obsessed with sex
J. N. Shaumeyer
Arnold M Zwicky (zwi...@ling.ohio-state.edu), long ago
posted the appendix to his book, which contained exercises
for the reader. Among other things, he asked:
> Are faggots obsessed with sex?
> (Hint: What do you mean by *obsessed*?)
The answer is: no.
The reason for the answer is much longer and more
interesting. Note that I will be talking only about gay
men, but since that already means unwarrented extrapolation
from my personal experience and reflection, it seems the
more prudent course. My context is the American society
I grew up in.
"Obsession" I take to mean a compulsive, intrusive
preoccupation with some object or idea -- an ide'e fixe.
Obsession is a consuming emotion. The attention of the
obsessed is overruled continually by unwelcome, irrepressible
interruptions. No matter how pleasant may be the forced
daydreams, the effects of obsession are not pleasant.
Are *some* faggots obsessed with sex? Probably.
Are *some* non-faggots obsessed with sex? Probably.
Are [all] faggots obsessed with sex?
I see no reason to think so. More interesting, though,
is why does the question make any sense at all. Why does
it seem almost a *reasonable* thing to ask? Who might
think it a reasonable thing to say? Why might it be
thought that faggots *are* obsessed with sex?
Part 1. Why might straight people think faggots
are obsessed with sex?
Michelle Elliott (mich...@rlgvax.reston.icl.com)
identifies one critical element:
> Part ... of the slam on homosexuality is that it is
> primarily a physical thing, i.e., homosexuality =
> men having sex [with other men] ....
In many, if not most straight eyes, the primary
identifying quality of a faggot is that he has sex
with men.
For unknown reasons, this idea is evidently so difficult
to deal with that the straight person stops at this point
and refuses to consider further; apparently, it is easy
to lose sight of the faggot as a person, or that this
person might characterize his life, or indeed his
being gay, in a multitude of ways which have nothing
to do with sex acts. Thus, we encounter minds that are
unable to distinguish between his *being* gay, and his
actually having sex with another man.
What we become to this mind is a "lifestyle", an object
with no human qualities save our so-called deviant sexual
behavior. Since we are nothing but deviant sex-machines
and not people participating in everyday, heterosexual
life, our milieu is the underworld penumbra: men's rooms,
night clubs, gay bars, unlit alleys, the darkest corners
of barely-human existance. We are forever on the prowl
for the next sexual conquest, the next victim of our
unspeakable appetites.
I don't think this fantasy of abstraction is so far-fetched.
Many of us face the torn love of parents who may try to
understand, and want the best for their son, but who are
consumed by anguish that he will have to "live that life".
Many of us faced the prospect of acknowledging our
homosexuality with horror, since this is the only picture
we'd been given of the life awaiting us. This image is
very deep, all-pervasive, an integral part of our culture.
It is shocking, but not surprising to me, that so many
of Mr. & Mrs. Straight, when introduced to Mr. Faggot,
will think "sex, does it with men", and never get beyond
that thought, since this is all they know, all they've
heard, all they've been taught. It is all too easy for
them to imagine that faggots are obsessed with sex.
In large part, this stereotype comes about because of
the peculiar attitudes that Mr. & Mrs. Straight have
about the intention and morality of the sex-act, and the
peculiar effect that it has on their perceptions.
Consider the popular assertion that homosexuals are
promiscuous; or, to put it more carefully: homosexuals
indulge in indiscriminate sex, i.e., they are not
discriminating in their choice of sexual partners. My
contention is that "promiscuous" has no meaning in this
assertion. To the Straights, same-gender sex is by nature
entirely indiscriminate and the word is useless; for Mr.
Faggot, the word is meaningless because it is defined by
the sexual mores of the Straights, and these are not
relevant for him.
Jess Anderson (ande...@macc.wisc.edu) observed:
> Our upbringing has a whole lot of this "someone special"
> mythos to it -- the marriage model is the usual source
> -- and it seems to me a lot of people end up feeling
> rather at a loss because they don't for whatever reason
> get the myth converted into some suitable reality, or at
> least they don't for quite a while.
Marriage is the key, the warp of the heterocentric fabric.
It is the agent of confusion in the minds of the Straights
that tangles together the separate notions of love, sex,
and procreation into an inseparable mat.
Marriage is the recognized license to perform the sex-act.
The incredible number of expressions that name sex without
marriage, adultery, living in sin speak to this. The
general view of prostitution as an inherently evil, dirty
thing speaks to this. Virtually every idea that the
Straights have about sex uses marriage as the fiducial
for its moral measure. Marriage is the critical element
which defines the mixed-gender, romantic/sexual relationship.
The paradigm of marriage is learned very early indeed.
Consider the childhood rhyme:
John and Jane, sitting in a tree,
K - I - S - S - I - N - G.
First comes love, then comes marriage,
Then comes John with a baby carriage.
Evidently, the love referred to here is not vulgar,
sensuous love, but courtly love: sex is proscribed
until marriage. Sensuous love itself is too unspeakable
to name, but the implication that its purpose is
procreation is clear, as is the proper sequence of
events.
Consider the vernacular expression "makin' babies"
to refer to the [mixed-gender] sex-act.
Consider this common answer to the question of where
babies come from ["makin' babies"!]: "Well, when two
people love each other very much, they get married,
and then they have children."
