thoughts on desperation
Jeff Sargent
an SO very strongly, even desperately, might want to ask yourself the
following question:
What are you really desperate for?
Based on my own experience and feelings, I might suspect that a lot of
desperate people are really seeking forgiveness for something -- for existing,
for being who and what they are, or perhaps for something they've done that
they feel guilty about. In my earlier days, the first two applied; now I'm
still struggling with guilt feelings because I feel I treated a girl I dated
a little in high school very badly. (Rationally, I know I didn't actually do
anything really horrendously terrible or nasty to her, but I still feel guilty
about it.) As a result, my normal desire for a female friend and lover is
vastly inflamed with a desire for some incredibly kind and merciful woman to
come along and, in a supreme gesture of charity, taking me as an SO and thus
granting me absolution for having been so unkind to my quasi-SO 14 years ago.
Obviously, this is not the correct way to deal with guilt feelings. But I
suspect that guilt is the secret motive, the secret cattle prod that drives
many people (perhaps even others on the net) into a desperate search for a
MOTAS, when that isn't what they really need. I will risk more flames by
saying that I believe Christ's forgiveness is what they REALLY need most.
But if you reject Him, at least try to be conscious of what you're truly
seeking and why, so that you can deal with it directly.
--
-- Jeff Sargent
{allegra|decvax|harpo|ihnp4|seismo|ucbvax}!pur-ee!pucc-h:aeq
"...I've got to be where my spirit can run free..."
Jeff Sargent
an SO very strongly, even desperately, might want to ask yourself the
following question:
What are you really desperate for?
Based on my own experience and feelings, I might suspect that a lot of
desperate people are really seeking forgiveness for something -- for existing,
for being who and what they are, or perhaps for something they've done that
they feel guilty about. In my earlier days, the first two applied; now I'm
still struggling with guilt feelings because I feel I treated a girl I dated
a little in high school very badly. (Rationally, I know I didn't actually do
anything really horrendously terrible or nasty to her, but I still feel guilty
about it.) As a result, my normal desire for a female friend and lover is
vastly inflamed with a desire for some incredibly kind and merciful woman to
come along and, in a supreme gesture of charity, take me as an SO and thus
grant me absolution for having been so unkind to my quasi-SO 14 years ago.
Rsk the Wombat
Oh, dear; here we go again. Look, your honesty and openness is very
much appreciated...your insistence on dragging in irrelevant religious
junk is not. If you want forgiveness for something you did to a casual
dating partner in high school, then go find her and ask for it! Failing
that, forget about it...she probably has, unless it was something *really*
horrible, which you seem to have implied it wasn't.
I really don't think most of us are looking for a SO as a substitute
for divine forgiveness; I'm looking for (well, I guess I've found) a SO or
two for companionship, caring, love, sex, and backing in times of crisis.
From the discussions in this newsgroup, I'd say that most of us want something
along these lines, with the occasional addition of things like financial
support, children, 3 a.m. backrubs, sympathy during hangovers, and the like.
<A personal statement (oh, alright, a flame.)>
As far as I'm concerned, the god you refer to so often is as dead
as a rock, if he/she/it ever existed. In any case (god is dead, god is
around, god is out for a 10 million year lunch), I really don't care; I don't
need a god, just like I don't need elevator shoes, and I it really pisses
the hell out of me to have folks running around trying to convince me that
I can't live without one. This is why I don't (for instance) subscribe
to net.religion; just to avoid the conversionist crap.
As far as religion (separate issue from god) is concerned, there's
no good advice or assistance available there either; this silly pompous
old man in Rome tells us "No birth control, kiddies", and "No abortions",
and "No sex until you're married" and "No sex when you're married *unless*
you make babies", and thus screws up more folks' lives with unnecessary guilt
feelings, and unwanted children, and repressed sexuality than anyone else
I can think of. Similar messages are heard from other religious leaders,
occasionally embellished with "Don't dance" and "Don't wear this kind of
clothing" and "Don't read that" and other miscellaneous admonishments against
most of the really enjoyable things in life. These bozos know nothing of
the realities of being single; you'll get much better and much wiser advice
from the hookers on Rush Street or the students on the Ft. Lauderdale beach
during spring break or the folks hanging out at the Stabilizer (local bar)
on pitcher night.
As Jethro Tull put it...
"When I was young, and they packed me off to school,
I didn't mind, if they groomed me for success,
And taught me how not to play the game...
Well, I left there in the morning,
With their god tucked underneath my arm,
Their half-ass smile, and their book of rules..."
<end personal statement/flame>
By the way, some of the BEST advice on personal relationships, love,
sex, and whatever is to be found in "The Rape of the A.P.E. (American Puritan
Ethic)" by (of all people) Allen Sherman. It examines the sexual revolution,
whatever that is/was, and includes a hysterical chapter entirely devoted to
the work "fuck", which is something you won't find in just *any* book. It's
a hard book to find, but very much worth the effort.
--
Rsk the Wombat
UUCP: { allegra, decvax, ihnp4, harpo, teklabs, ucbvax } !pur-ee!rsk
{ cornell, eagle, hplabs, ittvax, lanl-a, ncrday } !purdue!rsk
chu...@nsc.uucp
>much appreciated...your insistence on dragging in irrelevant religious
>junk is not.
I hate to disagree with such a solid and reasonable gentleman as our friend
the Wombat, but I personally don't believe that this religious junk IS
irrelevant. He seems to forget that it is a VERY important part of Jeff's
life, and it **HAS** done him quite a lot of good. Just because God hasn't
smile on you recently doesn't mean it hasn't smiled on others, and don't
belittle their faith simply because it doesn't follow yours (Not everone
believes in the great beer bottle in the sky, you know... *grin*). Don't
knock something if it works. It may not work for you but that doesn't mean
its wrong. It just isn't right for you.
chuq
--
>From the closet of anxieties of: Chuq Von Rospach
{amd70,fortune,hplabs,ihnp4}!nsc!chuqui (408) 733-2600 x242
How do you know if you're really in love?
Do violins swell when you're touching the one that you're loving?
r...@opus.uucp
>What are you really desperate for?
No, seriously now, if you're going to do that sort of introspection, you'd
better keep in mind just how human beings work - you have to reckon with
your hormones in this sort of matter.
>Based on my own experience and feelings, I might suspect that a lot of
>desperate people are really seeking forgiveness for something -- for existing,
>for being who and what they are, or perhaps for something they've done that
>they feel guilty about...
