in and
>of itself, constitutes a positive human ideal, one to be emulated and
>encouraged, then, no,
>it should not be taboo.
>
>But I'd like to see you try to do that.
I'd like to see anyone do that about most forms of human behaviour that are
not taboo.
Do I consider heterosexual marriage a positive human ideal, one to be
emulated and encouraged? Absolutely not. It is an incredibly flawed
institution. Do I condemn it for those people who find value in it? Of
course not
Jack...@fauxaol.com
On Wed, 27 May 1998 17:14:09 GMT, "David Migicovsky" <dmig...@see.sig> wrote:
>Do I consider heterosexual marriage a positive human ideal, one to be
>emulated and encouraged? Absolutely not. It is an incredibly flawed
>institution. Do I condemn it for those people who find value in it? Of
>course not
However heterosexual marriage has been proven to be necessary to the formation
of a strong society by virtue of the fact that it is the foundation of every one
of them. Homosexual men and women did not have the societal approval or the
technology to make and raise babies until fairly recently. It will be
interesting to see what effect the turkey baster phenomena will have on our
society in the future.
JP
David Migicovsky
Alexandra wrote in message <35714ecb...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
>
>Didn't quite go the way you thought eh?
>
>Kisses,
>Alexandra
>http://www.mindspring.com/~netck/index.htm
Things often don't, do they?
David Migicovsky
Jack...@fauxaol.com wrote in message <35734c3f...@news.direct.ca>...
Yes, I could have used another example of course. I don't consider, for
example, relationships where one partner is much older than the other to be
a positive human ideal. There's just a *huge* world of difference to me
between what one must laud and what one must condemn.
Diana
On 27 May 1998 16:06:48 GMT, kenic...@aol.com (KeNick1976) wrote:
< display of histrionics snipped with much delight>
>
>Why do you feel we have to tell people that we have sex with each other? Why do
>you see it as the most important aspect of our lives?
Well twinnies.. you bring your sideshow circus to ASG in hopes to gain
whatever and now you are whining like a goat now that you have a
response.
Get over yourself(ves).
Diana
Note to self: Buy more brimstone
Jack...@fauxaol.com
On Wed, 27 May 1998 18:37:18 GMT, Diana <di...@execulink.com> wrote:
>On 27 May 1998 16:06:48 GMT, kenic...@aol.com (KeNick1976) wrote:
>
>< display of histrionics snipped with much delight>
>>
>>Why do you feel we have to tell people that we have sex with each other? Why do
>>you see it as the most important aspect of our lives?
>
>Well twinnies.. you bring your sideshow circus to ASG in hopes to gain
>whatever and now you are whining like a goat now that you have a
>response.
Whining like a goat?<g> Just what kind of goats do you have where you live
Diana?
JP....who as a young lad remembers a few goats bleating in surprise but they
never whined.
MLYoung
>> Sorry, James. You're wrong. Varioius cultures have
>> allowed marriage between people that would be
>> considered incestuous by our cultural definitions, but
>> not by theirs. All cultures have some form of the
>> incest taboo.
>
>an incestuous relationship can be happy and successful (by whatever
>criteria) we have almost no data, because we define all these
>relationships as abusive and abnormal. Therefore, in a sense, the
Well, this I think is a key distinction between homosexual
and incestuous relationships. A homosexual relationship
is a homosexual relationship whether or not its condemned
in a certain society. What constitutes incest varies from society
to society. An incestuous relationship is against social strictures
by definition. If the relationship is allowed in a society, it's
not incest.
>My biggest objection to Buster Crab's posting was his insistence that he
>could both perceive and understand "the received wisdom of eons," which
>of course in many cases is based on superstition and misinformation.
>The points you make, about isolation from society and so forth, strike
>me as more immediately pressing concerns, not least because
Well, incest is not a subject most people discuss readily--
after all, we're trained from very early that it's WRONG,
more than that--unthinkable. It's ingrained so early,
most of us don't know why we think it's wrong.
they are
>concerns these guys can act on. Frankly, there's nothing anyone can do
>about "received wisdom," except, of course, to try to understand that in
>many cases, that "wisdom" is just an unconcious echo of our own
>prejudices.