Marriage and sex are inseparable; notions of marriage
inform every aspect of the mixed-gender sexual
relationship: the ritual of dating, no sex before marriage
[but heavy petting *may* be allowed]; boys will only
marry virgins; good girls don't; going steady [no confusion
about bastards]; what do you think of "pre-marital sex";
living together rationalized as "trial marriage".
Sex and procreation are inseparable; indeed, it may be
that in the mind of the Straights, the sole purpose of
sex is procreation. Any pleasure that sex might give
is purely a fortunate [but still cause for guilt] side
effect. How lucky for Mr. Straight that Mrs. Straight
is fertile for only a few days each month! It's not
his fault then if "makin' babies" doesn't, and his
guilt is assuaged.
It is in this context of strong association between the
sole purpose of sex as procreation, and that there shall
be no sex without marriage, that "promiscuity" acquires a
meaning. Any sexual encounter outside the nuptial chamber,
where procreation is seen clearly not to be its only goal,
is perforce indiscriminate, promiscuous, and something to
be discouraged. I think this inseparability speaks to
another point made by Michelle Elliott:
> I think our society's dislike for PDAs is a clear symptom
> of our discomfort with affection in general, with
> physicality in general, and with intimate human interaction
> in general. We are repressed!
In this view then, same-gender sex [if it can be called
that!], since it's purpose is clearly not procreative,
hence there is no purpose to marriage, is of necessity
indiscriminate by its very nature.
Part 2. Why might faggots think that they
are obsessed with sex?
But it goes further. Not only does marriage-sex-procreation
define the behavioral aspects of the mixed-gender
relationship, it defines the morality as well. Do
straight men have straight women as *friends*? Do they
have sex as a natural part of their friendship? More
than one relationship at a time?
The implication here for the Straights is that, since
procreation is not its apparent goal, same-gender sex is
therefore immoral. Where does this leave Mr. Faggot [or
Ms. Lesbian]? Not necessarily, as the Straights presume,
in an immoral morass.
It does tend to lead to confusion. Since marriage is
still denied Mr. Faggot he lacks society's sanction for
sex; since his sex is not manifestly to serve the need
of procreation, he is without the marriage paradigm as
a behavioral guide in forming relationships. This is a
big loss in one sense, because it is the only morality
of relationships he's been taught in endless lessons
since the earliest days of childhood. Without the marriage
paradigm's being available for his use, if Mr. Faggot is
to have an ethic for his relationships it will _a priori_
be different from that of the Straights.
Recognizing this, and coming to grips with the loss of
moral foundation that it represents, is going to be a
difficult part of removing the heterocentric blinders
that hinder a homosexual's self-acceptance. To echo
Jess's words: some are never able to convert the marriage
myth into a suitable reality.
The ancillary act, no doubt equally difficult, is to
disentagle the marriage-sex-procreation entity, so that
the irrelevant parts can be discarded and the relevant
parts reshaped as necessary, in order that construction
of the relationship ethic can begin. There appears to
be no single path to follow in this process, but the
process can be enlightening.
In a somewhat different [and more facetious] context,
Jeff Dauber (dau...@sgi.com) wrote:
> Gay males may be looking for sex, but they are also
> looking for romance. We have just reached a more advanced
> state where we realize that sex and romance are not
> necessarily linked.
I find much truth here.
Accompanying the separating of sex from the marriage myth
is a lessening of the repression of sensuality that Michelle
complained of. As I make more and more friends with other
gay men, I see touching, hugging, a physical rapport as
an integral part of the expression of friendship. And,
yes, we talk about sex much more often than the Straights
are accustomed to.
But the physical interaction is not obsessional. Talking
about sex is not obsessional. Rather, sex is simply a
topic that is free to appear in a conversation in the
same way that food or the weather is. In this case, it
is possible that faggots might think that they are obsessed
with sex, but I believe that to say so in general would
be measuring with the wrong ruler.
Are faggots obsessed with sex?
No.
--jns [Thanks to Arnold and Mara.]
Matthew L. Kreger
are obsessed with sex because they too have the desire to have sex
with one of the same gender, but they can control it...Therefore, those
of us who are unable to control our desire for same-sex sex are obsessed
with it.
:)
Hmmmmmmm..... could be.
Jake Coughlin
article is too big to digest in one sitting. however, i'm going on
vacation this weekend so i wanted to add my $.02 before it was too
late. sigh...all the good articles come by when i'm leaving...]
j...@wam.umd.edu (J. N. Shaumeyer):
> My context is the American society I grew up in.
i think this is a valuable observation to make about your exceptional
article. america is different than probably all other Western
countries in its attitudes regarding sex.
it is interesting that we label our society "puritanical" because the
puritans did have a rather "pure" attitude regarding marriage and
sexual fidelity. however, the puritanical belief that sex must wait
until *after* marriage is a myth. puritans actually allowed a
boyfriend and girlfriend to sleep together before marriage. the bed
had a board (there's even a name for it) that ran down the middle
between the two, but no one really believed that this inch or so of
wood would prevent sexual behavior. men were even allowed to
impregnate their wives before marriage, but the couple were wise to
marry shortly. (the grace period was shorter than 9 months.)
my point is that america has a real hangup with sex and lacks one
position on the subject. many positions seem to be contradictory.
