Muffin on Parade
John Prigeon
This is it! I am officially demuffinized! Phew, that wasn't so bad.
Actually, it was a lot less painful than I imagined. Kind of like . . .
well, nevermind. :^)
Anyway, I've spent some time figuring out my smurf and bear codes.
Allow me to share them with you:
S4 b g l+ y+ z n o- x- a+ u v- j++
B0 f+ t++ w- g s
One thing about the bear code has puzzled me, though. Does anyone really
use e+ or e++? IMHO, it sounds like telling someone at a bar that you're,
oh, a millionare or dated Tom Cruise (or Wilford Brimley for the ursine
types), or something.
jap, wondering just exactly what the demarcation is between e+ and e++.
Steve Dyer
>One thing about the bear code has puzzled me, though. Does anyone really
>use e+ or e++?
Yes, some do.
>IMHO, it sounds like telling someone at a bar that you're,
>oh, a millionare or dated Tom Cruise (or Wilford Brimley for the ursine
>types), or something.
Yup.
>jap, wondering just exactly what the demarcation is between e+ and e++.
Or e and e+, for that matter. FYI, the only e++'s I've ever seen have been
on people who've been too modest to use that.
--
Steve Dyer
dy...@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer
Nelson Minar
"ouch"
Nelson, who can only remember "e", "s", and "k".
__
nel...@reed.edu \/ This is the time, and this is the record of the time
David Speakman
> Hi Everybody!!!!!
>
Ha ha.. Gotcha. Maybe you'll be like me and only post during your vacation.
(the recently unemployed David Speakman thanks good fortune for financial aid
to students)
>
> Anyway, I've spent some time figuring out my smurf and bear codes.
> Allow me to share them with you:
>
> S4 b g l+ y+ z n o- x- a+ u v- j++
>
> B0 f+ t++ w- g s
>
You have been an active muffin if you have figured these out.
I've had the bear code archived for some time, but never bothered (being fairly
hairless -- except for a a blotch on my chest and whatever that is between your
navel and... )
Anyway, could someone send me the smurf codes (e-mail).
I have no idea what they are (which means I probably an a big one!)
8-)
> One thing about the bear code has puzzled me, though. Does anyone really
> use e+ or e++?
Don't just use e+ or e++. Hold them afterward and tell them that you care..
David Speakman
Dan Ross
>[...]
>One thing about the bear code has puzzled me, though. Does anyone really
>use e+ or e++? IMHO, it sounds like telling someone at a bar that you're,
>oh, a millionare or dated Tom Cruise (or Wilford Brimley for the ursine
>types), or something.
>jap, wondering just exactly what the demarcation is between e+ and e++.
"Oh _my_." vs. "YOU'RE GOING TO DO **WHAT**?!!"
John Dorrance
>Hi Everybody!!!!!
Hiyahiyahiya! Another former Nebraskan steps forward!
>Anyway, I've spent some time figuring out my smurf and bear codes.
>Allow me to share them with you:
>S4 b g l+ y+ z n o- x- a+ u v- j++
I don't remember what all this means, but he's basically Joe McIntyre
from the New Kids on the Block, stretched out.
>B0 f+ t++ w- g s
Mmm hmm, wouldn't know, that's for damn sure, that too, that too, I
got that impression :).
>One thing about the bear code has puzzled me, though. Does anyone really
>use e+ or e++? IMHO, it sounds like telling someone at a bar that you're,
>oh, a millionare or dated Tom Cruise (or Wilford Brimley for the ursine
>types), or something.
I thought of putting e--! in my bear codes just for a laugh.
>jap, wondering just exactly what the demarcation is between e+ and e++.
*Gasp!* and *Eeek!!!*
--
tha...@cwis.unomaha.edu * John Dorrance * Disco Diva y Flamenco Chico
You would be surprised at what resides in your insides.
Mike Reaser
>Anyway, I've spent some time figuring out my smurf and bear codes.
>Allow me to share them with you:
>S4 b g l+ y+ z n o- x- a+ u v- j++
I'm clueless (so what else is new?) -- could someone email me the smurf
codes so I can understand?
>B0 f+ t++ w- g s
>
>One thing about the bear code has puzzled me, though. Does anyone really
>use e+ or e++? IMHO, it sounds like telling someone at a bar that you're,
>oh, a millionare or dated Tom Cruise (or Wilford Brimley for the ursine
>types), or something.
The difference between e+ and e++ are whether you stuff a sock in your
pants or the whole damn hosiery mill.
An alternative would be what I saw at the Atlanta Eagle one night --
a Jeff Stryker dildo duct taped (yes, I said _DUCT TAPED_) to his
pubic hair. It made the phrase "follow the bouncing ball" take on a
_whole_ new meaning... :-). A fashion statement and masochist's
delight, all in one!
>jap, wondering just exactly what the demarcation is between e+ and e++.
Braggadocio vs. just pure, plain bullshit. Like Steve said, the only
e+ and e++ I've encountered weren't so taken with themselves to need
to broadcast what they had.
--
=======================================================================
Mike Reaser, Hewlett-Packard N. Amer. Response Center - Atlanta
Internet: m...@hpuerca.atl.hp.com
NBCS: B5 f t w g+ k s I barely speak for myself, so
#include <standard.disclaimer> don't make me speak for HP
=======================================================================
abe...@enh.nist.gov
>whatever that is between your navel and...
The "goody trail."
Sim Aberson Ft. Lauderdale, FL abe...@ocean.dnet.nasa.gov
"Home is where your roof landed" - t-shirt seen in Miami
"We Will Rebuild (tm)" - majority community response to Andrew
"We Will Redecorate" - gay community response to Andrew
Brent Capps
here for a while though.
jpri...@hpscit.sc.hp.com (John Prigeon) writes:
>One thing about the bear code has puzzled me, though. Does anyone really
>use e+ or e++? IMHO, it sounds like telling someone at a bar that you're,
>oh, a millionare or dated Tom Cruise (or Wilford Brimley for the ursine
>types), or something.