If you've got this sort of problem, take care of it BEFORE you get deeply
involved with someone else. If you don't, you may just end up spending a
lot of time playing guilt trips with each other.
And Jeff, if Christ is the answer, you've asked the wrong question for this
group. Come on, I don't expect my wife to grant me eternal life any more
than I expect Jesus to come downstairs for a hug and kiss while I'm
working!
--
...A friend of the devil is a friend of mine. Dick Dunn
{hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd (303) 444-5710 x3086
Q-Bick
>no good advice or assistance available there either; this silly pompous
>old man in Rome tells us "No birth control, kiddies", and "No abortions",
>and "No sex until you're married" and "No sex when you're married *unless*
>you make babies", and thus screws up more folks' lives with unnecessary guilt
>feelings, and unwanted children, and repressed sexuality than anyone else
>I can think of. Similar messages are heard from other religious leaders,
>occasionally embellished with "Don't dance" and "Don't wear this kind of
>clothing" and "Don't read that" and other miscellaneous admonishments against
>most of the really enjoyable things in life. These bozos know nothing of
>the realities of being single; you'll get much better and much wiser advice
>from the hookers on Rush Street or the students on the Ft. Lauderdale beach
>during spring break or the folks hanging out at the Stabilizer (local bar)
>on pitcher night.
If you don't like Jeff's religious statement, withhold your own (the
above is an example). It looks like Rsk has swallowed the same
misinformation the rest of the world has, that Christianity is a
"negative" religion. Fooey. Christianity is "Thou shalt" - and the power
to do things that are really enjoyable. (C.S.Lewis's "Screwtape Letters"
deal with "pleasures" much more deeply, and quite accurately.)
Those "bozos" know a lot more about being single than you'd ever know,
especially this rabbi known as Paul. He who doesn't learn from the
wisdom of the ages, makes the same mistakes.
--
The Ice Floe of Larry Bickford
{decvax,ihnp4,allegra,ucbvax}!{decwrl,sun}!qubix!lab
decwrl!qubix!l...@Berkeley.ARPA
Greg Woods
Jeff, I think you need to realize that just because religion is the answer
for *you* (judging from your articles in this group) does not mean it will
work for everyone. I don't want to start a discussion here that really belongs
in net.religion, but let's face it: in order for religion to be of some help
to you, you have to be able to believe many very important things for which
there is absolutely no hard scientific evidence (that I can see), solely on
the word of other human beings. Lots of people with analytical minds (like me)
have a great deal of trouble with this. (If you want to continue this argument
with me, let's do it by private mail, since this really doesn't belong here.
However, I think I'm justified posting this one article since you have stated
your views here several times.)
I don't know about you, but when I get lonely, one thing that makes me get
"desperate" is just plain old biology. I have a sex drive (surprise!), and when
it goes for long periods without satisfaction, I become unhappy both physically
and emotionally, just as I would if deprived of food or sleep. Human beings
also have emotional drives (in this case, for love and affection), which are
less well understood, but nevertheless real. I submit that it is these
physical and emotional drives that cause people to become "desperate". The
Christians are really into guilt trips, it seems to me. Everyone is bad,
we are all sinners. I just don't believe that, and I believe it is a *very*
destructive way to think. Guilt is *not* the only motivation, nor is it
even the primary one, at least for most of the people I know. I think love
and hate are *far* more powerful, and biology (hunger, sex drive, etc.)
more powerful still. I believe it is those who have strong feelings of guilt
about something that turn to Christianity (and other religions; no need
to pick exclusively on the Christians) because it promises the ultimate
relief from guilt. I don't really intend to put down Christianity here;
if it makes *you* feel better to believe it, great. Just try to remember
that not everyone feels as guilty as you do or looks at the world the same
as you.
GREG
--
{ucbvax!hplabs | allegra!nbires | decvax!stcvax | harpo!seismo | ihnp4!stcvax}
!hao!woods
"Will we leave this place an empty stone?"
r...@opus.uucp
>I hate to disagree with such a solid and reasonable gentleman as our friend
>the Wombat, but I personally don't believe that this religious junk IS
>irrelevant. He seems to forget that it is a VERY important part of Jeff's
Chuq, I think that the objection that some of us have to Jeff's article is
that it seemed like a very thinly veiled attempt to bring religion into the
discussions in net.singles. I'd rather not have us start getting into
flames and counter-flames about the utility of religion - it may be a
pervasive part of Jeff's life, but not mine. There are some forums other
than net.religion where religion enters, such as net.origins - but if we
get net.religion.singles, we can proceed to
net.religion.physics (religious cosmology)
net.religion.politics
net.religion.misc
and on with med, audio (you understand if you subscribe!), and so on.
--
...Stop to smell the flowers. Dick Dunn
Rich Rosen
> especially this rabbi known as Paul. He who doesn't learn from the
> wisdom of the ages, makes the same mistakes.
He (or she) who accepts the "wisdom of the ages" at face value, while
ignoring the errors and mistakes inherent in that wisdom, is indeed
destined to make the same mistakes.
[Move 'em out, cowboys, this is the wrong newsgroup! YEEEHAA!!]
--
WHAT IS YOUR NAME? Rich Rosen
WHAT IS YOUR NET ADDRESS? pyuxn!rlr
WHAT IS THE CAPITAL OF ASSYRIA? I don't know that ... ARGHHHHHHHH!
Ed Hall
I know that it is a personal thing, but for me the `desperation' is
not so much a biological (or `hormonal') need as it is just a desire
to give and receive affection. If worst comes to worse, I can take
care of the sexual part myself. And I can give myself a certain
amount of affection. But there just isn't a substitute for sharing
a hug, a touch, or an admiring glance, with someone I care about.
Were I to choose between this without sex, or a series of one-night
stands, I know what my choice would be...
-Ed Hall
decvax!randvax!edhall
Chuq Von Rospach
>that it seemed like a very thinly veiled attempt to bring religion into the
>discussions in net.singles.
Valid point, Dick. My tolerance to other people's religion is rather high
(tolerance is a big part of being a Zen Druid) so his religion comments
don't bother me significantly even though they do range a little wide of
the net.singles topic. Besides, I am very impressed with the progress I've
seen in Jeff since he first showed up on the topic and I want to encourage
him to continue where I can. What got to me was that RSK didn't nicely
suggest that the religious angle be toned down, but he attacked him
and his religion on a very personal level. That bothers me because it is a
destructive attitude for all involved. It can erode jeff's self confidence,
and it definitely makes RSK look small to enlightened people (and most
likely his God, whatever it is, has a LOT more tolerance than RSK itself).