(oh what fun puns we weave!)
> Are [all] faggots obsessed with sex?
no. i'm a faggot, and i'm not obsessed with sex. there's your
counter-example. :-)
> Michelle Elliott (mich...@rlgvax.reston.icl.com)
>> Part ... of the slam on homosexuality is that it is
>> primarily a physical thing, i.e., homosexuality =
>> men having sex [with other men] ....
blech -- one fallasy that leaps out at me is that this is defined
strictly in terms of men. i guess lesbians aren't homosexual because
we all know, of course, that women don't pursue sex because they don't
enjoy it. now there's an interesting question: are *men* obsessed
with sex?
> In many, if not most straight eyes, the primary
> identifying quality of a faggot is that he has sex
> with men.
well, i think this statement is a little too strong. attitudes toward
homosexuality seem to cover more issues than just "sex with men." i'm
thinking in particular of gender issues.
effeminate men have always been a problem for people including gay
men. men aren't supposed to swish. men aren't supposed to cry. men
are supposed to be aggressive. the stereotypical gay man is passive,
easily moved to tears (especially when watching Judy), and are always
passive. it's interesting that effeminate men are usually classified
as homos -- i know a few effeminate straight men.
i think another dislike of homosexuality stems from the myth that men
are supposed to be the active partner in sex. men do the inserting,
and men control what will be done and what will not be done. in fact,
sex is usually defined in terms of insertion -- you don't lose your
virginity until you either insert your penis or have a penis inserted
into you. (i guess that strict tops and bottoms are still virgins in
some sense.)
> For unknown reasons, this idea is evidently so difficult
> to deal with that the straight person stops at this point
> and refuses to consider further; apparently, it is easy
> to lose sight of the faggot as a person
i think the second idea is stronger than the first. it *is* easy to
lose sight of the fact that a faggot or a nigger or a wasp or a jap or
honkey is a person, but i think it's almost vital to do so in order
for a person to use these terms without feeling some sense of guilt or
some sense of debt to the person they've just denigrated (i'm catholic
and i feel guilty for all of humanity). there seems to be this notion
within such a person that a human being is composed of two parts: an
intangible consciousness that thinks a lot like me and a tangible
physique that looks a lot like me.
after the faggot, et. all, is stripped of human status or becomes a
second class human being (same thing, different syntax), the bigot
turns off their imagination regarding the experiences and life of the
faggot, et. all. i think the faggot is now as good as erased.
> Since we are nothing but deviant sex-machines
> and not people participating in everyday, heterosexual
> life, our milieu is the underworld penumbra: men's rooms,
> night clubs, gay bars, unlit alleys, the darkest corners
> of barely-human existance. We are forever on the prowl
> for the next sexual conquest, the next victim of our
> unspeakable appetites.
without adding a value judgement, i think that gay men do have sex
more often than straight men just because of the availability of it.
we have book stores, tea rooms, piers, unlit allies, etc. in our
social outlets, we have developed a complicated system to cruise
prospective partners and then deal with them weeks later when we're
nolonger attracted to them. fuck buddies seem much more common in the
gay male community than in the straight community.
again, the real problem is the separation between being a person and
having a lot of sex. jojo is a person who has a lot of sex; i'm a
person who doesn't. (sigh...)
> Jess Anderson (ande...@macc.wisc.edu) observed:
>> Our upbringing has a whole lot of this "someone special"
>> mythos to it -- the marriage model is the usual source
>> -- and it seems to me a lot of people end up feeling
>> rather at a loss because they don't for whatever reason
>> get the myth converted into some suitable reality, or at
>> least they don't for quite a while.
>
> Marriage is the key, the warp of the heterocentric fabric.
> It is the agent of confusion in the minds of the Straights
> that tangles together the separate notions of love, sex,
> and procreation into an inseparable mat.
well, i don't see that your paragraph follows jess's idea although i
think both ideas are true. it seems to me that jess is saying that
we're all looking for Mr. Right, and this ideology of a special person
with whom to share our lives is wrapped in the blanket of marriage.
you're adding sex and procreation as bed partners which may be true,
but i don't necessarily follow it from jess's statement.
> Marriage is the recognized license to perform the sex-act.
yes, in a double standard kind of way, but i wonder how much this is
changing. college life is supposed to be time of debauchery and
experimentation. the age for marriage has become older in recent
years so that marrying under the age of 21 seems a little taboo --
people are always wondering what you're throwing away. it's almost
considered better to hold off and enjoy life a little more. the
whispered undertone seems to be, "what if you got stuck with someone
who's boring at sex?"
marriage is also used to make a relationship official. not only are
two people free to perform the sex-act, but they're licensed to live
together, share their belongings, spend an inordinate amount of time
together, share a motel room without whispers. people who do these
things outside of marriage are always asked -- "so, when *are* you two
going to make it official?"
this, i think, is the reason that so many people oppose gay marriage
-- it validates the notion that a gay relationship is about more than
sex.
> Sex and procreation are inseparable; indeed, it may be
> that in the mind of the Straights, the sole purpose of
> sex is procreation.
i don't know too many people who *really* believe this in spite of the
fact that it's often used against homos.