I look at it as just another physical characteristic like h or t or w.
The interpretation you put onto it is your own.
This is really painful for me to talk about, but I'll be damned if
I'm going to be silent about it any longer. Everybody thinks it's such
a big goddam party to have a very large penis? Try years of embarassment
as a teenager when it decided to make its presense known during social
situtions. Try never wearing shorts in public and avoiding PE
because you didn't want to be talked about in the showers. Try
always having to tuck your shirttail in and carry your books at
waist level because it stuck out the top of your pants. Try having
your feelings dismissed by people who found it easier to marginalize
you than try to understand how being physically different could
cause you to be ashamed of your own body. Try imagining how it
feels to have people think of you as a piece of meat.
As difficult as it may be for you to imagine, most men in this
category are actually very shy about it. No one wants to be
picked on because their bodies are different. It took years of
patience by my husband to get me to see that it didn't have to be a
bad thing and that I could allow myself to have a little fun
with it. So I'm not going to hide it so much any more. But I don't
attach any meaning to it either. If other people do that's
their problem. I know it doesn't mean a goddam thing.
I'm sitting at my terminal debating on whether to post this or
abort. I know I'm going to get flamed by morons who can't believe
that anybody would consider this to be a problem.
Fuck it. I'm tired of remaining silent.
--
Brent Capps |
bca...@agora.rain.com (gay stuff) | (B4) h t w- c+ g+ k? s-: e++ r-
bca...@atlastele.com (telecom stuff) |
Steve Dyer
>[big dick]
>I'm sitting at my terminal debating on whether to post this or
>abort. I know I'm going to get flamed by morons who can't believe
>that anybody would consider this to be a problem.
>Fuck it. I'm tired of remaining silent.
Wanna trade?
Um, I worry now that maybe all these e++'s I've apparently seen
might in fact be e+'s, since I'm easily impressed (semi-virgin that
I am.) How big does it have to be before you feel ashamed of it?
I hadn't met anyone like this up until this point. Shame is such
a personal matter; it's tied only loosely with objective reality.
P.S.: You weren't at Rooster Rock, that's for sure.
John Prigeon
Shortly after my first post, I started to wonder if the endowment thing
holds the same fascination for lesbians? From my observations, many straight
men seem to be preoccupied with it (my dad for one).
Just kinda curious,
jap
PS JD - you devil! BTW, is it good to be compared to this Joe McIntyre
guy? Yes, I know, I'm disconnected from pop culture, but what would you
expect from an engineer! Le'ssee, where did I leave my pocket protector . . .
John Dorrance
and you seem to be as well. He's quite nambloid, though, and you're
not, so there are differences.
Brent Capps
>In article <C02xF...@agora.rain.com> bca...@agora.rain.com (Brent Capps) writes:
>>I'm sitting at my terminal debating on whether to post this or
>>abort. I know I'm going to get flamed by morons who can't believe
>>that anybody would consider this to be a problem.
>>Fuck it. I'm tired of remaining silent.
>Wanna trade?
You still don't get it, do you? Your response is a prime example
of why we don't want to talk about it. We know that if we try to discuss
our feelings somebody's going to respond with a flip remark or
laugh at us for being self-conscious or accuse us of bragging.
I can understand what women with very large breasts must have to
endure. They can never shake the feeling that men are only interested
in them as an object of sexual gratification. I can also understand
how men with smaller penises may feel -- like they're going to be
evaluated on the basis of their penis size rather than on their worth
as a human being. Well, I feel the same way!
>How big does it have to be before you feel ashamed of it?
I threw away my tape measure. What difference does that make?
I wish I'd never posted that article now. Every size queen on
the net has been pestering me for details. None of these guys
ever bothered to reply to my posts before. What kind of a message
do you think that conveys? That I'm a piece of meat, that's what.
>P.S.: You weren't at Rooster Rock, that's for sure.
No, and now I feel more self-conscious than ever. I feel like if
I'm ever at a motss-con in a clothing-optional situation that
everybody's going to be staring at me, checking it out. That
makes me feel like a freak! No thank you.
--
Brent Capps |
bca...@agora.rain.com (gay stuff) |
bca...@atlastele.com (telecom stuff) |
Jeff Dauber
|> You still don't get it, do you? Your response is a prime example
|> of why we don't want to talk about it. We know that if we try to discuss
|> our feelings somebody's going to respond with a flip remark or
|> laugh at us for being self-conscious or accuse us of bragging.
|> I can understand what women with very large breasts must have to
|> endure. They can never shake the feeling that men are only interested
|> in them as an object of sexual gratification. I can also understand
|> how men with smaller penises may feel -- like they're going to be
|> evaluated on the basis of their penis size rather than on their worth
|> as a human being. Well, I feel the same way!
Stop it then. Look, everyone has the equipment they have. The problem, however,
is not that your dick is big or small. It seems to be associated with
your caring what other people think. Fuck em. If they are only interested
in you because you have a big dick, don't deal with them. If you take pride
in your body, regardless of the shape and size, their bullshit does not mean
anything.
|> No, and now I feel more self-conscious than ever. I feel like if
|> I'm ever at a motss-con in a clothing-optional situation that
|> everybody's going to be staring at me, checking it out. That
|> makes me feel like a freak! No thank you.
Again, why do you care? Is there anything you can do about the size of your
penis? No? Then why expend energy worrying about it?
FWA
Matthew Melmon
>No, and now I feel more self-conscious than ever. I feel like if
>I'm ever at a motss-con in a clothing-optional situation that
>everybody's going to be staring at me, checking it out. That
>makes me feel like a freak! No thank you.
Very attractive people have this same problem (I have neither...).