Even if I don't agree with someone's beliefs, I don't like to seem them
attacked and abused.
po...@ut-sally.uucp
bring religion in. Although it is not a big part of my
life, it is with some of my friends (*note* I didn't say what
religion! no jumping to conclusions, now!), and it is VERY
hard to separate it entirely from any personal discussion.
Chuq (is that his *real* name?) is right: it seems to have
done Jeff a lot of good. If his beliefs are intertwined with
his other opinions (gee, it makes sense, if you think about it),
then I don't see how an aside could hurt anyone.
I think anyone who has as paranoid a reaction as I've seen
on this net is simply not very sure of his own beliefs.
I'm not afraid I'm going to be converted because someone
mentions Jesus Christ and I see it on my screen. (Don't you
have a mental 'n' key?)
Other than that, some people DO feel guilty, and need to get
rid of it before they go into a relationship. How they do
it is their own business.
Wendy P. Nather ["I think we're all bozos on this bus."]
Jeff Sargent
> ...in order for religion to be of some help to you, you have to be able to
> believe many very important things for which there is absolutely no hard
> scientific evidence (that I can see), solely on the word of other human
> beings. Lots of people with analytical minds (like me) have a great deal
> of trouble with this.
Sigh.... I never expected to have so many responses to one sentence. I will
say briefly that there is considerable archaeological evidence; that the word
of human beings is the way one gets interested in God, but when you actually
come to know God, you have something (Someone) more than that as a foundation
for your belief, Someone with whom you have a dynamic relationship, not just a
bunch of words; and that I probably have just as analytical a mind as you do.
Greg also pointed out that people have physical sex drives and emotional needs
for closeness. I fully agree. Note that my article was not saying that guilt
was the ONLY motive a given person would have for desperation (it wasn't in my
case), nor that all desperate people must necessarily feel guilty about
something (I don't know all desperate people, so I can't know that); I was
merely pointing out the root of some of my feelings in the hope that it would
encourage others to look at themselves, see if their feelings had similar
roots, and deal with them if so.
Greg also blamed my Christianity for my guilt trip. I admit that many people
(including Christians) view Christianity as being a system of rules. Of
course it isn't; the name of the game is not avoidance of sin, but freedom
from sin. Still, even though I'm not in the rigid fundamentalist tradition,
I still sometimes tend to feel that I ought to be punished for my sins and
failures -- but I don't feel that way so much because of my Christianity
(though I do have trouble reconciling God's justice, which I feel I deserve,
with His mercy, which I crave), but because I'm a terrible perfectionist and
have been since long before I knew anything about Christianity.
(Why is the above paragraph in here? Because I see nothing wrong with using
this group at least partly for us all to just get to know each other, rather
than spending all our time addressing specific questions.)
Also, I would again pose the question (to all readers, not just to Greg):
Why are you so desperate? There are probably plenty of nice MOTOS's
available. Analyze yourself. Be honest (brutally honest at times) with
yourself. Find out what feelings (or actually, what erroneous beliefs about
yourself) are keeping you from going out and making friends with those
MOTOS's. Decide to stop believing those erroneous beliefs; recognize them
for the destructive lies that they are, and change your mind. The cause for
your desperation is not that your body and emotions have not received what
they desire. The ultimate cause is that you have (for whatever reason) not
believed it possible for them to receive what they desire.
Another example of this, which I have just realized, faced, and dealt with,
and which I also offer in the hope that it might help some other readers:
I felt that I was not really a man. Oh, of course I have the appropriate
physical characteristics; but I felt that I wasn't really a man INSIDE. I camefrom a background not calculated to make one grow up feeling strongly male: my
parents divorced when I was 8; and my mother, who got custody of me, was (or
at least I perceived her as) domineering. I've just been reading a book
("Eros Defiled", by John White) in which it is mentioned that those who grow
up in such backgrounds may become what is known as "pseudohomosexuals" --
i.e. men who may have some characteristics of homosexuals and/or lack some of
the characteristics of normal heterosexuals, who are more likely to have
homosexual feelings and be vulnerable to homosexual temptation than most
males, but who are not practicing homosexuals. I certainly ended up this way;
I've never had a homosexual experience, but I've sometimes wanted males all
too strongly. Anyway, the neat turnaround in my case was that my desire for a
really good woman as friend and lover -- the desire around which all my
frustration had been built -- came to my aid! I realized that there is one
young woman I know whom I have been attracted to and cared about for some
months, not because she is a generic woman (I know, there's no such thing)
who could heal my "disease" and cure my problems, but because she is a good
companion, being an intelligent, sensitive, talented, and beautiful woman.
(And to top it off, I'm not sure if she believes that she's attractive! So I
have some compassion for her too.) In other words, realizing that I had a
desire which was a normal male desire, not based on sickness and pain, enabled
me to know that yes, I too am a real man! [Then why do I like quiche? :-)]
BTW, the young lady involved has some inkling of how I feel; perhaps when we
meet for dinner and conversation next week [SURPRISE! Jeff got a date! :-)]
I will have an opportunity to progress....
Rsk the Wombat
Ok, Chuq, I was upset...and in the right frame of mind to flame, since I
had a rather interesting discussion over the weekend during which someone asked
me: "If you could push a button that would instantaneously dissolve all
religious institutions (note: *not* religions) would you do it, and how would
you justify taking the responsibility for this act?"
This took a while...my answers were: 1. Yes, and 2. I wouldn't.
Chuq, I was not attacking Jeff's religion; I was attacking the (a)
use of religious beliefs as a justification/exucse/motivation for behavior
in a non-religion-related area [did I say that?] and the (b) intrusion of
religious institutions into areas where they [humble opinion] have no right
to be, and no help to offer.
I hope this is clear now, if not before; good grief, with my rather
bizarre theological speculations I have to give the same sort of tolerance as
I expect; else I'd probably be burnt at the stake by now.
Argh!! Get back with those torches!! Argh!!
Chuq Von Rospach
>Dick, I don't think it was a "thinly-veiled attempt" to
>bring religion in. Although it is not a big part of my
>life, it is with some of my friends (*note* I didn't say what
>religion! no jumping to conclusions, now!), and it is VERY
>hard to separate it entirely from any personal discussion.
>Chuq (is that his *real* name?) is right: it seems to have
>done Jeff a lot of good. If his beliefs are intertwined with
>his other opinions (gee, it makes sense, if you think about it),
>then I don't see how an aside could hurt anyone.
Yes, Chuq is my real name. Try getting business cards printed that way.