> Not only does marriage-sex-procreation
> define the behavioral aspects of the mixed-gender
> relationship, it defines the morality as well. Do
> straight men have straight women as *friends*? Do they
> have sex as a natural part of their friendship? More
> than one relationship at a time?
well, here i think you're taking this analysis a little far. i don't
think straight people limit sexual behavior to marriage and
procreation nor do i think that they even pretend to in terms of
relationships with the opposite sex. however, i do believe that sex
plays a very important role in relationships.
for many people, intimacy is defined in terms of sex, especially for
strayt boyz. i have some very close relationships with women,
relationships that are very intimate. i can touch them in ways that
strayt boyz can't, hold their hands, kiss them full on the lips, hug
them, shake their knee. this intimacy is allowed and even sanctioned
because there are no sexual overtones with me. with a couple, the
relationship has gotten so close that we both wished that i had sexual
feelings for them.
do straight men have straight women as friends? surely, but i think
it has a different set of dynamics because of the availability of sex
and because strayt boyz seem express themselves thru sex.
> The implication here for the Straights is that, since
> procreation is not its apparent goal, same-gender sex is
> therefore immoral.
again, i think this overly simplistic line of reasoning is mostly by
the fundies. i think same-gender (we've switched from same-sex now)
sex is in many cases taboo for more complicated reasons which aren't
clear.
> [Mr. Faggot] is without the marriage paradigm as
> a behavioral guide in forming relationships. This is a
> big loss in one sense, because it is the only morality
> of relationships he's been taught in endless lessons
> since the earliest days of childhood.
[...]
> The ancillary act, no doubt equally difficult, is to
> disentagle the marriage-sex-procreation entity, so that
> the irrelevant parts can be discarded and the relevant
> parts reshaped as necessary, in order that construction
> of the relationship ethic can begin. There appears to
> be no single path to follow in this process, but the
> process can be enlightening.
this section of your article is riddled with the morality of
relationships and the relationship ethic. do relationships have a
morality? i have a hard time with that concept, and i think many of
the fundies do as well since we continually hear that the idea of a
loving relationship between members of the same sex is ok -- it's just
the sex which is not ok.
anyway, the marriage paradigm really isn't much of a model for a
relationship, only for the very general mechanics of a relationship
and the official structure of a relationship. in many ways, gay
people are freed from this confusion of mechanics with building a
real, intimate relationship.
> As I make more and more friends with other
> gay men, I see touching, hugging, a physical rapport as
> an integral part of the expression of friendship.
exactly -- aren't you making the same mistake as those you're arguing
against? you seem to be confusing affection (kissing, hugging) as a
physical rapport with sex. affection can be a part of sex, but the
two exist entirely separately.
> Rather, sex is simply a
> topic that is free to appear in a conversation in the
> same way that food or the weather is.
except that sex is entirely more interesting to talk about just
because of the stigma and how much it means to people.
--
Jason Coughlin ( ja...@ralvmm.vnet.ibm.com )
Queer Without A Cause!
"I find myself suddenly in the world, and I recognize that I have one
right alone: that of demanding human behavior of the other." -- Fanon
John Dorrance
> What we become to this mind is a "lifestyle", an object
> with no human qualities save our so-called deviant sexual
> behavior. Since we are nothing but deviant sex-machines
> and not people participating in everyday, heterosexual
> life, our milieu is the underworld penumbra: men's rooms,
> night clubs, gay bars, unlit alleys, the darkest corners
> of barely-human existance. We are forever on the prowl
> for the next sexual conquest, the next victim of our
> unspeakable appetites.
All right! Where do I sign up?
I know exactly what you're talking about, though (surprise surprise)...
First support group meeting I attended, I expected it to be a really
sleazy setup with lechers and old men waiting to trick tender young
things like myself into sex. I was petrified, but I went through with
going to the meeting anyway because I figured that if that really *was*
the kind of thing that went on, it was only what I was supposed to do
anyway, so I might as well get used to it. We ended up playing scrabble.
I won.
> Marriage is the key, the warp of the heterocentric fabric.
But what of the woof, Sir, the woof? Oh, polyester? Sorry.
Yet again trivializing a really well-thought-out and eloquently worded post,
John Dorrance ACM...@zeus.unomaha.edu ** Disco Diva y Flamenco Chico **
I always thought of you as my brick wall
Built like an angel, six feet tall.
Michelle Elliott
>> Michelle Elliott (mich...@rlgvax.reston.icl.com)
>>> Part ... of the slam on homosexuality is that it is
>>> primarily a physical thing, i.e., homosexuality =
>>> men having sex [with other men] ....
>
>blech -- one fallasy that leaps out at me is that this is defined
>strictly in terms of men. i guess lesbians aren't homosexual because
>we all know, of course, that women don't pursue sex because they don't
>enjoy it.
Lesbians don't enjoy having sex. That is gospel truth.
*Damned* if I know why we do it so often.
And exactly why *DID* I have those dozen or more one-night-stands
when I first came out??? Whatever was I thinking...
Yup, I think I'll become celibate. I'll put all my energy into
playing pool. Maybe I'll buy a truck, too. What a relief not
to have to have sex any more!
Hope Bev doesn't mind...
Michelle
Kathy Beatty
:
: Yup, I think I'll become celibate. I'll put all my energy into
: playing pool. Maybe I'll buy a truck, too. What a relief not
: to have to have sex any more!