Many absolutely *delicious* boybshkas have complained to me
that no one ever takes them seriously. We will be involved in
fearsome petting, and they will say "all anybody ever wants me
to do is drop my pants." And I, sensitive creature that I am,
will say, "drop your pants." And they will sigh and drop their
pants.
People will want you for whatever reason they want you. Some
because of your abilities as a scintilating (Dolphie! Dolphie!
Is that word spelled correctly? *DOL*phie! Where *is* that
queen when you *want* him?) wit, and some will want you for
your titilating qualities (*DOL*phie... oh. never mind...).
You are, of coure, free to determine whether or not you drop
your pants; but you cannot determine why someone else will
or will not you ask you to do it.
*X*
(and *really* - has anyone ever known a bubble-butted blonde
beach boy to be *worth* taking seriously? I mean, *really*?)
Steve Dyer
>>>I'm sitting at my terminal debating on whether to post this or
>>>abort. I know I'm going to get flamed by morons who can't believe
>>>that anybody would consider this to be a problem.
>>>Fuck it. I'm tired of remaining silent.
>
>>Wanna trade?
>
>You still don't get it, do you? Your response is a prime example
>of why we don't want to talk about it.
"We"? Who are your friends?
Then don't talk about it. When I read this, I thought "My God, self-
victimization has really reached its zenith."
>We know that if we try to discuss
>our feelings somebody's going to respond with a flip remark or
>laugh at us for being self-conscious or accuse us of bragging.
>I can understand what women with very large breasts must have to
>endure. They can never shake the feeling that men are only interested
>in them as an object of sexual gratification. I can also understand
>how men with smaller penises may feel -- like they're going to be
>evaluated on the basis of their penis size rather than on their worth
>as a human being. Well, I feel the same way!
Well, I never felt evaluated on the basis of my penis size. Maybe it's
not small enough. Or maybe my personhood isn't centered in my cock.
>>How big does it have to be before you feel ashamed of it?
>
>I threw away my tape measure. What difference does that make?
>I wish I'd never posted that article now. Every size queen on
>the net has been pestering me for details. None of these guys
>ever bothered to reply to my posts before. What kind of a message
>do you think that conveys? That I'm a piece of meat, that's what.
Listen pal: if you wag your meat around on an electronic forum, it's going
to get some attention. So people are curious--if you didn't want the
questions, you'd have kept quiet about it. Live and learn, eh? I think
it's perfectly appropriate for someone to wonder just how big a cock has
to be before someone gets so overwrought about it. Probably not as big
as they'd like to imagine.
>>P.S.: You weren't at Rooster Rock, that's for sure.
>No, and now I feel more self-conscious than ever. I feel like if
>I'm ever at a motss-con in a clothing-optional situation that
>everybody's going to be staring at me, checking it out. That
>makes me feel like a freak! No thank you.
Horrors. You know, you're as wrapped up in dick size as the so-called
size queens you're taking issue with.
Like I said before, the human mind can find anything a source of shame.
It has little to do with objective reality.
Steve Dyer
>Stop it then. Look, everyone has the equipment they have. The
>problem, however, is not that your dick is big or small. It seems to
>be associated with your caring what other people think. Fuck em. If
>they are only interested in you because you have a big dick, don't deal
>with them. If you take pride in your body, regardless of the shape and
>size, their bullshit does not mean anything.
Amen.
Jess Anderson
>dy...@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer) writes:
>>In article <C02xF...@agora.rain.com>
>>bca...@agora.rain.com (Brent Capps) writes:
>>>I'm sitting at my terminal debating on whether to post
>>>this or abort. I know I'm going to get flamed by morons who
>>>can't believe that anybody would consider this to be a
>>>problem. Fuck it. I'm tired of remaining silent.
Frankly, Brent, I think you create *most* of the problem for
yourself, possibly without being aware of it. There's a lot
of evidence for this in your two postings.
Both Jeff Dauber and Matthew Melmon have spoken to some of
the issues, wisely, I thought.
Even though the matter seems pretty touchy (I'm trying to
avoid words with such echoes, but it's nearly impossible)
and apparently causes you to be self-conscious and sometimes
emotionally pained, it seems to me you're being rather
hyper-reactive, to judge by your response to Steve Dyer.
You start out by telling the clinical details and by
*assuming* it will lead to flames. For one thing, there's
an element of fortune-telling involved there: why would
anyone flame you for telling your own story? For another
thing, you know, surely, what the world is like; knowing
that, it's odd that you express surprise when people react
in more or less expected ways.
>>Wanna trade?
I think Steve is merely saying what a lot of men would
think: "*I* should have his problem!" Then too, there is
really a difference between the *real* obsession some men
have about big dicks and the casual banter nearly all gay
men indulge in on that subject.
>You still don't get it, do you? Your response is a prime
>example of why we don't want to talk about it. We know that
>if we try to discuss our feelings somebody's going to
>respond with a flip remark or laugh at us for being
>self-conscious or accuse us of bragging.
It looks like you've divided the world into either/or, when
you might have divided it into both/and. I don't think he
implied an insensitive lack of concern for your feelings;
rather, he suggested you could be making too much of a deal
about it all. I may put it differently, but that's what I
think too.
As I mentioned above, self-consciousness is often a very
painful thing. But it's not reasonable to expect the
entire universe to revolve around your self-consciousness,
either. In our culture, dick size is something many if not
most people make too big a deal about. But much of that
is merely social convention, in-group ritual, and of no
great importance.
You can't do much about the society at large, probably, nor
about the usual conventions of the society of gay men. What
you *can* do something about is your own sensitivities in
the matter.
>I can understand what women with very large breasts must
>have to endure. They can never shake the feeling that men
>are only interested in them as an object of sexual
>gratification. I can also understand how men with smaller
>penises may feel -- like they're going to be evaluated on
>the basis of their penis size rather than on their worth as
>a human being. Well, I feel the same way!