(NO! not Chug! chuq!) This isn't as much a followup but a clarification of
my other article on what RSK said. Pooh cleared up a minor muddle in my
thinking and I thought I'd throw it to the wolves.
The thing that really bothered me about RSK's attack on Jeff was it was
just as dogmatically negative and black as Jeff is dogmatically
positive and white (in religion there is no gray). Now, I have a lot of
patience with the wonders and quirks of everyday life as long as those
quirks seem to be doing someone something good. Jeff's religion, while
it is not my own, has done him a LOT of good. It is very intertwined
with the rest of his life and something that important is very hard to
isolate when reacting with the rest of the world (I have things in my
life that mean as much to me as God does to him. The only reason they
don't show up very often in my postings is that I've had a LOT more
practice at attempting objectivity, and I don't always succeed.
Remember 'Nuke Wobegon!'). As long as Jeff doesn't start telling me
that the only path to true happiness is his God I can live with him
telling me that HIS path to true happiness is his God.
RSK is just as dogmatically ANTI-religion as Jeff is PRO-religion. The
difference is that his comments attacked Jeff and his beliefs and tried to
prove that they were wrong. That is a negative attitude and potentially
destructive, and I have no patience with that. Life is much too difficult
as it is that we don't need to start building new obstacles. If God doesn't
work for you, RSK, fine. Just don't try to prove that it won't work for
everyone else as well. I think if you look throughout history and current
times there are quite a few people out there for which religion HAS done
quite a lot of good. Don't make sweeping generalities based upon your
beliefs because you are the only one that they are meaningful to.
chug
--
From the closet of anxieties of: Chuq Von Rospach
{amd70,fortune,hplabs,ihnp4}!nsc!chuqui (408) 733-2600 x242
I'm really gonna miss her. A tomato ate my sister...
Chuq Von Rospach
behind?
Oh, By the way, Jeff, does your prospective SO know that the entire world
hears every detail of your love life and that it is currently being written
into a movie for television script? :->
chuq
Peter F. Barbee
told me, "Peter, there are two kinds of men in the world. Those
that admit they masturbate, and those that lie about it." I guess
I don't understand why the lack of feminine contact should increase
one's sex drive, I personally would feel quite guilty if I realized a major
reason I was interested in a relationship, interlude, or whatever was sex.
Peter Barbee
decvax-+-uw-beaver-+
ihnp4--+ allegra-+
ucbvax----lbl-csam-+--fluke!tron
sun-+
ssc-vax-+
Rsk the Wombat
Chuq, doesn't it bother you when folks come up with things like:
"I can't sleep with you...god would punish me."
"You've got to have that baby...abortion is a sin."
"You're wrong to sell your body!! You'll burn for this."
I'm very, very tired of listening to people justify their actions
and inactions by referring to someone else, god or not. Since this is
net.singles, I tried to make the point that in the oh-so-touchy world of
male-female relationships, this kind of behavior is especially annoying.
Thas' all I said (I think), and I flagged it as "personal". Besides,
I would never attack Jeff...he's much bigger than I am.
Sophie Quigley
Oh my god! nobody has taken that one up yet! Jeff Please!! I'd like to
suggest that you really apply the counsels you give us to yourself, especially
the ones about not accepting those erroneous beliefs and realising how dangerous
they are. Why in the world do you have to equate homosexual feelings with
"not being a man"? (what is a "man" anyway?) why are your desires for women
"normal" and your desires for men "based on sickness and pain"? Has your God
really told you that some of those of those desires are bad and the others good?
Are you sure that you haven't been fooled by people rather than God into
believing such things? people have said many things in the name of God to
suit their own little purposes and not necessarily for the good of others. As
you seem to be in very close contact with your God, you should really make sure
that he REALLY disproves of those homosexual feelings you have before you
reject them as "sick" and throw yourself at women instead because you think it
is the "right" thing to do (I am wildly paraphrasing you here, and could be
completely wrong in my interpretation of your words). If your God is a god of
Love as you say he is, he might accept many different types of Love, and if he
doesn't why doesn't he? you should also ask him that.
Your words make it sound as though you are interested in relationships with
women only so that they can "save" you from your desires for men. If that is
so, that doesn't sound very good for the woman you will have a relationship with
Shouldn't she deserve to be loved for who she is rather than because she is
"saving" you from other people you love? And if you love other people and they
also love you, wouldn't you all be more happy just loving each other rather
than trying to pretend you don't? This sounds like I am pushing you to lead a
homosexual life; yes and no, I think you should just make sure that you are
not interested in heterosexual relationships just to avoid homosexual relation-
ships, and if you are, then maybe reconsider your choice. I am not alone in
thinking that it is possible to be both a Christian and homosexual (I can look
up some references for you if you are interested).
Go in peace.
Sophie Quigley
...!{clyde,ihnp4,decvax}!watmath!saquigley
Jeff Sargent
> ". . .I was attacking the use of religious beliefs as a
> justification/excuse/motivation for behavior in a non-religion-
> related area. . ."
> For someone with strong religious beliefs, there ARE no
> non-religion-related areas. It encompasses all facets of life.
Bingo! Or at least that's the way it is in the optimal case. So far my faith
has had its greatest effect in the area of interpersonal relationships, which
is why you hear so much about it. Perhaps after those are more-or-less
straightened out [or will Armageddon, as prophesied by Chuq, occur first? :-)]
I will allow God to work on the rest of me.... Come back in 10 years.
ken perlow
>> "... there are two kinds of men in the world. Those
>> that admit they masturbate, and those that lie about it."
I think this generalizes: There are two kinds of people in this
world, those who learned to read first, and those who learned to
masturbate first. I'm sure there must be two distinct personality
characteristics caused by the temporal order of these basic introductions
into fantasy, but I'm not sure how they would manifest themselves
nor even what they are. Thesis, anyone?
--
*** ***
JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** *****
****** ****** 30 May 84 [11 Prairial An CXCII]
ken perlow ***** *****
(312)979-7261 ** ** ** **
..ihnp4!ihuxq!ken *** ***
Jeff Sargent
ever posted to this group, and Sophie Quigley rakes me over the coals!
> Why in the world do you have to equate homosexual feelings with "not being a
> man"? (what is a "man" anyway?)