:
: Hope Bev doesn't mind...
I knew it! You're in a relationship! Those of us who are in a relationship
are obsessed with celibacy. Those of us who are celibate ( 8-( 8-( 8-( )
are obsessed with sex, of course.
Kathy
Nelson Minar
>I know exactly what you're talking about, though (surprise surprise)...
>First support group meeting I attended, I expected it to be a really
>sleazy setup with lechers and old men waiting to trick tender young
But did you ever get to have sex with the old men?
--
__
nel...@reed.edu \/ The look in his eyes when it hit - Kid, it was tasty...
Jess Anderson
In article <1992May16.0...@auto-trol.com>
kat...@auto-trol.com (Kathy Beatty) writes:
>I knew it! You're in a relationship! Those of us who are in a relationship
>are obsessed with celibacy. Those of us who are celibate ( 8-( 8-( 8-( )
>are obsessed with sex, of course.
Coming to a quote file near you soon!
--
Jess Anderson <> Madison Academic Computing Center <> University of Wisconsin
Internet: ande...@macc.wisc.edu <-best, UUCP:{}!uwvax!macc.wisc.edu!anderson
NeXTmail w/attachments: ande...@yak.macc.wisc.edu Bitnet: anderson@wiscmacc
Room 3130 <> 1210 West Dayton Street / Madison WI 53706 <> Phone 608/262-5888
Jess Anderson
In article <1992May16....@reed.edu> nel...@reed.edu
(Nelson Minar) writes:
>In article <1992May15....@news.unomaha.edu>
>ACM...@Zeus.unomaha.edu (John Dorrance) writes:
>>First support group meeting I attended, I expected it to be a really
>>sleazy setup with lechers and old men waiting to trick tender young
>>things like myself into sex. ... We ended up playing scrabble.
>But did you ever get to have sex with the old men?
It's easy to see why I adore Nelson!
<> It often seems to me that people --straight and gay--
<> try to protect us from homophobia by maintaining our
<> closets for us. I don't want that. I want them to turn
<> their energies to the 'phobes.
<> -- Jeannine Pinto (jm...@fermi.clas.virginia.edu)
Angela Gilham
mich...@rlgvax.Reston.ICL.COM (Michelle Elliott) writes:
In article <1992May13.2...@watson.ibm.com>
ja...@ralvmm.vnet.ibm.com (Jake Coughlin) writes:
>> Michelle Elliott (mich...@rlgvax.reston.icl.com)
>>> Part ... of the slam on homosexuality is that it is
>>> primarily a physical thing, i.e., homosexuality =
>>> men having sex [with other men] ....
>
>blech -- one fallasy that leaps out at me is that this is defined
>strictly in terms of men. i guess lesbians aren't homosexual because
>we all know, of course, that women don't pursue sex because they don't
>enjoy it.
Lesbians don't enjoy having sex. That is gospel truth.
*Damned* if I know why we do it so often.
It beats watching the re-runs on TV or doing the ironing. It doesn't
beat doing the laundry (well, the pile of *things* which may once
have been tee-shirts at the bottom of my closet is beginning to
look suspiciously sentient ;-)
Its also better than working on the thesis (but then, what isn't),
taking exams and cleaning out the cat litter, but isn't really
up there with a real serious attack on the spots or a long evening
in the bath with a copy of Lady Trucker.
And exactly why *DID* I have those dozen or more one-night-stands
when I first came out??? Whatever was I thinking...
Thinking? Nawwwwwwww ;-) S'hormones, innit?
Yup, I think I'll become celibate. I'll put all my energy into
playing pool. Maybe I'll buy a truck, too. What a relief not
to have to have sex any more!
Sounds coooooooooooool!
Hope Bev doesn't mind...
Michelle
Let us all know the progress Michelle, unless, of course, you
experience a conversion on the road to the gas station in your
truck and slow down to pick up this incredible butch hitching
down the road and she gives you a long, slow smouldering stare
as she climbs into the cab . . .
Ang
--
Angela Gilham. \ a...@aber.ac.uk \ Just another butch bi ...
Department of Computer Science \ \ Into 501 jeans, leather,
University of Wales Aberystwyth,\ +44 970 622433 \ sexy women and horny
Penglais, Aberystwyth. SY23 3BZ. \ \ green-eyed men!
Shawn Hicks
>mich...@rlgvax.Reston.ICL.COM (Michelle Elliott) writes:
>:
>: Yup, I think I'll become celibate. I'll put all my energy into
>: playing pool. Maybe I'll buy a truck, too. What a relief not
>: to have to have sex any more!
>I knew it! You're in a relationship! Those of us who are in a relationship
>are obsessed with celibacy. Those of us who are celibate ( 8-( 8-( 8-( )
>are obsessed with sex, of course.
Relationships are the ultimate attraction. When you are in one, everyone
wants you. When you aren't, they don't.
I got fed up with all the games so I swore celibacy on New Years for 1990.
I was faithful to my resolution. My New Years resolution for 1991 was to
take what I could get when I wanted it and not get stressed over the games.
1991 was a better year.