I don't think the dick-size/breast-size analogy is all that
apt. Sexual dynamics for women are different enough from
those for men, I think, that the similarities you note here
are somewhat superficial.
To be sure, there are people whose interest in you will be
almost exclusively concerned with your dick and not with
your personhood. But this is a factor to be contended with
whether your dick is big, average, or small. One takes it
in stride, as one does so many things in this life.
Otherwise, you're going to find yourself in the untenable
position of deciding whether having a dick that's "too big"
is somehow better or worse than having one that's "too
small."
>>How big does it have to be before you feel ashamed of it?
Shame has nothing to do with reality, that's one thing.
Another is, he's asking you a good question. People are
sought after or not sought after for all sorts of reasons.
If one sets out to judge such things in the way you
apparently have, there will eventually have to be an answer
to the kind of question he asks. Yet that's preposterous on
its face. Right away you have a useful clue, then.
>I threw away my tape measure. What difference does that
>make? I wish I'd never posted that article now. Every size
>queen on the net has been pestering me for details. None of
>these guys ever bothered to reply to my posts before. What
>kind of a message do you think that conveys? That I'm a
>piece of meat, that's what.
I'm sorry to say it, but this is a baseless whine. What did
you expect? You've found out something very useful, after
all: the people who never took the slightest notice of you
before and now do have telegraphed clearly that they're not
very interested in your other qualities. You've gotten the
truth from them; you should be grateful it was so easy;
usually it isn't.
More to the point, "you make me feel like meat" is never
going to fly; it requires your cooperation, which you can
withhold whenever you like.
>>P.S.: You weren't at Rooster Rock, that's for sure.
>No, and now I feel more self-conscious than ever. I feel
>like if I'm ever at a motss-con in a clothing-optional
>situation that everybody's going to be staring at me,
>checking it out. That makes me feel like a freak! No thank
>you.
If you let the matter plague you to such a point, there's no
way in hell you can hold others responsible. For better or
for worse (I think it's for worse, but it's also a given),
people in our culture react to exceptional people in a
constrained and largely predictable fashion. If you let
that distort and otherwise afflict your life, it's your
choice, but it certainly won't do to hold others accountable
for it beyond a certainly fairly limited extent.
Jeff is right: you have what you have. Matthew is right:
others have comparable concerns. What's at issue for you is
not these facts, but rather what you make of it for
yourself. You certainly have a choice in the matter. So far
you've chosen to let it afflict you in various ways. You
could stop doing that, and in my opinion, it would be better
if you did.
If the prevailing mores change in such a way that this issue
tends to be diminished, so much the better. But there's little
point in holding your breath until that happens.
--
[Jess Anderson <> Madison Academic Computing Center <> University of Wisconsin]
[Internet: ande...@macc.wisc.edu <-best, UUCP:{}!uwvax!macc.wisc.edu!anderson]
[Room 3130 <> 1210 West Dayton Street / Madison WI 53706 <> Phone 608/262-5888]
[---------> Discrimination, Bigotry, and Hate are not Family Values <---------]
John Dorrance
>(and *really* - has anyone ever known a bubble-butted blonde
>beach boy to be *worth* taking seriously? I mean, *really*?)
Well, I'm more of a dance club diva than a beach boy, but...
(And to address the original topic: I myself wouldn't come to a
bunch of queers for sympathy about your horribly long dick (I
know *my* capacity for rational thought began to dwindle at 'I
can't wear shorts in public', and was long gone by the time I
got to 'because it sticks out over the waistband'). Brent, I can
grok that this would be a big problem in the high-school locker
room, but you're not in high school anymore. It's not a curse by
now, and you're old enough where the only time it'll really make
itself known is when the situation calls for it anyway. So it's
more than okay to love it for what it is now. Be thankful and
put it in your plus side, where it belongs.)
John Prigeon
>I look at it as just another physical characteristic like h or t or w.
>The interpretation you put onto it is your own.
Not always. Just a walk down the beach with the muscle men displaying
their sinew tells me that sometimes there's a little bit of 'self-
interpretation' going on. That's probably true of e as well.
>Everybody thinks it's such
>a big goddam party to have a very large penis?
Yunno, that's the impression I get, too, which was in the background of my
original post. Men of all flavors, GB and S, seem to be enraptured by
copious quantities of whatever they like. Sitting around the lunch table
at work, I get nauseated by hearing the straight men degrading women by
discussing 'jugs', 'knockers', 'pom-poms', etc, as if that were most
important part of a woman. I've also been privy to gay male conversations
where the same kind of degradation was occuring, and I found it just as
distasteful.
On the other hand, I've seen magazine reports that say that women (straight)
consider the size of their lover's p-p 5th or 6th down the list of
attractiveness, after sense of humor, personality, and other physical
not-directly-sexual stuff. Seeing this kind of report increases my respect
for women's perspicacity.
BTW, Brent, I've got a rocket in my pocket, too. Wanna get together?
snicker-snicker,
jap
;^)
Brent Capps
>Again, why do you care? Is there anything you can do about the size of your
>penis? No? Then why expend energy worrying about it?
Or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Being Treated as a Sex Object.
I think there are more than a few feminists who would find it pretty easy
to shoot your argument full of holes.
I don't give a flying fuck about people who are only interested in my
dick. I already have a husband. I posted this to educate and maybe,
just maybe, to change a few people's attitudes. E-mail suggests that
I succeeded. Enough said.
Jess Anderson
(Brent Capps) writes:
>dau...@tattoo.mti.sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:
>>Again, why do you care? Is there anything you can do
>>about the size of your penis? No? Then why expend energy
>>worrying about it?
>Or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Being Treated
>as a Sex Object. I think there are more than a few
>feminists who would find it pretty easy to shoot your
>argument full of holes.
