Hence the simple procedure called a vasectomy. Get one of those and you
can stick all you want, you'll still be childfree, even if you're
> I am a therapist living on the West Coast.
> I am simply I living and working in an area that has a
> cluster of sick deviates or is this more widespread?
There ya go.
Get Credit Where Credit Is Due
Credit Tools, Reference, and Forum
Susan Robinson <n...@nil.net> writes:
[questionnaire at a conference]
> One hundred percent of the women present who had post-
> pubescent sons indicated that they had been aware of
> sexual interest from their sons, checking cleavage/
> upskirt, peeking at them changing etc.
A lot of women have difficulty understanding the fact
that males are visual creatures when it comes to sex,
because they themselves are not.
That's the primary basis for the feminist opposition
to pornography: feminists, being women, don't respond
that way, so they believe that nobody else ought to,
either. Which is ironic, when you consider how central
the concept of "phallocentricity" is to feminist dis-
course. Why, it's downright "clitorcentric." (If that
wasn't a word, it is now.)
Men are happy with men being men and women being women.
Women, however (and not just militant feminists) want
everyone to be women. That's why, for example, boys
are medicated with Ritalin just for being boys. And
it's why the workplace has become geared to the sen-
siblities of women over the last twenty years or so.
"Sexual interest," in the form of curiosity about the
female anatomy, is a far cry from "sexual interest" in
the sense of actually wanting to have sex with someone.
It sounds like either this survey or your interpretation
of it failed to make that distinction.
I've never known another man or boy who even hinted at
the slightest desire to go to bed with his own mother.
It stands to reason that if such desires were at all
common, the term "motherfucker" wouldn't be the insult
that it is.
> I made a decision long ago to not have children - it
> has cost me one marriage, but now I wonder how any
> woman manages to live with a teenage son without
> feeling creeped out.
Susan, I've been online since 1989, and that's one of
the most paranoid, neurotic, and outright bizarre things
I've ever seen on Usenet. I'm deadly serious.
> I have asked several male friends and all of them deny
> ever being sexually interested or aware of their mother
> - but then most of them deny ever having masturbated
Let's think about this. You figure that because some
guys you know deny ever having masturbated, any other
denials of a sexual nature from males are therefore
suspect? Even when it comes to, say, a desire to
engage in bestiality or necrophilia?
A denial of masturbation is patently absurd. A denial
of sexual interest in one's own mother is not.
"Nowadays, all you have to do to pass for an aristocrat
is wash your face and sit still." -- Florence King
> A lot of women have difficulty understanding the fact
> that males are visual creatures when it comes to sex,
> because they themselves are not.
Patently untrue, many women are aroused by imagery, just not imagery as
crude and some men find appealing.
> Susan, I've been online since 1989, and that's one of
> the most paranoid, neurotic, and outright bizarre things
> I've ever seen on Usenet.
Then you must have led a very sheltered online life. I have been online for
much longer, my father gave me my first computer complete with an acoustic
modem and an internet access account when I was ten, that was in 1982. Have
we finished with this little peeing contest?
You also seem to lack understanding of some of the terms you use; paranoid
for one. Curiosity about what would appear to be a type of deviant
behaviour that has been suppressed by much of society is not paranoia.
Feeling uncomfortable being in a domestic relationship with a teenager who
had sexual interest in you is not paranoia.
Subsequent to my post I have been involved in some impromptu meetings with
several other professionals who found the survey results surprising, and
have followed up with those respondents who indicate that they would accept
such contact. The more detailed accounts make it apparent that the interest
is not superficial interest in anatomy. Several have found their sons
exhibiting far more than cursory interest in their underwear, even having
removed some articles from a laundry hamper and hiding it in their room.
Many have caught their sons out peeping or trying for innocent seeming
"touch-ups" and have been too embarrassed to raise the issue with other
family members. A much larger survey is in the process of being organized.
Several have noticed their sons having erections when catching then in
underwear or when dressing. It is when mothers start closing doors.
> Let's think about this. You figure that because some
> guys you know deny ever having masturbated, any other
> denials of a sexual nature from males are therefore
Yes. When a person denies one aspect of sexuality for fear of embarrassment
then there is a strong likelihood that they would deny another form of
sexual interest that might create even more embarrassment. From personal
experience I have been groped, spied on and been asked to become involved
in sexual experimentation by brothers, as have a good number of my friends.