Shawn
Joseph Francis
>
>In article <1992May16....@reed.edu> nel...@reed.edu
>(Nelson Minar) writes:
>
>>In article <1992May15....@news.unomaha.edu>
>>ACM...@Zeus.unomaha.edu (John Dorrance) writes:
>
>>>First support group meeting I attended, I expected it to be a really
>>>sleazy setup with lechers and old men waiting to trick tender young
>>>things like myself into sex. ... We ended up playing scrabble.
>
>>But did you ever get to have sex with the old men?
>
>It's easy to see why I adore Nelson!
He's serious. It is hard to find a good old letch nowadays, since
publications like STH has made them popular. Believe me, people lined
up in Amsterdam on Queen's day to get at the oldest and most crotchety
ones.
--
US Jojo; damp, slighly soiled, but tasty nonetheless.
John Dorrance
> In article <1992May15....@news.unomaha.edu> ACM...@Zeus.unomaha.edu (John Dorrance) writes:
> >I know exactly what you're talking about, though (surprise surprise)...
> >First support group meeting I attended, I expected it to be a really
> >sleazy setup with lechers and old men waiting to trick tender young
> >things like myself into sex. ... We ended up playing scrabble.
>
> But did you ever get to have sex with the old men?
None in attendance, no...
And I should hope you don't think I hold the same attitudes now that I did
way back then about ANYTHING, let alone about age. I mean, I thought the
little dig about lechers would have made it obvious that I was being ironic,
considering what a card-carrying lech I am now...
Joseph Francis
>In article <1992May16.0...@auto-trol.com>, kat...@auto-trol.com (Kathy Beatty) writes:
>>mich...@rlgvax.Reston.ICL.COM (Michelle Elliott) writes:
>>:
>>: Yup, I think I'll become celibate. I'll put all my energy into
>>: playing pool. Maybe I'll buy a truck, too. What a relief not
>>: to have to have sex any more!
>
>>I knew it! You're in a relationship! Those of us who are in a relationship
>>are obsessed with celibacy. Those of us who are celibate ( 8-( 8-( 8-( )
>>are obsessed with sex, of course.
>
>Relationships are the ultimate attraction. When you are in one, everyone
>wants you. When you aren't, they don't.
My personal theory of sex attraction is that the less conscious
someone is the more sexually attractive for short-term liasons they
become. Consciousness, of course, measured in a variety of ways, but
narrowed down to two for the purposes of posting: awake, and
functional. So often, when you feel slightly fuzzy and 'out of it'
isn't that precicely the time when you can go out and have bartenders
sending you free drinks and winking knowingly, while people you would
never dream knew you were alive not only know it, but want to share in
the experience, in droves. One simple, clean, mind-numbing (and
paradoxically libido-reducing) tranquillizer is more than enough to
fill your dance card for two weeks. Lets looks at the facts:
* The people who seem to be swarmed around the most are the cute ones
who are one sandwich short of a picnic. People whose level of
consciousness approaches that of a carrier pigeon have the thickest
address books.
* many people spend endless hours imbibing alcohol in vain attempts to
simulate sullen, heavy-lidded unconscious sensuality characteristic
of the well-laid.
* relationships dull the senses, and likewise consiousness; sated with
plenty of turgid-flesh licking and nibbling, the betrothed assume
a sleepy satisfied demeanor prone to cause reactions in others
merely wanting to indulge in similar organic orifice coupling.
* the completely conscious give off alertness pheremones which lower
libido in nearby people, and cause good conversation.
Robert Coren
>
> He's serious. It is hard to find a good old letch nowadays, since
> publications like STH has made them popular. Believe me, people lined
> up in Amsterdam on Queen's day to get at the oldest and most crotchety
> ones.
See, Jess, there's hope for us!
--Robert (whose 46 years feel rather like 57 after a weekend of
alternating between gardening and painting)
Mike Berger
>In article <1992May15....@news.unomaha.edu> ACM...@Zeus.unomaha.edu (John Dorrance) writes:
>>I know exactly what you're talking about, though (surprise surprise)...
>>First support group meeting I attended, I expected it to be a really
>>sleazy setup with lechers and old men waiting to trick tender young
>>things like myself into sex. ... We ended up playing scrabble.
>But did you ever get to have sex with the old men?
>--
*----
In other words, did you triple-word score?
--
Mike Berger
Department of Statistics, University of Illinois
AT&TNET 217-244-6067
Internet ber...@atropa.stat.uiuc.edu
Jess Anderson
In article <1992May18....@osf.org> co...@osf.org
(Robert Coren) writes:
>In article <1992May18.1...@spdcc.com>,
>j...@spdcc.com (Joseph Francis) writes:
>> He's serious. It is hard to find a good old letch nowadays, since
>> publications like STH has made them popular. Believe me, people lined
>> up in Amsterdam on Queen's day to get at the oldest and most crotchety
>> ones.
>See, Jess, there's hope for us!
Alas, dear Robert, young Joseph speaks with forked tongue,
for he informs us in another posting that because we are
conscious and therefore of no interest, we must start
enjoying the veil.
>--Robert (whose 46 years feel rather like 57 after a weekend of
>alternating between gardening and painting)
Try not to be discouraged or discouraging, for unpainting
right down to the wood (at least, one side is stone) is on
my summer list of tasks.