I never made such an equation. I indicated that the homosexual feelings were
a CONSEQUENCE of feeling "not really a man". What is a "man"? Come on, this
is abnormal psych we're talking; it doesn't have to make sense! :-)
Seriously, I'm not 100% sure; but I think part of the problem is that, having
been born in 1955, I was too much imbued with the idea that one had to be
macho in order to be male. I was a whiz kid, 2 years ahead of my "normal"
grade in school, still beating most of the other kids academically (and the
same height as most of my classmates, or things would have been worse), but
still 2 years behind them in development of strength and coordination. Thus I
was no athlete -- and the mid-60's were still a relatively unenlightened era,
when society "required" males to be athletic. Also, for most of my life, I
had no full-time male role model (remember, my parents divorced when I was 8).
Thus I had no one from whom to learn how a man acts around other people (of
either sex.
I think these were the two main reasons why I didn't feel myself to be a
man. The fact that the first one is based on a false premise did not prevent
me from believing it; remember that the macho ideal thoroughly imbued the
society of that era (including the other boys in school, who lost no chance to
put me down), and so this belief in my own unmanliness was probably fixed by
the time I was 10 -- well before my critical faculties had reached any
significant level of maturity.
> why are your desires for women
> "normal" and your desires for men "based on sickness and pain"?
I wasn't spouting doctrine. I was giving experiential evidence; i.e. the past
times when I have been really bummed out have generally been the times when my
homosexual desires have been strongest. When I was feeling reasonably good
about myself and the world, my homosexual desires submerged; in fact,
especially in the last year or two, I actually did date women a few times
(i.e. my rendezvous earlier this evening was not the first in a century).
Thus it's not a question of "why" heterosexuality is normal, and homosexuality
not; based on my experience (and on some case histories I've read), they just
ARE that way.
> As you seem to be in very close contact with your God, you should really
> make sure that he REALLY disproves of those homosexual feelings you have
> before you reject them as "sick" and throw yourself at women instead
> because you think it is the "right" thing to do....
Let us put it this way: Based solely on my "close contact", I consider it
certain that He much prefers heterosexuality to homosexuality. (I won't
even mention the many Biblical utterances against homosexuality.) I don't go
for women because I think it's "right". I do it because that's what I really
want to do; women are great people, with (in general) certain qualities of
warmth and tenderness which I just can't get even from my closest male
friends -- and I'm not talking about sex, I'm talking about the persons
inside the bodies.
> If your God is a god of Love as you say he is, he might accept many
> different types of Love, and if he doesn't why doesn't he? you should also
> ask him that.
I do not deny that genuine love -- i.e. love which naturally expresses itself
in truly caring for the other person's needs, helping to bring them joy and
soothe their hurts -- can exist in homosexual relationships. This would only
make sense; I'm well aware that members of any type of couple, straight or
gay, not only can but ought to be good friends if the relationship is going to
really satisfy either person (again, more than the body). But it is my thesis
(not based on extensive research, but plausible from what I've read) that a
gay relationship doesn't quite satisfy, but is rather chosen as an ersatz
substitute for the wonder of knowing and being known by -- and loving and
being loved by -- a motOs, someone so different from you that probably even
after many years together, you still won't understand all the ways in which
that person's mind works differently from yours.
> Your words make it sound as though you are interested in relationships with
> women only so that they can "save" you from your desires for men. If that
> is so, that doesn't sound very good for the woman you will have a
> relationship with. Shouldn't she deserve to be loved for who she is
> rather than because she is "saving" you from other people you love?
I guess this shoots the thesis which one frequent net.singles contributor
told me in a letter: that I'm good at expressing myself in words. I grant
that this was a subtle point. But I thought that what I said was that I
realized that I DO desire/love/whatever this young lady for what she is, and
that it was this realization that enabled me to know that I am truly a man
(since I have a desire such as any healthy, normal man might have), and thus
in one swell foop [sic] pretty well get rid of the homosexuality.
> And if you love other people and they also love you, wouldn't you all be
> more happy just loving each other rather than trying to pretend you don't?
Yes. But this is not the case. My homosexual desires, as I indicated, have
arisen when I was really in poor psychological shape; thus it's hard to class
them as "love" -- more as desperate need. Anyway, most of the homosexuals of
my (casual) acquaintance seem to have a marked streak of rottenness not far
from the (usually) pleasant surface; this is not a streak of meanness or
nastiness, but rather what seems (to my casually but observantly acquainted
eye) to be self-loathing; this is not attractive. Finally...the most powerful
homosexual desire I ever felt was when I was 27; the object of it was hardly
over half my age. Surely you would not wish me to be pederastic? No sense in
having a nice kid pay for my problems.
> I am not alone in thinking that it is possible to be both a Christian and
> homosexual (I can look up some references for you if you are interested).
I half agree with this. Certainly homosexuals can become Christians. But I
do not believe that a choice to continue in homosexuality is consistent with
Christianity. On the other hand [we have five fingers and a thumb :-)], it
is possible that God might not remove one's homosexual desires immediately
after one becomes a Christian, or even immediately after one asks for help
from God in dealing with them. There may be other areas of you that God
thinks need work even more than your sexuality. But those who deliberately
continue in their homosexuality -- claiming it to be a perfectly good,
normal expression of love -- "glory in their shame".
I am aware of one book that has popped up on the net before, and recently
("Christianity, Homosexuality, and Social Tolerance"), but I have not had a
chance to read it yet.
Everyone: Did my previous article really so fail to express my true meaning
that any other intelligent person would have interpreted it as Sophie did?
tim...@druxt.uucp
into two groups and those who don't." - source not remembered
Tim
Peter Rosenthal
Hey you forgot about those who, thanks to their big brothers
playboys, learned to read and masturbate simultaneously. Now you're
talking strange fantasy.
Sophie Quigley
you clarified a lot of things (for me at least) on your position wrt sexual
orientation. I was wondering all along whether you had really meant your first
message to turn out sounding the way it did and that's why I pressed you to
explain yourself. I hope this wasn't futile and I wasn't the only one who
misinterpreted you. Also if you had meant it the way it sounded to me, it
meant that there you still had a lot of soul-searching left in order to become
comfortable with yourself. I am happy to hear this is not completely the case.
Good luck.
Stephen Dyer
did. And this latest article, well, there's just so much misinformation there
(or more kindly, ignorance) of what gay people are like (not that one should
even have the PRESUMPTION to speak for more than oneself) that I feel defeated,
overwhelmed, incapable of knowing where to begin (or even whether to bother)
to react to your article substantively. Perhaps if I calm down in a few days
I'll give it a stab.
A couple of comments: Boswell's book is readily available in most bookstores;
it is indeed a shame that most Fundamentalists don't or won't read it.
And, if your gay friends all demonstrate an "unattractive self-loathing"
or a "streak of meanness", perhaps you need to find new gay friends.