It was at the onset of their puberty and they outgrew it once they began
dating, but I still doubt that many men would admit to fooling around, or
trying to, with a sister. In many survey, including Kinsey/Hite etc., many
men claimed that in their first close encounter with a vagina it belonged
to their sister.
As for the term motherfucker being an insult, it is even used
affectionately. It is hardly an insult in many societies - and it came from
somewhere. The expressions "jerkoff", "cocksucker", etc., are as much of
an insult, and they certainly have a basis in fact. Why would motherfucker
be the one exception?
Deviance is necessarily species specific.
Quite a few species of insect and arachnid make a habit of the
male becoming a post copulatory celebration meal. This would
get you talked about among humans.
>I stand by my earlier point that testosterone
> simply lacks the complexity that would be necessary for a hormone to
> go carving out exceptions.
You apparently think that humans don't even think with their
dicks, but the chemicals floating around in their blood.
> Male dogs can't even exempt human legs, much less the correct parts of
> other dogs.
A friend's female siamese cat got old enough to come into heat
for the first time before she managed to get it to the vet for the
appropriate adjustment. The animal was making out with a box
of laundry soap.
> Why are you suddenly expecting humans to be catagorically
Humans are expected to be smarter than a dog or cat. Or even
other primates. Though I am frequently disappointed in this regard.
Particularly when driving on the freeway.
Susan Robinson <n...@nil.net> writes:
> On 7/11/10 4:07 AM, Geoff Miller wrote:
> All manner of ill-considered nonsense.
I see you're doing your best to start off on the
right foot with me...
Is this how you always respond to differing points
of view? With snottiness and put-downs?
[men are visually aroused; women, not so much]
> Patently untrue, many women are aroused by imagery,
> just not imagery as crude and some men find appealing.
Then why is it that sexual material aimed at women is
typically literary in nature (and is known as "erotica"
-- or as I call it, "cliterature" -- in order to dist-
inguish it from photo- and videographic "pornography?"
Or that one sees precious few women in pornography
Yes, there are exceptions and degrees. There always
are; that goes without saying, or ought to. They no
more invalidate what I said about sexual arousal
than the odd, outlying Grace Jones- or Wally Cox-
type specimen invalidates the generality that men
are bigger and stronger than women.
: Susan, I've been online since 1989, and that's
: one of the most paranoid, neurotic, and outright
: bizarre things I've ever seen on Usenet.
> Then you must have led a very sheltered online
Yeah...that must be why I was voted "Mr. alt.-
tasteless" two years in a row (1991 and '92).
(Maybe I was just being indulged, like the retarded
girl in that commercial who gets voted Homecoming
Queen. Ya think?)
> I have been online for much longer, my father
> gave me my first computer complete with an
> acoustic modem and an internet access account
> when I was ten, that was in 1982.
I see that reading comprehension isn't among
your strong suits.
The point wasn't that I've been online longer
than you have. The point was that I've been
online for a hell of a long time, period, and
that what you said in your previous post is
one of the strangest and most wrongheaded
things I've seen on the Net during that
(And by the way, n00b, I wrote my first computer
programs in 1974, using a keypunch machine and
Hollerith cards. Yes, I'm serious.)
> Have we finished with this little peeing contest?
*Now* we have. Buy the ticket, take the ride.
> You also seem to lack understanding of some of
> the terms you use; paranoid for one. Curiosity
> about what would appear to be a type of deviant
> behaviour that has been suppressed by much of
> society is not paranoia.
If it's as common as you believe it is, then by
definition, it isn't deviant.
Maybe it hasn't been suppressed, as such. Maybe
it's simply taken for granted and kept in perspec-
tive because it isn't news to most people. (What
was that you were saying about a sheltered life?)
Perhaps it's not even news to you, and you're just
feigning shock and outrage like radical feminists
did a decade ago over the "discovery" than men
engage in sport fucking, because you harbor an
animus toward males in general and/or adolescent
males in particular. I kinda doubt that, but it
isn't beyond the realm of possibility.
More to the point, placing so much significance
on a normal and passing phase of *half the human
race's* psychosexual development that you feel
"creeped out" or in any way threatened *is*
> Feeling uncomfortable being in a domestic
> relationship with a teenager who had sexual
> interest in you is not paranoia.
There's sexual interest, and there's sexual
My stepfather and I were quite close. About a
year after my mom died and my stepfather remar-
ried, when I was barely 15, I rode my bike over
to see him and his new wife. A friend came with
They'd been sitting out by the pool, and my former
stepfather's new wife, who was quite attractive,
answered the door in a bikini. I remember reflex-
ively glancing at her cleavage at the time. (It
*was* more or less at face level, but still...)