What's full of holes, Brent, is that sort of "logic." I
think it's pretty arrogant of you to equate your complaints
to those of women. You are a man. You are not
systematically and ubiquitously discounted and degraded --
in any and all regards -- by this society. You have
*enormous* power and privilege, not because you deserve it,
but merely because you are male. Even if you tied your
level best, you would never be in the comparable situation
where women are; for you to claim that ground as your own is
not appropriate; whatever else one might say about it, your
dick spares you from any threat of being treated as
disgustingly as women are treated in this life.
I would hope you will be as educated by this as you suggest
others have been by your remarks.
adolphson
ma...@Apple.COM (Matthew Melmon) writes:
> (and *really* - has anyone ever known a bubble-butted blonde
> beach boy to be *worth* taking seriously? I mean, *really*?)
Yes. My very first boyfriend (we were 15), was a delicious
green-eyed bubble-butted blond beach boy who very definitely
was worth taking seriously. He was literary (he and a friend
were busy collaborating on a "The Love Machine" style novel
entitled "He Whore" when we met), he was musical, he knew
about movies and theater and culture and art, he spoke several
languages (English, of course, and he was studying Spanish
and French in school, but he had also picked up some Yiddish
from his mother), and he enjoyed fine dining. Our first date
was on a rainy December night 22 years (eeek!) ago. I haven't
seen him in about 8 years, but a friend of mine who's still
in contact with him says that the hair and body are gone, but
he still has those green eyes.
Arne
Steve Dyer
>I've also been privy to gay male conversations
>where the same kind of degradation was occuring, and I found it just as
>distasteful.
It's hardly degrading if both parties are degrading each other. :-)
That is, there seem to be to be a _mutuality_ inherent in gay men
admiring each other without that whole male-female dialectic which
gives rise to and reflects power imbalances. Which is not to say
that gay men can't be awfully boorish.
Stan Brown
soc.motss is "safe space" or "supportive", they wil remember this thread.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems br...@Ncoast.ORG
The existence of boredom implies the falsity of behaviorism, but the
details of the derivation bore me.
Jess Anderson
Brown) writes:
>I hope that, the next time someone is tempted to post to
>the effect that soc.motss is "safe space" or "supportive",
>they wil remember this thread.
I remember this thread, very well indeed. And I also think
soc.motss is safe sapce and supportive. Perhaps your
standard of judging what's supportive is not the same as
everyone else's. For example, many people would not
consider it supportive to encourage a person to continue
laboring under the influence of serious delusions. Many
people would consider it safe to encourage a person to
consider more carefully the paths they choose in this life.
In the given case, based on all past transactions, it's my
impression that Brent Capps is a very nice man. But the
thing that's bothering him about his body and his self-image
is entirely the fictive product of his interior mental
processes. There was recently a good article herte on
identity politics, much of which would apply to Brent's
responses to his environment. It would hardly be supportive
to nourish what is at base a self-limiting ot
self-destructive pattern of thinking.
Perhaps I am not yet addressing your point, however, though
I think I am.
SE...@cunyvm.bitnet
tha...@cwis.unomaha.edu (John Dorrance) writes on penis size:
>(And to address the original topic: I myself wouldn't come to a
>bunch of queers for sympathy about your horribly long dick (I
>know *my* capacity for rational thought began to dwindle at 'I
>can't wear shorts in public', and was long gone by the time I
>got to 'because it sticks out over the waistband')....
I think John gives us a handle on this problem.
I have known many Irish to observe, "There is no such thing as a
large whiskey." A similar mentality exists in the gay
male subculture which believes that there is no such thing as
being overly endowed, and longs to choke on its words.
Jack Carroll
Tracey McCartney
>
>Shortly after my first post, I started to wonder if the endowment thing
>holds the same fascination for lesbians? From my observations, many straight
>men seem to be preoccupied with it (my dad for one).
>
>Just kinda curious,
>jap
>
endowment are you talking about? Peni don't have much appeal to me;
large breasts have a certain appeal in some contexts. But I'm not
much of a size queen under any circumstances... : )
Tracey
Shyster stealth lesbian weasel-in-training
shyster: (prob. from Scheusster fl 1840 Am. attorney frequently rebuked
in a New York court for pettifoggery)
Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary
Barry Burns
>In article <C06p8...@NCoast.ORG> br...@NCoast.ORG (Stan
>Brown) writes:
>>I hope that, the next time someone is tempted to post to
>>the effect that soc.motss is "safe space" or "supportive",
>>they wil remember this thread.
>I remember this thread, very well indeed. And I also think
>soc.motss is safe sapce and supportive. Perhaps your
>standard of judging what's supportive is not the same as
>everyone else's. For example, many people would not
>consider it supportive to encourage a person to continue
>laboring under the influence of serious delusions. Many
>people would consider it safe to encourage a person to
>consider more carefully the paths they choose in this life.
Jess, I too think that soc.motss is safe and supportive, at least more
so than the gay community at large, but then again that is not saying much.
As I view this thread (and I admit that my perspective is a special one), what
is lacking is maybe not so much support as it is misunderstanding the points
Brent was trying to make. I think "serious delusions" is kinda dramatic, but
subtlety has never been your strong suit. And actually how "safe" is it to
throw a flame-o-rama (tm) when someone is expressing true feelings, even if
those feelings are ancient history. My version of Roget's does not list
confrontational e-psychoanalysis as a synonym for safe.
>In the given case, based on all past transactions, it's my
>impression that Brent Capps is a very nice man. But the
>thing that's bothering him about his body and his self-image
>is entirely the fictive product of his interior mental
>processes. There was recently a good article herte on
>identity politics, much of which would apply to Brent's
>responses to his environment. It would hardly be supportive
>to nourish what is at base a self-limiting ot
>self-destructive pattern of thinking.