>
>If these guys are writing to a newsgroup about their relationship and
>otherwise have told no one, they do seem to need to talk to someone, if
>only about their relationship to society. Feeling the need to keep so
>important a secret can be very stressful, both personally and on a
>relationship.
Well, I think they should see a therapist--not because they're
crazy, but because they probably do need to talk to someone
who's not judgmental. If nothing else, on some level, they
think what they're doing is wrong and they need to come
to terms with it.
--margaret
>
>--
>james jorden
>jjo...@ix.netcom.com
>latest opera gossip from parterre box:
> http://www.anaserve.com/~parterre/lacieca.htm
>
>
>Subject: Re: Brewer Twins and sex
>Path:
>lobby01.news.aol.com!newstf02.news.aol.com!portc01.blue.aol.com!news-peer
.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!ix.netcom.com!news
>From: James Jorden <jjo...@ix.netcom.com>
Jack...@fauxaol.com
On 27 May 1998 20:20:48 GMT, mly...@aol.com (MLYoung) wrote:
>No. Sometimes, homosexuality is wrong, sometimes it's
>considered allowable--often as a youthful bond
Obviously a bad choice of words on my part. It was wrong because it did not
create babies, thus did not making the society larger, therefore stronger. I was
not making a statement about morality.
Although in a sense, behavior that does not help a particular society is
sometimes considered immoral for just that reason. Treason comes to mind.<g>
JP....damn silly thread for this newsgroup anyway but I don't have any 'early
man' gossip to dish.
MLYoung
><HTML><PRE>We are sick of watching the posts by Maragret. Just because we
>don't have sex
>with other people you seem to think we don't have friends besides each other.
>Well, you are wrong. We both have a lot of friends
You chose to open your lives to comment. I've not
vilified or attacked you. My honest opinion is that
I think there are problems with your type of relationship.
You have said you've told no one else about your
eternal sexual bond with one another. It's the key
fact about both of you, but no one knows about it?
My friends know my basic relationship stats. They'd
know very little about me if they didn't.
and have made friends on
>our
>own. Yes, we do share those friendships with each other after we make them
>but
>why should that be wrong? We confide in these friends about problems or
>issues
>in our lives. Our sex life isn't a problem.
Which must be why you decided to post about it and are
extremely defensive about it--so much so that you don't
want me to post.
>
>Why do you feel we have to tell people that we have sex with each other? Why
Why do you feel you can't?
>do
>you see it as the most important aspect of our lives? Anyone who
Because you do. Neither of you ever plans to ever have
a sexual relationship, or even intimate relationship, with
someone who isn't you.
knows us can
>see that we are close but they probably don't assume that we have sex with
>each
>other. We just moved into our first apartment a few days ago. The apartment
>is
>a one bedroom with a queen size bed in the bedroom. We have had friends and
>family over since moving in and they all saw that there is one bed. We aren't
>hiding anything or even ashamed, we just don't choose to tell anyone that we
>have sex together. If they figure it out, fine. If they ask us, we will say
>it
>is none of their business because it isn't.
Methinks thee doth protest too much. If you don't have
a problem with it, then you should be able to laugh off
my comments.
>
>Besides listening to people like Margaret, we have also recieved offers from
>talk show producers to be on talk shows and people begging for pictures of
>us.
>That is not what we are about so please stop. Yes, I know we started the
>whole
>thing but enough is enough.
Sorry, the rest of the world is not yours to command. If
you feel your relationship is valid, my comments shouldn't
be a problem.
--margaret
>
>
>Subject: Re: Brewer Twins and sex
>Path:
>lobby03.news.aol.com!newstf02.news.aol.com!audrey03.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
>From: kenic...@aol.com (KeNick1976)
>Newsgroups: alt.showbiz.gossip
>Lines: 21
>Message-ID: <199805271606...@ladder03.news.aol.com>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder03.news.aol.com
>X-Admin: ne...@aol.com
>Date: 27 May 1998 16:06:48 GMT
>Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
>References: <356CA8...@ix.netcom.com>
>
></PRE></HTML>
Jack...@fauxaol.com
On 27 May 1998 20:30:02 GMT, mly...@aol.com (MLYoung) wrote:
> Our society
>is large enough and strong enough that the twins aren't
>going to do much to it, but, nonetheless, largescale
>incest would be a problem.
That may be true, but there is absolutely no proof of that.