<> We have a million more cows than people; if they could vote,
<> the average intelligence of the electorate would rise
<> precipitously. -- Jess Anderson
Michelle Elliott
>In article <1992May15.1...@rlgvax.Reston.ICL.COM>
>mich...@rlgvax.Reston.ICL.COM (Michelle Elliott) writes:
>> And exactly why *DID* I have those dozen or more one-night-stands
>> when I first came out??? Whatever was I thinking...
>
>Thinking? Nawwwwwwww ;-) S'hormones, innit?
Shore-mons??? Melinda, was that *you* on that hot Saturday night
last August????
>> Yup, I think I'll become celibate. I'll put all my energy into
>> playing pool. Maybe I'll buy a truck, too. What a relief not
>> to have to have sex any more!
>
>Sounds coooooooooooool!
Of course, once you own a truck, that's one more place to have sex...
Pool tables can be interesting, too...
>Let us all know the progress Michelle, unless, of course, you
>experience a conversion on the road to the gas station in your
>truck and slow down to pick up this incredible butch hitching
>down the road and she gives you a long, slow smouldering stare
>as she climbs into the cab . . .
Gee, how did you know I had that fantasy...
Michelle, who's silently singing "Baby you can climb into my cab"
to the tune of "Baby you can drive my car"
D. Owen Rowley
>He's serious. It is hard to find a good old letch nowadays, since
>publications like STH has made them popular. Believe me, people lined
>up in Amsterdam on Queen's day to get at the oldest and most crotchety
>ones.
Is that only for Queens day, or was i doing something wrong while I was in
Amsterdam.
I am a charter member of Letch-R-us the older faggots collective, and was
very dissapointed that I could only get attention from other ancient
specimens? Oh the type i like would talk with me, to practice their english
perhaps, but with one exception I was generally shunted off to the old folks
corner :-(
( the one exception DID make up for it though :-)
LUX .. owen
--
-=- very happy to be queer -=- -+- right here -+- -*- NOW -*-
*No matter where you go, there you are.*
Melinda Shore
> Of course, once you own a truck, that's one more place to have sex...
More than one, if you consider the added, uh, mobility.
--
Melinda Shore - Cornell Theory Center - sh...@tc.cornell.edu
John Dorrance
> Michelle, who's silently singing "Baby you can climb into my cab"
> to the tune of "Baby you can drive my car"
I *knew* I'd heard somewhere that lesbians have no sense of meter! And
here's proof! Ha!
John, AKA Cr*m*r-in-waiting
(Meter? I'd settle for 8 inches!)
ryerson.schwark
>
>John, AKA Cr*m*r-in-waiting
>(Meter? I'd settle for 8 inches!)
I'll be damned if I'm cutting off that much for anybody!
Ry Schwark
r...@usl.com
Henry Mensch
->In article <1992May19.2...@news.unomaha.edu> ACM...@Zeus.unomaha.edu (John Dorrance) writes:
->>
->>John, AKA Cr*m*r-in-waiting
->>(Meter? I'd settle for 8 inches!)
->
->
->I'll be damned if I'm cutting off that much for anybody!
oh, go on, ry ... eight inches? you keep telling us how BIG your dick
is ... eight inches is probably only the tip of the iceberg!
--
# henry mensch / booz, allen & hamilton, inc. / <he...@ads.com>
ryerson.schwark
>r...@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (ryerson.schwark) wrote:
>->In article <1992May19.2...@news.unomaha.edu> ACM...@Zeus.unomaha.edu (John Dorrance) writes:
>->>John, AKA Cr*m*r-in-waiting
>->>(Meter? I'd settle for 8 inches!)
>->
>->I'll be damned if I'm cutting off that much for anybody!
>
>oh, go on, ry ... eight inches? you keep telling us how BIG your dick
>is ... eight inches is probably only the tip of the iceberg!
Are you calling my frigid?! Why henry, I do believe you've earned the polar
icecube special!
Ry
PS. And to those of you who wonder where all this came from, beg Melinda
Shore to repeat what I thought was one of the funnier strayt boy stories
of all times.....
Joseph Francis
>In article <1992May18.1...@spdcc.com> j...@spdcc.com (Joseph Francis) writes:
>>He's serious. It is hard to find a good old letch nowadays, since
>>publications like STH has made them popular. Believe me, people lined
>>up in Amsterdam on Queen's day to get at the oldest and most crotchety
>>ones.
>Is that only for Queens day, or was i doing something wrong while I was in
>Amsterdam.
>I am a charter member of Letch-R-us the older faggots collective, and was
>very dissapointed that I could only get attention from other ancient
>specimens? Oh the type i like would talk with me, to practice their english
>perhaps, but with one exception I was generally shunted off to the old folks
>corner :-(
1) Letch styling: Silky white or rust Quiana short-sleeved shirt
revealing a tuft of chest hair at the throat, or alternately heavy
male chest with sucky nipples. Pale skin. If balding, do not, under
any circumstances, do "wipe", because even though quintessentially
letch, is inexcusable. Ivory long shorts with a blue/black plaid
pattern, just high entough to reveal cantaloupe calves, but still
below the knee. Tasteful white socks and sandals. Alternate styling:
tallish, slender, with long-sleeved pendleton shirt buttoned all the
way down to the cuff, beige 'sansabelt' trousers, and tasseled
loafers. The Jojo (tm) remake: crisp white oversized teeshirts with
sleeves to the elbows. The shorts are excellent for both varieties,
and replace the sandals with simple white tennis shoes (no, not
Trainers: more like Nike "Allcourts"). Alternately, black leather
jacket and no shirt (exposing interestingly aged and completely
undignified chest and belly) , crazed facial hair patterns, and black
levis with engineer boots.