"In the Beginning" (tm) of this lengthy postulation on penis size, Brent
wrote:
> It took years of
> patience by my husband to get me to see that it didn't have to be a
> bad thing and that I could allow myself to have a little fun
> with it. So I'm not going to hide it so much any more. But I don't
> attach any meaning to it either. If other people do that's
> their problem. I know it doesn't mean a goddam thing.
As everyone who has felt free to comment on my husbands state of mind seems
to have missed this portion on Brent's post, I felt it relevant to quote it
directly. Brent clearly states here that he feels that the feelings of
self-consciousness he carted about for years have begun to fade. He implies
that this is an ongoing growth process. As a man who can best be described
as a "grower not a shower", I helped Brent realize that many people in the
gay community are concerned in a very adolescent way with their dick size,
including me. However, as we both matured as individuals and in our relation-
ship, we began to appreciate and even celebrate ourselves and our bodies in
new (and ever more creative :)) ways. Brent's bear code was a very small
part of that celebration. When he showed me the original post, he described
it as like another comming out. He clearly says that he doesn't attach
any meaning to his penis size, but that he is no longer going to hide it.
Then, the fun began. The e-mail started immediately. Much of it was
supportive, some of it was sleazy, but generally in good humor. The really
serious flames were saved for the net. It seems that every one with
a little therapy in their past and a few minutes to kill decided to analyze
the hell out of Brent's post. Then came the analysis of the analysis. I
think that everyone started taking this a little too seriously. What
Brent was trying to convey in his original post was that not everyone has
a positive self image, even if they are endowed (pun entirely intended) with
attributes that their peers deem desirable, that there are closets for
small penises/breasts/whatever as well as large penises/breasts/whatever, and
that his bear code was opening that closet door. Sure, I think Brent still
has some self-image issues, as do all people who are striving to grow as
distinct individuals, however I don't think that having Steve Dyer and
yourself advising him of your perceptions of his psyche as determined by
one post as being very productive(or safe - or supportive).
--
Barry Burns |
bbu...@agora.rain.com | I wasn't recruited -- I enlisted
Brent Capps
This is my absolute last word on this subject.
Hi Jess,
I make it a policy to ignore flames, but I didn't really consider what
you posted to be a flame. Clueless and hurtful, yes. But not a flame.
I think my husband Barry has already responded to your posts because he
saw how much I was hurt by some of the things you said. Barry loves me
very much and naturally wants to protect me. However, I'm a big boy :)
and I can take care of myself.
From your first post:
> In the given case, based on all past transactions, it's my
> impression that Brent Capps is a very nice man.
Why, thank you very much, Jess. I didn't mean to hurt anybody by posting
this and I am keenly aware of how sensitive a subject it is for many
men. But these are feelings I've been carrying around for a long,
long time and I've never seen this side of the size issue openly
discussed before in the community...for reasons that, by now, should
be all too obvious.
> But the thing that's bothering him about his body and his self-image
> is entirely the fictive product of his interior mental processes.
Ouch! Fictive product of interior mental processes? What's your
evidence for that? It's an incredibly presumpuous thing to say
given that you are hardly my therapist. For one thing, she charges
a lot more than you do! :)
> It would hardly be supportive to nourish what is at base a
> self-limiting ot self-destructive pattern of thinking.
Ow ow ow! You are so sure you are right that you are going to invalidate
my feelings "for my own good"? Gee thanks a lot. And supposing you were
wrong in your belief that this was a "fictive product of interior mental
processes"? Samples from my mail bag (no names!):
Letter 1 -------------------------------------------------------------------
: I can only imagine what you go through with this, having several acquain-
: tances at each end of the scale, and getting comments and stares about the
: ring (a Prince Albert) in mine. You're not alone.
: Only ONE of them was able to come to peace with himself over it (and he's
: forearm-sized, if my whole forearm were the same size as my wrist), and
: he decided the solution was to flaunt it - that way no-one freaked when
: they took him home, he learned to enjoy peeing at the "trough" in the Leather
: Stallion, and he doesn't have problem finding partners for the casual en-
: counters he prefers (believe it or not, he has a girlfriend at home!)
: The others either were extremely modest, extremely embarrassed (if big)
: or apologetic (if small), and they also tried to hide it, to the point
: that if anyone came on to them that even remotely seemed to be interested
: for that reason they were written off without any consideration. They
: found extremes of size limiting to their sex-lives, that sex-talk seemed
: to center on it, etc. Yes, they felt like freaks.
Letter 2 -------------------------------------------------------------------
: I totally identify with you...totally. It's very discouraging sometimes!
Letter 3 -------------------------------------------------------------------
: While it's not a problem I have, I do have embarrassing
: problems (at least *I* think I do) and your writing succeeded
: in evoking these such that I understood very well what you
: were talking about. It echoed the sentiments and frustration
: I've heard from two other friends as well. It was a good
: response and I appreciated the difficulty you must have
: had in making it.
So if you think this reaction is unique to me, guess again. I just
had the guts to openly discuss my feelings. So what was your reaction
to my honest and painful admission? From your second post:
> [Steve Dyer] suggested you could be making too much of a deal
> about it all. I may put it differently, but that's what I
> think too.
Throughout your post you continually dismiss my feelings as:
> ...of no great importance.
Gee thanks a lot Jess! I think this is the point Stan addressed when he
said soc.motss is not a safe space. That, along with your inappropriate
e-psychoanalysis of me, what what I found so hurtful of your posts.
> Frankly, Brent, I think you create *most* of the problem for
> yourself, possibly without being aware of it.
Now we're getting to the heart of our disagreement. I object to being
reduced to a dick size. You dismiss my feelings by saying I'm blowing
this all out of proportion:
> it seems to me you're being rather
> hyper-reactive, to judge by your response to Steve Dyer.
What can I say? Hide and watch. I know I'm getting roasted to a crackly
crunch on soc.motss; I could have predicted ahead of time who'd be the chefs,
too. If I were really hyper-reactive as you say I'd be flaming them back.