And I might add the same thing has been said for decades about homosexual
behavior.
JP.....and in my opinion, with the exception of David,<g> I general find gays
to more intelligent, thoughtful, understanding, and all round nicer people then
the heterosexual folks who brought them into this world.
I'm going to get bitch slapped for this I'm sure, but I can't imagine any of my
gay friends going to war.
Then again, there is this one lesbian woman we know........We call her Rambo,
but not to her face.
Jack...@fauxaol.com
On Wed, 27 May 1998 20:55:52 GMT, net...@ix.netcom.com (Alexandra) wrote:
>On Wed, 27 May 1998 17:38:58 GMT, Jack...@fauxaol.com wrote:
>>
>>However heterosexual marriage has been proven to be necessary to the formation
>>of a strong society by virtue of the fact that it is the foundation of every one
>>of them. Homosexual men and women did not have the societal approval or the
>>technology to make and raise babies until fairly recently. It will be
>>interesting to see what effect the turkey baster phenomena will have on our
>>society in the future.
>>
>They may not have had societal approval, but gay men and lesbian women
>have been having babies for a very, very, ~very~ long time. For
>lesbians, the "turkey baster" (metaphorically speaking) just makes it
>more honest in today's society. People aren't gonna stop having
>babies, nor does being gay or lesbian automatically take them out of
>the picture. Far from it....
But in very small numbers Alex. I think that is about to change. I expect to see
gay couples openly having and raising children in greater and greater numbers.
It remains to be seen what effect, if any, these pioneers and their children
will have on our culture.
JP
Jack...@fauxaol.com
On Wed, 27 May 1998 10:37:24 -1000, OahuSteve <stev...@panworld.net> wrote:
>Hey, as long as you don't hurt anyone, who cares. So who's the bottom
>and who's the top?
Among early man the guy with the biggest club was always the top. The guy who
was unconscious was always the bottom. It was easier that way.
JP.....It true, I read it in an abstract, or maybe a newsgroup, I can't
remember.<g>
Mr. Anon
Gezz when did this threat take off, I must have a slow news server. I
thought it was dying down to just david and I going at it. Anyway this
message isn't directed at david, I was more interested in commenting
about Ken and Nick. Let's totally forget they fact they were twins..
even if they were adopted from separate famlies .. I have a hard time
beleieving they have a totally functional relationship considering
they've never known anything else. Most people I've ever met in
successful relationships start dating in their teens and date many
different people before finally finding the right person. Most people
make mistakes in different relationships and learn and mature from those
mistakes. They also learn what kind of person they're looking for. Now
Ken and Nick (if they're for real, I'm sure they are, becuase I've known
someone else who knew gay twin lovers) have only ever bonded on a
romantic emotional level with each other. They may say they're happy and
not codependent, but if that was true how come they haven't ever tried
dating anyone else? On one hand they say tinws have this special bond,
which is totally ture, yet they're not codependent. I know other twins
who are not lovers but even they are still a little codependent,
although now that they're getting older they're finally starting to
branch apart, but not much. But at least they're out dating other
people. Just because they have a special bond doesn't mean they have to
be lifelong companions. It just seems like if these 2 guys are really
well adjusted they would try dating others before deciding to stay with
each other. Then they'd have something to compare to. But then again
that twin bond i'm sure is very comfortable and safe.. it's easier to
stick with someone/something you've always known your whole life than
venture out and date other people. Sure I know they talk about all the
friends they have... I'm kind of curious if they have separate friends
or not as well. I wonder if these 2 guys were separated at birth what
their lives would be like today.. I'm sure they'd have great
relationships with other people. It would be easier to believe they're
not codependent if I heard they'd been living apart for extended amounts
of time and dated many other guys then finally decided they wanted to be
with each other.. I'm not saying they can't have a happy life together
but it's hard to believe they have a totaly balanced and well adjusted
relationship. I wonder if one of them was killed if the other would be
able to date someday. I also think it says something about the parents
too if they condone this kind of relationship. The parents of the twins
I know would be embarrased and outraged if their twins got a place
together with one bed.. but I guess they're just old religous
fuddy-duddies not living in this so called enlightened age..
David Migicovsky
Jack...@fauxaol.com wrote in message <357e81aa...@news.direct.ca>...