I had no sexual interest in her whatsoever; my
interest was purely aesthetic.
She didn't say anything or react in any visible
way, and yet she couldn't help but have noticed.
I probably wouldn't even remember it if my friend
hadn't admitted to doing the same thing at the
same moment and made an, er, appreciative comment
as we got on our bikes to leave a bit later.
Again, I had no sexual interest at all...and yet
I couldn't help myself. It's just the way young
males are wired. Adolescent girls are wired to
giggle and tell secrets; adolescent boys, to check
out the merchandise.
Well, that covers paranoia. So what's your position
on "neurotic" and "bizarre?"
> Subsequent to my post I have been involved in some
> impromptu meetings with several other professionals
> who found the survey results surprising, and have
> followed up with those respondents who indicate
> that they would accept such contact. The more
> detailed accounts make it apparent that the
> interest is not superficial interest in anatomy.
I note that these cases are a subset of respondents.
> Several have found their sons exhibiting far more
> than cursory interest in their underwear, even
> having removed some articles from a laundry hamper
> and hiding it in their room.
> Many have caught their sons out peeping or trying
> for innocent seeming "touch-ups" and have been too
> embarrassed to raise the issue with other family
Sounds like a matter of overly permissive upbringing
more than anything else.
> Several have noticed their sons having erections
> when catching then in underwear or when dressing.
One wonders why they were looking at their sons'
crotches to begin with, especially so closely
that they were even able to tell that they had
Why is a mother's checking out her teenage son's
dick tacitly acceptable, but boys' showing oppor-
tunistic interest in the female form is regarded
I detect more of that old feminist double standard
which regards any given female response as normative,
and the equivalent male one as deviant.
> It is when mothers start closing doors.
You'd think they'd have started closing doors long
before their sons reached adolescence. Not to pre-
clude interest from their pubescent sons, but just
as a matter of elementary human modesty and parental
That this never apparently occurred to the mothers
in question makes me wonder how representative these
families are, and whether there might be other
factors which future versions of this questionnaire
(Why were these particular women given the thing
to begin with? That they were seeking treatment
of some sort (you never did specify) from pro-
fessionals in the first place raises questions
about what other problems they or their families
might have, and whether there might be a causative
relationshp among them.)
It seems possible that the parents of these boys
were remiss in failing to establish appropriate
boundaries early on when it came to the privacy
of family members. And not only in the sense of
respecting that of others, but in the sense of
the parents' having the presence of mind to
assert it for themselves.
Anyway, a female form is a female form. Guys
know how to keep that on an abstract level;
that's why we're accused of "objectifying"
women, as though that were a bad thing. In
this case, though, it certainly seems like
objectification is the healthy way to go.
Wouldn't you agree?
: Let's think about this. You figure that because
: some guys you know deny ever having masturbated,
: any other denials of a sexual nature from males
: are therefore suspect?
> Yes. When a person denies one aspect of sexuality
> for fear of embarrassment then there is a strong
> likelihood that they would deny another form of
> sexual interest that might create even more
Well, yeah. Then again, it says nothing about how
more likely that other, more embarassing form of
sexual interest is to have actually been engaged
in at all.
Masturbation is a private activity to most people.
Lusting after one's own mother is not only sexual
and therefore private; it would also mean crossing
a certain mental threshold that most people instinc-
tively resist even approaching.
> As for the term motherfucker being an insult, it
> is even used affectionately. It is hardly an
> insult in many societies - and it came from
What societies are those, pray tell?
> The expressions "jerkoff", "cocksucker", etc.,
> are as much of an insult, and they certainly
> have a basis in fact. Why would motherfucker
> be the one exception?
I don't accept your premise that "motherfucker"
is a term of affection, anywhere. There *are*
terms that were once (and still can be) insults
which are used affectionately, such as "nigger"
in the right crowd. But "motherfucker" isn't
one of them.
"Would you bet your paycheck on a weather forecast
for tomorrow? If not, then why should this country
bet billions on global warming predictions that have
even less foundation?" -- Thomas Sowell
> Patently untrue, many women are aroused by imagery, just not imagery as
> crude and some men find appealing.
The image of a seven series BMW in the garage works a treat.
Howdya like that... we started playing guitar to impress the chicks and wind
up talkin' fingernails with old men.
Ray Boyce - 9.27.09