Take a look at the articles in "net.motss"; do the kaleidoscope of people,
ideas and topics evidence "self-loathing"? Meanness?
I wonder what conclusions I could come up with about my straight friends
based on a few humdingers I know. Or maybe a theory of heterosexuality
based on the postings to "net.singles" (and obsolete warmed-over Freudian
jargon.)
--
/Steve Dyer
decvax!bbncca!sdyer
sd...@bbncca.ARPA
Jeff Sargent
> And, if your gay friends all demonstrate an "unattractive self-loathing"
> or a "streak of meanness", perhaps you need to find new gay friends.
> Take a look at the articles in "net.motss"; do the kaleidoscope of people,
> ideas and topics evidence "self-loathing"? Meanness?
I think some site upstream of us must zap most of net.motss, because rarely
do I see articles in it; most of the things I do see are, to speak frankly,
boring.
I grant (responding to a paragraph not quoted here) that I've never gotten to
be really close friends with any of the gays I know. (For one thing, most of
them smoke, which I detest.) Thus I don't know how they came to be as they
are. Plus, as I implied in my previous article, most of the gays I know have
pleasant personalities and considerable talent (my acquaintance with them is
through local theatre); the self-dislike (perhaps loathing was too strong a
term) is not immediately obvious; but it seems to be there underneath the
surface in most cases.
I can only repeat what I said -- that when I felt worst about myself, my
homosexual feelings became strongest; and when I felt better, more optimistic,
about myself, my heterosexual feelings resurfaced; and the cause and effect
were in the order listed (i.e. feeling rotten CAUSED the homosexual feelings.)
Based on this and on the previous paragraph, I'm not looking for new gay
friends, and not even very much for new male friends -- not because of
homophobia, but because I'm much more interested in women, and I think it
would help me grow as a person to take the risk of becoming closer friends
with one or more women, rather than with men. Most of my close friends for
most of my life have been male; there's nothing wrong with having male (or,
generically, same-sex) friends (it's infinitely better than having no friends
-- men are people too!); but I agree with the saying "Vive la difference!" --
women's personalities have some nifty good qualities that aren't there in men
(and, apparently, vice versa, since there are numerous heterosexual women),
and one whose closest relationship(s) is (are) with MOTSS's is really missing
out on some good stuff.
Basically, my question is: Why be gay, when there's so much more joy,
interest, and wonder in being straight? (No flames please; this is a
serious question; if the discussion gets too heavy, it can move to net.motss.)
Wendy P. Nather
Well, from the perspective of some of MY gay friends, the
answer is "why not?" Actually, those who would answer that way
are more bisexual than exclusively homosexual; their feeling is
that you shouldn't cut yourself off from the possibility of
loving and being loved by someone of your own sex. Rationale
for this includes believing that someone of the same sex can
share more of your feelings, since you have more in common.
(After hearing this a lot from close friends, I've begun to
feel narrow-minded for being straight!)
I've always had a sneaking suspicion that I might be open
to a relationship with an MOTSS if I felt better about myself.
The differences in men are enough to distract me every time. . .
Vive, as it has been said, la difference!
Wendy ["Romance is not a children's game. . .
But you keep going back--
It's driving you insane. . ."~]
Dick Dunn
>I can only repeat what I said -- that when I felt worst about myself, my
>homosexual feelings became strongest; and when I felt better, more optimistic,
>about myself, my heterosexual feelings resurfaced; and the cause and effect
>were in the order listed (i.e. feeling rotten CAUSED the homosexual feelings.)
This is all fine - but taken by itself (yes, I know Jeff had more to say),
it suggests to me not at all that there's something wrong with
homosexuality. Rather, it suggests that Jeff is probably, deep down, a
thoroughgoing heterosexual! (Sorry, Jeff, I had to say it.) That being
the case, I suggest Jeff should make the best of it. (Enjoy it, Jeff:-)
In other words, if the idea of homosexuality turns you off, don't do it.
Jeff ought to be a little more careful with analyses of causality.
Correlation, even with proper time sequence, does not imply causality (and
I wish I had taken Latin so I'd know the proper way to say that in about
five or six words).
>Basically, my question is: Why be gay, when there's so much more joy,
>interest, and wonder in being straight? (No flames please;...
Jeff, take that as personal, not global. For you (and I), heterosexuality
is the way to go - so that's what we do. There's no need to preach, or
rationalize, or explain.
--
Dick Dunn {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd (303)444-5710 x3086
...Never offend with style when you can offend with substance.
ken perlow
>> Basically, my question is: Why be gay, when there's so much more joy,
>> interest, and wonder in being straight? (No flames please; this is a
>> serious question; if the discussion gets too heavy, it can move to
>> net.motss.)
>> -- Jeff Sargent
For *YOU* Jeff, and me too, but some of my gay friends were most
miserable when they tried to be straight. Who says there's more
wonder and what-not in any particular sexual orientation?
Remember, Jeff, Christ is *YOUR* answer, not *THE* answer.
--
*** ***
JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** *****
****** ****** 06 Jun 84 [18 Prairial An CXCII]
cl...@sdcsla.uucp
Wendy (ut-sally!wendy) brings up the issue of homosexual relations as a case
of:
> that you shouldn't cut yourself off from the possibility of
> loving and being loved by someone of your own sex.
(*NOT* implying that Wendy practices the above, as she clearly states)
I have talked to two heterosexual (decidedly, ... ahem) ladies of my
acquaintance who have had homosexual experiences and had the same attitude-
> "why not?"
> Rationale
> for this includes believing that someone of the same sex can
> share more of your feelings, since you have more in common.
I have a similar reaction to Wendy's. It seems like, logically, a person
has been given all these nerve endings designed to feel good with proper
treatment. I don't believe in the 'Pursuit of stimulation as the end
all and be all' but if you have someone of either sex who you care about
in very deeply, and feel very special toward, their gender shouldn't matter
if you want to share that caring in a special way. And, as the above states,
they may be able to share even more, do to the gender similarities.
Note that I, too, still remain purely heterosexual, and can't imagine
changing, or even switching occasionally despite the above logic. I
may just be a product of our society (witness the ancient Greeks),
but I cannot overcome it with the realization. The stigma may be too
much. I do not condemn or condone others who choose otherwise.
Judging from my two informants above, and others, I wonder if women are
more able to share such feeling in such a way? Maybe society allows women
to be more expressive of their feelings, and this is one way to share.
Sorry if this rambles. Comments?