>>>
>>They may not have had societal approval, but gay men and lesbian women
>>have been having babies for a very, very, ~very~ long time. For
>>lesbians, the "turkey baster" (metaphorically speaking) just makes it
>>more honest in today's society. People aren't gonna stop having
>>babies, nor does being gay or lesbian automatically take them out of
>>the picture. Far from it....
>
>But in very small numbers Alex. I think that is about to change. I expect
to see
>gay couples openly having and raising children in greater and greater
numbers.
>It remains to be seen what effect, if any, these pioneers and their
children
>will have on our culture.
>
I think what she may be getting at is the past tendency for gay men and
lesbians to marry heterosexually. As for the future, I imagine motherhood
will likely become the norm for lesbians. I'm not so sure about gay men.
Historically, men have been fairly good at fathering children, not so good
at sticking around to raise them.
Among the gay men I know I can see an awful lot who wouldn't reject a lover
who already has kids, but not so many who really want to have them. It's
like that old saying your mother probably used: "Jack, I wouldn't sell you
for a million dollars. But I wouldn't give a dime for a dozen more just like
you."
Jack...@fauxaol.com
On Wed, 27 May 1998 21:51:30 GMT, "David Migicovsky" <dmig...@see.sig> wrote:
> think what she may be getting at is the past tendency for gay men and
>lesbians to marry heterosexually.
IMO those really don't count. It's the effect on our society of openly gay
couples in large numbers bringing up kids in all our neighborhoods and all our
social levels that I'm interested in. Not just a couple of single celebs who are
still hiding in the closet with their kids.
IMO any couples who brought up children telling them "daddy or mommy is gay but
we can't tell the neighbors" did more damage then good.
BP
ultim...@hotmail.com
In article <356762...@XNICO.com>,
XN...@XNICO.com wrote:
> Ignore that bitter old woman. Never mind therapy, have you boys got an
> agent? <g>
...*two* agents---the Christy Twins :-) ...
King Daevid MacKenzie, UltimaJock! ultim...@unforgettable.com
"Masticate me!" TOM LEYKIS
("|`-''-/").___..--''"`-._
`6_ 6 ) `-. ( ).`-.__.`)
(_Y_.)' ._ ) `._ `. ``-..-'
_..`--'_..-_/ /--'_.' ,'
(il),-'' (li),' ((!.-'
King Daevid's BI EVERY MEANS NECESSARY commentaries are at
http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/7853/bieverymeans.html
(soon to be heard on WNDZ-AM 750 and WSBC-AM 1240 Chicago!)
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
illuvia1ye...@my-dejanews.com
In article
<199805270142...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
mly...@aol.com (MLYoung) wrote:
>
> >An honest question: what does morality have to
do with gay
> >male twin lovers? They cannot reproduce, so the
taboo
> >against incest (which came about, I assume,
because of the
> >high probability of birth defects) would seem to
mean
> >little.
>
> Umm, actually the incest taboo seems to quite a
bit
> more complicated. It's the one universal taboo
in human
No, there ARE other universal tabus -- parricide, for example.
> society and is thought by many anthropologists as a means
> of forcing exchanges between families.
And incest was a means for elite families to
protect their wealth and their purported divine gifts.
> It's really not the same as homosexuality, for
which different
> societies have different degrees of tolerance.
Incest is
> always taboo--though definitions of incest
differ. Have
Lol! Incest, dear, is *always* tabu in the sense
that crime is *always* criminal.
Incest, by definition, *is* a sexual union that IS
forbidden.
However, if you're talking about *cosanguineous
unions*, which you're apparently striving to do,
you are QUITE wrong, societies DO have different
degrees of tolerance for them.
In order to have a proper argument, dear, you must know BASIC terms.
Have you *any* idea how humorous a person who plaintively insists that
"incest is always taboo" looks?
To an educated person, it's
like someone proclaming "sin is always sinful."
>
> --margaret
>
> Granted, it seems a bit strange when one first
thinks
illuvia1ye...@my-dejanews.com
In article <199805270146...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
mly...@aol.com (MLYoung) wrote:
>
> >What is the basis in your particular moral system that makes
> >incest immoral? The very good reasons why there are taboos
> >against it, as I noted in previous posts, are because of the
> >problem of the potential of birth defects resulting from a union
> >of brother and sister and the potential for abuse when an
>
> Oh, by the way, that's not really correct. Or rather, yes,
> it is, but the chances of defects being brought in by an
> outsider to a closed social group are higher than mating
> within a genetically healthy closed group.