2) Letch hangouts: 2nd floor at Club Jacques. Back by the pinball
machines at the Web. Just after climbing the stairs at the Argos.
Company.
3) Letch behaviour: aggressive staring, crotch adjustment, and groping
in tight spaces. Removal of clothes within seconds upon reciprocating
touches. Grabbing of hands directing to engorged organs. Being
extremely forward and unrepentant. Prone to very good jokes, and lots
of laughter. Tawdry, shameless, dirty, and very fun sex.
>( the one exception DID make up for it though :-)
That's why Amsterdam has such a reputation...
Michelle Elliott
my reconstruction of John's post is questionable.
But here goes, anyway...
In article <1992May19.2...@news.unomaha.edu> ACM...@Zeus.unomaha.edu (John Dorrance) writes:
>>Michelle, who is silently singing "Baby you can climb into my cab"
>> to the tune of "Baby you can drive my car"
>Aha. This just goes to prove that lesbians have no sense of meter.
A new concept for the 90's: "metric lesbians" vs. "avoirdopois lesbians"
Michelle, who is always happy to meter. Who did you have in mind?
ctw
> So often, when you feel slightly fuzzy and 'out of it'
> isn't that precicely the time when you can go out and have bartenders
> sending you free drinks and winking knowingly, while people you would
> never dream knew you were alive not only know it, but want to share in
> the experience, in droves.
This may be a function of alcohol (or other chemical! :-D ) inducing wishful
thinking. I've found it to be the case myself, but I don't notice a
tangible increase in my laid-ness when I'm sober again. Unfortunately.
> * many people spend endless hours imbibing alcohol in vain attempts to
> simulate sullen, heavy-lidded unconscious sensuality characteristic
> of the well-laid.
Characteristic of the well-laid? This condition describes me, but I'm not
what I would consider well-laid. :-(
> * the completely conscious give off alertness pheremones which lower
> libido in nearby people, and cause good conversation.
So conversation (and, by connection, intellectual stimulation) is
antithetical to sexiness? To quote Wayne and Garth: NOT!
--
Christopher A. Tweney / Email: ctw%qo...@gantz.bowlgreen.oh.us
USNAIL: 622 Morton, Bowling Green, Ohio 43402
{$}
I will not be held responsible for the opinions of my computer.
Larry D. Stratton
>Joseph Francis writes:
>> So often, when you feel slightly fuzzy and 'out of it'
>> isn't that precicely the time when you can go out and have bartenders
>> sending you free drinks and winking knowingly, while people you would
>> never dream knew you were alive not only know it, but want to share in
>> the experience, in droves.
>This may be a function of alcohol (or other chemical! :-D ) inducing wishful
>> simulate sullen, heavy-lidded unconscious sensuality characteristic
>> of the well-laid.
>Characteristic of the well-laid? This condition describes me, but I'm not
>what I would consider well-laid. :-(
>> * the completely conscious give off alertness pheremones which lower
>> libido in nearby people, and cause good conversation.
>So conversation (and, by connection, intellectual stimulation) is
>antithetical to sexiness? To quote Wayne and Garth: NOT!
Perhaps, but in practice? not-NOT!
>--
>Christopher A. Tweney / Email: ctw%qo...@gantz.bowlgreen.oh.us
>USNAIL: 622 Morton, Bowling Green, Ohio 43402
>{$}
>I will not be held responsible for the opinions of my computer.
--
TWA In search of a sig.
suggestions solicited (or is that solicitations suggested?)
tdo...@llnl.gov
la...@bradley.bradley.edu (Larry D. Stratton) writes:
[...]
-> Perhaps, but in practice? not-NOT!
Who's there?
-> TWA In search of a sig.
TDO
Angela Gilham
And I met her in the pub on Tuesday night and simply lusted from
afar . . . a cute, baby butch wearing a k d lang tee shirt under
he biker jacket and over her 501s
I think I'm in lust!
Michelle, who's silently singing "Baby you can climb into my cab"
to the tune of "Baby you can drive my car"
Ang
Jim Kingdon
> Michelle, who's silently singing "Baby you can climb into my cab"
> to the tune of "Baby you can drive my car"
ACM...@Zeus.unomaha.edu (John Dorrance) writes:
> I *knew* I'd heard somewhere that lesbians have no sense of meter! And
> here's proof! Ha!
Isn't the sense of meter controlled by the hypothalamus or something?
Jim, who is in an impish mood today.
David R. Preston
>Alternately, black leather
>jacket and no shirt (exposing interestingly aged and completely
>undignified chest and belly)
"Interestingly aged"... I don't suppose you've noticed that the fur
on Mike's chest is only white in the vee formed by his harness?
Or is he your archetype? :-)
--
David R. Preston d...@dosbears.uucp
Information gladly given but safety requires
the avoidance of unnecessary conversation.
D. R. Preston 584 Castro St. #614 SF CA 94114 USA