-- Clark
Barry Evans
From Jeff Sargent:
> ...; the self-dislike [in gays] (perhaps loathing was too strong a term)
>is not immediately obvious; but it seems to be there underneath the
>surface in most cases.
Jeff, You seem to be making a rather strong generalization here.
Take a look around you. Is everyone (of your straight) friends as
happy as you say they are? I mean, if "most of the gays"
are pre-occupied with "self-dislike", then certainly most of the straights
are not. Is that right? I look around, i see a lot of sad people, and
some of them don't even realize it themselves. The point is, whether
straight or gay, people are the same; some like themselves, some do
not. That's it... no "most" do and "most" don't. From what I've
seen, that just isn't true. Sorry, I just can't agree with you here.
>I'm not looking for new gay friends, and not even very much for new
>male friends -- not because of homophobia, but because I'm much more
>interested in women, ...
Why not *try* to meet all sorts of different people. Limiting
yourself to one `type' isn't going to allow you to grow very much.
>Basically, my question is: Why be gay, when there's so much more joy,
>interest, and wonder in being straight? (No flames please; this is a
>serious question; if the discussion gets too heavy, it can move to net.motss.)
"Why be gay"? Why? Is there a choice? Come one, Jeff. You know
perfectly well that choice is not a factor in whether someone is
straight or gay. And so much more joy and interest... that's
debatable. I know both straight and gay couples with significant
amounts of joy, happiness and love. I *cannot* say that one group is
better off than the other.
(Oh, btw, this *is* a serious answer, does that make this a flame :-)
--
Barry Evans - Wang Institute (617) 649-9731 x383
[apollo, bbncca, cadmus, decvax, harvard, linus, masscomp]!wivax!evans
evans%Wang-Inst@Csnet-Relay
Stephen Dyer
>because rarely do I see articles in it; most of the things I do
>see are, to speak frankly, boring.
De gustibus. But my point was that gay people cannot be characterized as
necessarily "self-loathing." By the way, net.motss has picked up in the
past month (perhaps with the arrival of spring) so if you do not see
articles, it is undoubtedly due to some net censor.
>I grant (responding to a paragraph not quoted here) that I've never
>gotten to be really close friends with any of the gays I know.
>(For one thing, most of them smoke, which I detest.) Thus I don't
>know how they came to be as they are. Plus, as I implied in my
>previous article, most of the gays I know have pleasant
>personalities and considerable talent (my acquaintance with them is
>through local theatre); the self-dislike (perhaps loathing was too
>strong a term) is not immediately obvious; but it seems to be there
>underneath the surface in most cases.
All that one should be willing to allow is that those few gay people with
whom you've made acquaintance aren't your kind of people. I can't argue
with your particular experience, but I do resent it when you generalize
from that about all of us as a class when your experience is so admittedly
shallow.
One could also say "smokers have pleasant personalities and considerable
talent" or "theatre people demonstrate self-dislike", but one wouldn't,
because it would sound silly. Get my point?
>...one whose closest relationship(s) is (are) with MOTSS's is
>really missing out on some good stuff.
Like most of what Jeff says, we're operating with a value judgement made
before the fact, and his reality is made to fit that world view. I'm sure you
could hear some other extremist saying "one can get so much closer to MOTSS
than MOTOS--there is so much more in common to be shared." Both statements
bore me, because they have so little to do with anyone's personal experience--
they are primarily political statements. I'd leave this evaluation up to each
individual, for we cannot decide for them.
>Basically, my question is: Why be gay, when there's so much more joy,
>interest, and wonder in being straight?
Usually, there isn't any choice, and the bit about "more joy, interest and
wonder" is not predetermined for people of any persuasion. There's only one
variant of this which I would accept: "Why be gay, when it's so much EASIER
being straight in Western societies?" Of course, there's no answer to this--
people are what they are. For people who find themselves attracted to both
sexes, there may be more of an element of "choice"--they can decide to
concentrate on one sex for simplicity or scruples, or as Woody Allen puts it,
they can double their chances of a date on Saturday night.
Guy Harris
> > that you shouldn't cut yourself off from the possibility of
> > loving and being loved by someone of your own sex. Rationale
> > for this includes believing that someone of the same sex can
> > share more of your feelings, since you have more in common.
> Here we have to define terms. Most of my closest friends are male. I can
> honestly say that we love each other deeply. We have indeed shared a lot of
> feelings (many of these friends of mine are fellow dissatisfied celibates).
> But we don't have to have sex with each other to love each other.
You're both right.
Whether one expresses affection sexually or not, and when one does, is purely
a matter of individual orientation. The comment should have been stated
"...you shouldn't cut yourself off from the possibility of expressing
affection sexually with someone of your own sex." Whether this is true or
not is a different story; sexual interest and love are two different things,
and don't always go hand-in-hand. Some people don't get interested in their
own sex; some people don't get interested in the opposite sex; some people
don't get interested in either sex; some people (of *both* sexes) only get
interested in dumb blondes; and so forth.
I've seen nothing that indicates to me that anybody's figured out *why* some
people get interested only in the opposite sex/same sex/dumb blondes/etc..
There have been, however, a lot of "explanations" of why heterosexuality,
homosexuality, bisexuality, asexuality, etc. are "better"; they all come across
as after-the-fact rationalizations. The human personality is the product
of a lot of complicated biological, cultural/social, and personal factors.
Beware of ascribing a part of your personality to a small number of those
factors. Just be what you are, and learn not to worry about it. Learning
that can be hard, given the number of images we're flooded with about what
we're "supposed" to be; if we aren't what we think we ought to be, we worry
about it. For some things, this is good; if we worry enough about breaking
little sister's/brother's toys, maybe we'll stop doing it and little sister/
brother will be happier. Unfortunately, it also makes us guilty about things
which shouldn't have any guilt associated with them, such as sexual orientation.
All the tools of social indoctrination can be used by a dominant group to
inculcate their attitudes, even if the only benefit of those attitudes
accrues to the dominant group. I'm sure most gays reading this group can
testify to that. So can blacks other minorities, and so can women.
If you feel heterosexual, don't worry about it and don't feel any need
to defend it. The only way to defend it, except as a personal orientation,
is to find fault with other orientations, and such fault simply doesn't exist.
A particular person may be gay and unhappy, and may even be unhappy because
of their gayness. But that's just that one person; and even for that person,
the unhappiness may come about because of the image that it's "unnatural"
and wrong, not because it isn't right for them. (John Varley's "Demon" has
an interesting bit about a woman who grew up in a lesbian separatist society
and discovered, relatively late in life, that she was "queer" - i.e., straight.