Not when that closed group is a nuclear family which is clearly what the
poster was referring to.
>
> It really a social, more than biological taboo.
Dear, by definition, ALL tabus are social.
>
> --margaret
illuvia1ye...@my-dejanews.com
In article <199805270802...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
mly...@aol.com (MLYoung) wrote:
>
> ><HTML><PRE>We would like to thank David Migicovsky so much for writing his
> >posts. We just
> >read it and have not felt so "normal" in a long time.
>
> Ummm, honey, I don't think "normal" is the word here--you're
> not fitting the norms. I don't say that as a moral judgment,
> just a fact.
Au contraire. The poster is fitting the "norm" of a UseNet troll to a T.
And you, dear, are fitting the norm of the UseNet dunce to a T by taking
their fantasy/jest seriously.
>
> We choose to disregard
> >the negative posts. Our original post was real and came out of a desperate
> >attempt to educate some people about the realities of identical gay twins. I
> >think David really "gets" how we live our lives. In truth, my brother and I
> >never intend on having sex with anyone but each other and do sleep in the
> >same
> >bed. Growing up we always insisted on sharing the same room and we always
> >slept
> >in the same bed.
>
> In other words, neither of you has any idea how to relate
> intimately to people who are not exactly like you. Am I the
> only one who doesn't wonder about the emotional development,
> of lack of, here? Certainly, there's no sign of being autonomous
> individuals.
>
> But then, I don't want a mate who's just like me.
>
> Thanks to what David wrote we now realize that there are
> >others out there like us. We wish we knew someone like him in real life. I
> >don't think our friends would be as accepting of how we choose to live our
> >lives. Our parents try to ignore what they know is going on and it is
> >probably
> >better that they do. We know it is incest and that it is illegal but being
> >gay
> >itself is still illegal in some states and we really don't give a fuck.
>
> In other words, your "friends" don't know the most essential
> facts about you. Basically, you guys are a closed system
> and isolated. I'd say an inability to connect with people
> who are not your genetic duplicate is a serious problem.
>
> To David: I'd say they're hurting each other--over
> enmeshment has nasty emotional effects.
>
> --margaret
>
> >
> >Ken and Nick
> >
> >
> >
> >Subject: Re: Brewer Twins and sex for David
> >Path:
> >lobby03.news.aol.com!newstf02.news.aol.com!audrey01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
> >From: kenic...@aol.com (KeNick1976)
> >Newsgroups: alt.showbiz.gossip
> >Lines: 16
> >Message-ID: <199805240912...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
> >NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder01.news.aol.com
> >X-Admin: ne...@aol.com
> >Date: 24 May 1998 09:12:40 GMT
> >Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
> >References: <199805231847...@ladder03.news.aol.com>
> >
> ></PRE></HTML>
illuvia1ye...@my-dejanews.com
In article <356C42...@ix.netcom.com>,
jjo...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> Buster Crab wrote:
>
> > As if the received wisdom of eons of world history and culture has no
> > guiding value whatsoever.
>
> The "received wisdom of eons of world history" until quite recently
> insisted that all mental illness was caused by demonic possession, that
> Africans were subhuman and incapable of living in civilization, that
> beating children regularly was the only way to assure their growing into
> moral adults, and that men raped women as a matter of course. Those are
> some ideas that were considered "received wisdom" only a few hundred
> years ago.
Amen.
>
> Incest was practiced in many societies as late as the early Christian
> era. Certain middle eastern royal families invariably paired off uncle
> with niece, cousin with cousin, and even brother with sister.
> Cleopatra's first husband, remember, was her brother Ptolomey. The
> first evidence of disapproval of incest we can find is in the Old
> Testament, which is no more than about 3500 years old. Logically, it
*Logically*, there's a necessity for cosanguineous unions resulting from Adam
and Eve. Where do you think Cain found his wife? (wink)
> seems that if the ban on incest had to be codified, then incest must
> have been less than rare.
It still is. Whether forced or consensual, incest remains "less than rare."