Instead I have no intention of continuing this discussion there. This
post is my final word on the subject and my arguments will just have to
stand on their own merits. Does that suggest I'm being hyper-reactive?
> You start out by telling the clinical details and by
> *assuming* it will lead to flames. For one thing, there's
> an element of fortune-telling involved there: why would
> anyone flame you for telling your own story?
Did it ever occur to you that this may not be the first time I've gone
through this discussion? And that that caveat may be based on prior
firsthand experience? Really, get a clue, Jess!
> For another
> thing, you know, surely, what the world is like; knowing
> that, it's odd that you express surprise when people react
> in more or less expected ways.
Oh boy, you really need that mirror here, Jess. This is almost
*verbatim* the argument my mother uses when I try to explain to
her how anti-gay discrimination hurts me. When the world is wrong,
you work to change it, according to your own particular talents,
needs, and situation. I happen to think it's wrong to objectify people
based on their dick size (small OR large), breast size, height, weight,
age, sexual attractiveness, physical appearance, etc. It's dehumanizing,
and frankly I'm surprised at you for trotting out this wheezy tired excuse
of an argument to excuse its perpetuation.
> But it's not reasonable to expect the
> entire universe to revolve around your self-consciousness, either.
Why Jess, what an inclusive thing to say..."We can't expect the majority
to care about the concerns of every minority group that comes along!"
More invalidation of feelings.
> You can't do much about the society at large, probably, nor
> about the usual conventions of the society of gay men. What
> you *can* do something about is your own sensitivities in
> the matter.
As I said in another posting, my purpose in bringing this subject
up was to educate gay men in particular on a seldom-discussed topic.
I know perfectly well that I'm not going to change society with one
article. Cut me some slack here, Jess.
> I don't think the dick-size/breast-size analogy is all that
> apt. Sexual dynamics for women are different enough from
> those for men, I think, that the similarities you note here
> are somewhat superficial.
Oh, baloney Jess. That analogy was suggested to me by a woman through
e-mail:
Letter 4 -------------------------------------------------------------------
: As confirmation of what you say about being different, I have heard
: almost exactly the same words from women with extremely large breasts.
: Particularly the pain of being considered just _their_ support system.
and confirmed by another person:
Letter 5 -------------------------------------------------------------------
: I had a (female) cousin with a similar problem:
: her breasts were huge, and she found it very
: difficult to deal with. Of course, she
: was able to arrange for reduction surgery,
: which is not, I expect, an option for
: you (ouch!).
BTW I don't need a lecture from you on feminist issues. I've been active
on feminist issues for even longer than on gay issues, organizing for passage
of the ERA and serving as a women's clinic escort from the time I was a
college freshman. Nobody appointed you to be the network clue server on
feminism.
>>Every size queen on the net has been pestering me for details.
>>None of these guys ever bothered to reply to my posts before.
>>What kind of a message do you think that conveys? That I'm a
>>piece of meat, that's what.
>I'm sorry to say it, but this is a baseless whine. What did
>you expect?
I can only hope that you can eventually come to see how hurtful a
remark that was. Again, more invalidation of feelings.
>Matthew is right: others have comparable concerns.
It's not a contest, Jess.
>If the prevailing mores change in such a way that this issue
>tends to be diminished, so much the better. But there's little
>point in holding your breath until that happens.
So why bother, right? Gosh, I guess I might just as well go back into the
closet. Oops...I mean...
Well, Jess, I've given it my best shot to drop a few clues for *you* here.
If you can listen half as well as you can speak, maybe you'll pick a few of
'em up. If you don't, well, at least I can say I gave it my best shot.
Are you big enough :) to admit that you just *might* be wrong?
--
Brent Capps | "I could love any creature on Earth
bca...@agora.rain.com (gay stuff) | that appeared to wish it."
bca...@atlastele.com (telecom stuff) | -- Lord Byron
Jess Anderson
In article <C07wv...@agora.rain.com> bbu...@agora.rain.com
(Barry Burns) writes:
>Jess, I too think that soc.motss is safe and supportive, at
>least more so than the gay community at large, but then
>again that is not saying much.
Much is revealed in small remarks, I think. I know
personally many (many, not few) people here who would say it
*is* "saying much." What it seems to me you're not allowing
enough room for, in your entire posting, is individual point
of view.
For example, there are certainly people who have found
soc.motss to be the most supportive space they have ever
encountered in their lives; it has made an *enormous*
difference to their qualitative experience of themselves.
While your take on that is clearly different, you seem to be
discounting what it can be for others because it was not
what you expected for your friend or yourself.
>As I view this thread (and I admit that my perspective is a
>special one), what is lacking is maybe not so much support
>as it is misunderstanding the points Brent was trying to
>make.
In my book, anyone who tries to help another with a problem
(this may involve knowing when not to try) is doing an OK
thing. Such efforts are *bound* to involve misunderstandings
and other human frailties; it's part of the turf.
In the given instance, I think I understand what concerns
you. I thought I understood what concerned Brent, too. But
in either case, if I've missed it in one or more ways, it
may be undesirable or unfortunate, but it can't be helped,
either. It seems to me one just goes from there.
As a result of your posting, I reviewed what I said to and
about Brent, and, your diverging opinion notwithstanding ...
>I think "serious delusions" is kinda dramatic, but subtlety
>has never been your strong suit. And actually how "safe" is
>it to throw a flame-o-rama (tm) when someone is expressing
>true feelings, even if those feelings are ancient history.
... I think my posting was reasonably caring and
supportive. Wrt subtlety, I think it was arguably more
subtle than you grant, while explicitly avoiding being too
indirect about some things.
It was emphatically not a flame. Indeed, your perception of
flame must be very different from mine; that would be not
too surprising. I explicitly acknowledged Brent's feelings,
and there wasn't (your differing perceptions noted) the
slightest edge of hostility toward him; quite the contrary,
actually.