She felt quite guilty about it, and had a lot of trouble dealing with it.)
Guy Harris
{seismo,ihnp4,allegra}!rlgvax!guy
Sophie Quigley
appropriate as a "why not be bisexual?" instead. It seems to me that
if one chooses to have loving relationships only with one sex, then one
is cutting onself off from the joys, etc.... It doesn't really matter
which sex is chosen.
Nevertheless, this is a very pointless discussion as most people do not choose
their sexual orientation. It is like debating tastes in colours.
Rich Rosen
>> and dismay as cause-->effect, it was the baggage associated with his
>> religious beliefs (that homosexuality is "sinful", an adjective which in
>> and of itself carries a lot of baggage) led to the feelings of disgust,
>> depression, etc. [ROSEN]
> It is obvious that you just browsed this discussion, because you reversed the
> order of what I said. I said that in times when I felt depressed (especially
> when I was despairing about my ever being able to attract a female), THEN I
> would have homosexual feelings. In other words, it's depression-->homosexual
> feeling = cause-->effect, not the other way about. It could be argued that
> the anti-religious paragraph which the above passage began ought not to have
> been posted to anywhere but net.religion.... [SARGENT]
Which is the chicken and which is the egg is kind of irrelevant here. It is
*you* who makes the association between depression and homosexuality. The
paragraph was not intended to be "anti-religious" at all (though you have
tended to see anything that differs with your point of view as being attacking
or anti-religious; all we are all trying to do is provide some personal
insights; isn't that what you wanted when you originally submitted an article?)
Admittedly, the word "baggage" could be misinterpreted, but it was meant to
have a neutral connotation; i.e., believing that something is "sinful", a
listed sin in the book of sins, means more to you than just "it is wrong to
do"; it implies lowered self-worth for committing the act, potential divine
punishment, etc.; it is these things that the word "sinful" CARRIES with it
that I referred to as "baggage".) The point is: whether you get homosexual
feelings and get depressed, or you get depressed and feel that homosexual
feelings are somehow appropriate because of your imagined lower self-worth, due
to presumptions about what homosexual feelings MUST mean, it is *you* who have
made that association.
>> Not that there would be anything wrong with being gay, just that that's a
>> personal decision and one that should be made based on what's really going
>> on inside of you.
> Yes, it is a personal decision. Yes, if one has gay feelings, one should at
> least admit them to oneself. But I have read one book by a non-religious
> doctor wherein he discussed homosexuality as a psychosomatic disease ...
If I show you a book that said that belief in a deity was an aberration and a
psychosomatic disease, would you believe it? Would you care? I didn't think
so. So why suddenly base your life on some other book? Don't read a book and
believe in it to justify or legitimize your existence. (And I'm not talking
about you-know-which-book, either!) The notion of different sexual lifestyles
being "aberrations", "abnormal", or whatever has largely been disbanded. One
might as well write a book labelling my tastes in music or food as
psychological disorders. ("Mr. X is a chocophile, an cuisinial pervert who
takes pleasure in the vile habit of ingesting substances derived from cacao
beans. He also eats sushi, which everyone knows to be a filthy habit. Many
people acquire these disgusting perversions through childhood exposure, but
through modern conditioning and schooling, we can make them just like everybody
else...")
> I also suspect that if gays would gather their courage and examine their
> childhood and youth, they might well find some major emotional trauma that
> made them so afraid of MOTOS's that they turned to MOTSS's instead. In other
> words, I still think there's something wrong with being gay, quite apart from
> any religious pronouncements -- that it is a symptom of severe internal
> damage; and that one ought to help gays find that damage and get it healed,
> rather than ostracize them. Dick Dunn said in another article that I am a
> (I love this phrase) "thoroughgoing heterosexual." My thesis is that everyone
> is, at bottom, a thoroughgoing heterosexual, and that even well-established
> homosexuals have somewhere in them a despairing desire for a MOTOS.
Actually, the current consensus is that everyone has the *potential* for
attraction to members of *either* sex, especially since we all have what are
described as male and female components within us (except for those people who
are "all man", of course :-). Whatever one's sexual "orientation", it is made
out of choice. (Those who tell you otherwise are simply evading responsibility
for making that choice.) Again, calling attraction to members of the same sex
"severe internal damage" is just like saying that people who hold different
religious beliefs from you have some sort of mental problem. The idea is not
to "help" other people who are different from you to become more like you, but
rather for YOU to get the healing that would enable you to accept differences
in people as wonderful things instead of something to be eliminated. Assuming
that anyone wants to be just like you (having a desire for a MOTOS, despairing
or otherwise; believing any similar belief) is equally self-damaging. It would
seem that some of your statements have evoked harsh response from some gay
people on the net. I hope you understand that your referring to people as
damaged or flawed psychologically is equivalent to someone saying that you
should be committed for having religious beliefs, and I hope that that
understanding helps you gain more insight into both the global and personal
issues we've discussed. Some of the responses to you have been on the harsh
side, but realize the harshness that your statements we're perceived to have.
(See, gay people stereotype and generalize just like you do :-) One is
reminded of Shylock's speech from "Merchant of Venice".
--
"I take your opinions and multiply them by -1."
Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr
HP Labs Guest/guest
Hold on Rich, can't believe you said "Whatever one's sexual orientation,
its made out of choice".
I didn't choose to be a man, but as a man I can honestly say that I
have never had any sexual desires for another man. Ever since I can
possibly remember, the only sexual feelings I have ever had have been
towards women! I'm pretty sure it's instinctual! I have actually tried
to imagine a sexual experience with another man just to be open minded
about the whole thing- and YUK!! CACA!! Can't imagine doing that!!
I DID'T CHOOSE MY SEXUAL ORIENTATION, I WAS BORN INTO IT!!!
Also you stated "...accept the differences (of others preference) as
wonderfull things" Sorry! Brown showers? Murder? NOT TOO WONDERFULL!!
GEORGE LA BELLE
#G.SKINNER
> ed what a wise friend once
> told me, "Peter, there are two kinds of men in the world. Those
> that admit they masturbate, and those that lie about it." I guess
> I don't understand why the lack of feminine contact should increase
> one's sex drive, I personally would feel quite guilty if I realized a major
> reason I was interested in a relationship, interlude, or whatever was sex.
I heard that the figures were 10% masturbate, and 90% lie about it. It was
told to me by my 11th grade hygiene teacher.
--
Those who know me have no need for my name.
Greg Skinner (gregbo)
{allegra,cbosgd,ihnp4}!hou2e!gregbo