>
> I think there's a genetic/survival aspect to the incest taboo: in
> general, the greater the variety of the gene pool, the more variation in
> dependents, and therefore the greater chance of survival of the race.
> But, keep in mind, that same "primal urge" that discourages incest also
> encourages men to have as many sexual partners as possible.
>
> --
> james jorden
> jjo...@ix.netcom.com
> latest opera gossip from parterre box:
> http://www.anaserve.com/~parterre/lacieca.htm
>
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
Jack...@fauxaol.com
On Wed, 27 May 1998 23:54:02 GMT, net...@ix.netcom.com (Alexandra) wrote:
>And thank you David for assuming my point. Soon, I won't even have to
>post!
Considering that you keep missing my point that might be a blessing.
But in a pinch you always have "The List" to go home to.<g>
JP
MLYoung
>>going to do much to it, but, nonetheless, largescale
>>incest would be a problem.
>
>That may be true, but there is absolutely no proof of that.
>And I might add the same thing has been said for decades about homosexual
>behavior.
For quite different reasons.
--margaret (uncertain why there's such an eagerness to
draw parallels between incest and homosexuality)
>
>
Jack...@fauxaol.com
On Thu, 28 May 1998 01:05:08 GMT, net...@ix.netcom.com (Alexandra) wrote:
>I love you too sweetie. And no, I don't keep missing your point Jack.
>But if you ~want~ to be provincial, I'm not gonna stop you....:)
>I know what point you want to get across. I'm just saying there are
>many parts to that point and you're just responding to the obvious....
I am provincial dear, I even live in a province. I don't even know what my point
was any longer. But Alex you live in the most enlightened gay community in North
America, I spent most of my formative years in a country where admitting you
were gay could cost you your life. We do view things differently, but I think we
both want the same thing.
I would like to see the community I live accept that a certain percentage of the
population is gay, always was gay, and always will be gay. I want to live in a
community where people expect and accept that a percentage of their neighbors,
their teachers, their policemen are gay. Gays should not have to run away to San
Francisco or any other place to feel good about themselves. They should be able
to live their lives openly, without prejudice in any community in this country.
I know I won't live to see it. Just the other day my good friend made the
mistake of kissing his SO goodbye in the driveway of his house. During the night
someone wrote "Faggots" with playground chalk on the sidewalk in front of their
home.
JP
Jack...@fauxaol.com
On 28 May 1998 01:12:51 GMT, mly...@aol.com (MLYoung) wrote:
>--margaret (uncertain why there's such an eagerness to
>draw parallels between incest and homosexuality)
Thread about same sex twins having sex might have something to do with it.
JP
jjo...@my-dejanews.com
mly...@aol.com (MLYoung) wrote:
>
> --margaret (uncertain why there's such an eagerness to
> draw parallels between incest and homosexuality)
It's just reasoning by analogy. One might use miscegenation, interfaith
marriage or living together out of wedlock just as easily as examples, if
those are situations one knows and understands. These are all types of
relationships that in the recent past were overwhelmingly discouraged by
social pressure and in fact (perhaps as a result of that pressure) were only
infrequently successful and healthy. More recently, the near-universal
disapproval of gay relationships, interracial relationships, etc. has
abated somewhat; we now observe more successful examples of these types of
alliances. The reasoning, by extension, is that the "unhealthiness" and
"instability" of incestuous relationships may be at least in part functions of
societal condemnation.
When I was a little gay kid (Aw, Mom, Uncle James is telling one of his
stories again!) I really had no idea that there was such a thing as a gay
relationship. "Gay" just meant sex, that's all. I just naturally assumed
that sometime or other I would marry a woman and have kids like everyone else.
Eventually (moving to a larger town helped) I began to realize that it was
possible to build a stable relationship with another man. It was most
encouraging to hear and read that others were having healthy relationships of
that sort. If all I had ever heard was that a relationship with another man
was universally condemned as being by its very nature unhealthy and
destructive, what chance would I have had to prove that information wrong?
Even if I had the courage to challenge "the wisdom of eons," every setback in
the relationship would, to my mind, simply reinforce the idea that what I was
attempting to do was impossible.
I do not think we should be too quick to judge whether a brother-brother
sexual relationship can possibly be stable and healthy. We really have no
untainted experimental data on the subject -- rather as, a century ago,
we had practically no data on homosexual relationships. Margaret points out
certain undesirable psychological consequences of an incestuous relationship.
It is therefore not unreasonable to recommend that anyone involved in such a
relationship to seek counseling from a sympathetic therapist. But, frankly, I
would offer the same advice to an interracial or interfaith couple. Any
unconventional relationship will be subject to certain stresses, and is is
important to try to understand what part of the stress is specific to that
particular relationship, and what part is due to conflict with societal norms.
james, whose own coming out sure felt like breaking a taboo
www.anaserve.com/~parterre
David Migicovsky
Alexandra wrote in message <3578a5b5...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
>And thank you David for assuming my point. Soon, I won't even have to
>post!
>
And this would upset me... how?
Grnbrier
Jack...@fauxaol.com wrote:
>Among early man the guy with the biggest club was always the top. The guy who
>was unconscious was always the bottom. It was easier that way.
It's pretty much the same with "late man" too. (With some variations, of
course...)
Doogie
James Jorden
Buster Crab wrote:
> Individual perception is so limited, so prone to the projection of
> personal fantasy, so unreliable a guide to a broader reality that to
> dismiss historical
> norms and precedents is hubristic, to say the least. Would you use
> only your
> immediate perceptions and emotional responses to evaluate and critique
> operatic works and performances? Or does your broad general knowledge
> of the subject, derived from history and *other people's* experiences
> and wisdom, play a role, too?
Of course it does. I also understand that the knowledge derived from
history is complex and often contradictory. You seem to deny that any
such complexity can obtain with regard to incest: that is why I say
that you have oversimplified "the lessons of eons" so that it may better
bolster your own personal emotional response. You don't do it
consciously, of course, but the very fact that you thunder so menacingly
about the singular meaning of so vast a body of knowledge suggests that
you are not ready to accept any data that challenge your preconception.
illuvia1ye...@my-dejanews.com
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
MLYoung
>anthropologists as a means
>> of forcing exchanges between families.
>
>And incest was a means for elite families to
>protect their wealth and their purported divine gifts.
>
>
>Lol! Incest, dear, is *always* tabu in the sense
>that crime is *always* criminal.
>
>Incest, by definition, *is* a sexual union that IS
>forbidden.
Ummm, yes, I pointed this out. Really, dear, when trying
to be patronizing, it helps if you understand what's being
said.
Ciao,
--margaret
Donna Whitman
"David Migicovsky" <dmig...@see.sig> wrote:
>Lauren Matthews wrote in message <3567a490...@news.myna.com>...
>>On 23 May 1998 18:47:02 GMT, kenic...@aol.com (KeNick1976) wrote:
>>
>>>My brother and I have been having sex since before we can remember. It
>started
>>>out innocently enough but got more serious as we got older. We are now 22
>and
>>>besides doing everything "normal" together we still have sex with only
>each
>>>other.
>>
>>I'm gonna be sick....there's a word for this "unusual" bond you two
>>have; it's called INCEST.
>>
>>-laurie-
>
>And? It's also a private act between two consenting adults.
>
>If you can present a rational argument why what they do harms anyone else in
>any way, then go ahead and condemn it. If you can't, then it's really none
>of your business.
They want to fuck their asses off behind closed door, then it's
none of my business. THEY chose to discuss their sex life in a Usenet
newgroup, then it becomes a matter for public discussion and they'll
have to live with people's opinions.
Donna
ASGTP#158
Official Troll Saucier
Donna Whitman
no...@jose.com (Lauren Matthews) wrote:
>On 23 May 1998 18:47:02 GMT, kenic...@aol.com (KeNick1976) wrote:
>
>>My brother and I have been having sex since before we can remember. It started
>>out innocently enough but got more serious as we got older. We are now 22 and
>>besides doing everything "normal" together we still have sex with only each
>>other.
>
>I'm gonna be sick....there's a word for this "unusual" bond you two
>have; it's called INCEST.
We seem to be in the minority by thinking that these guys are two
sick puppies and belong on the Jerry Springer show. Actually, I
consider eligibility for that show a sign that you're about as low as
you can go. We're not talking about two kids playing doctor here.
We're talking about adult males who have a long-standing incestuous
relationship. YECCH!