I didn't think Steve Dyer's comments amounted to a flame,
either. As for "ancient history," Brent's response to
Steve makes it clear, to my mind, that there's nothing
ancient about it. On the contrary, the feelings are live,
present-tense, and strong. Indeed, Brent seemed to me
to be lashing out at Steve *primarily* because he'd
gotten email he (and, I guess, you) thought was sleazy.
I may have been mistaken (I'd be sorry about that), but I
was hardly being unkind. I didn't think Steve was, either.
>My version of Roget's does not list confrontational
>e-psychoanalysis as a synonym for safe.
What are you looking under? And was that a confrontational
remark (yours or mine)? It's you who took it to be
confrontational. It's you who took it to be
psychotherapeutic in thrust. I think the latter element was
indeed present, but it's hardly possible to tender any sort
of comment at all, especially on such an emotionally laden
topic, without running that sort of risk.
>"In the Beginning" (tm) of this lengthy postulation on penis
>size, Brent wrote:
>>It took years of patience by my husband to get me to see
>>that it didn't have to be a bad thing and that I could allow
>>myself to have a little fun with it. So I'm not going to
>>hide it so much any more. But I don't attach any meaning to
>>it either. If other people do that's their problem. I know
>>it doesn't mean a goddam thing.
>As everyone who has felt free to comment on my husbands
>state of mind seems to have missed this portion on Brent's
>post, I felt it relevant to quote it directly.
Do you really think people missed that? I don't. We come
again to expectations, I think. He said what he said in a
very public forum. That is an invitation to comment
publicly. Doing so does not indict a person as "feeling free
to comment." I can see why you're taking all this up, but
it's also true that comments, of whatever sort (evidently
not what you hoped for) would be forthcoming. Wouldn't it
be rather a folly to expect otherwise?
>Brent clearly states here that he feels that the feelings of
>self-consciousness he carted about for years have begun to
>fade. He implies that this is an ongoing growth process. As
>a man who can best be described as a "grower not a shower",
>I helped Brent realize that many people in the gay community
>are concerned in a very adolescent way with their dick size,
>including me.
Nurture is a very good thing. Evidently you've helped in
your way. Others do what they can in their ways. Why do
you impeach that, which it seems to me you do?
I've asked about a half dozen times, but I think an answer
would be nice: what did *you* expect?
>However, as we both matured as individuals and in our
>relationship, we began to appreciate and even celebrate
>ourselves and our bodies in new (and ever more creative :))
>ways. Brent's bear code was a very small part of that
>celebration. When he showed me the original post, he
>described it as like another coming out. He clearly says
>that he doesn't attach any meaning to his penis size, but
>that he is no longer going to hide it.
All to the good, though it's clear he does attach quite a
bit of meaning to the issues, despite the claim. I think
almost any man would, given the prevailing cultural values.
>Then, the fun began. The e-mail started immediately. Much
>of it was supportive, some of it was sleazy, but generally
>in good humor.
Isn't that what you (both) expected?
>The really serious flames were saved for the net. It seems
>that every one with a little therapy in their past and a few
>minutes to kill decided to analyze the hell out of Brent's
>post.
As I've read it, everyone was two, neither of whom flamed
even a little. The heat behind what you say is showing
(speaking of flames), which may or may not be
understandable. It's another instance of either/or reasoning
in a context more appropriate to both/and reasoning. I
dunno about Steve, but my answer was written carefully over
some little time. I believe I took some pains to respect
and validate the basis for his feelings in the matter.
>Then came the analysis of the analysis. I think that
>everyone started taking this a little too seriously.
You are including yourself, I trust?
>What Brent was trying to convey in his original post was
>that not everyone has a positive self image, even if they
>are endowed (pun entirely intended) with attributes that
>their peers deem desirable, that there are closets for small
>penises/breasts/whatever as well as large
>penises/breasts/whatever, and that his bear code was opening
>that closet door.
I didn't see any want of understanding or empathy for that,
myself.
>Sure, I think Brent still has some self-image issues, as do
>all people who are striving to grow as distinct individuals,
>however I don't think that having Steve Dyer and yourself
>advising him of your perceptions of his psyche as determined
>by one post as being very productive (or safe - or
>supportive).
You're allowed. As I say, not everything succeeds. The sun
will rise every day for some little time yet. Nothing is
forever, however, so one does the best he or she can, and
(if they're wise) lets it go at that.
Jess Anderson
(Brent Capps) writes:
>This is my absolute last word on this subject.
Mine too.
abe...@enh.nist.gov
>I hope that, the next time someone is tempted to post to the effect that
>soc.motss is "safe space" or "supportive", they wil remember this thread.
This is deja vu for me. However, while quite possibly not "safe", I think
most of the replies in this thread have been "supportive."
Steve Dyer
>yourself advising him of your perceptions of his psyche as determined by
>one post as being very productive(or safe - or supportive).
I made an offhand comment, and Brent went nuts. I gave him my perceptions
of what he wrote in response, not his psyche. If he wanted to give a different
impression, he should have chosen his response more carefully. I think he's
very hung up on dick size in a way that most people aren't, which may be
explainable because of his own self-consciousness about his own body, but
I'll be damned if he gets to use this as an, er, club to beat up other people
for their own curiosity.
Matthew Melmon
>large breasts have a certain appeal in some contexts.
I *love* lesbians with *huge* breasts. You can poke 'em and
shake 'em and skaaaawwwwweeeeeeezzzzzeee 'em and move 'em all
around and do things you just can't *do* with even the
yummiest of yummy bubble-butted blonde beach boys - be they
worthy of taking seriously or not.
*X*
(of course, one is advised to get permission from the
afforementioned lesbian-type before sskkkaaawwwweeeeezing her
bahoongas)
George Dalton Madison
>(Brent Capps) writes:
>>>P.S.: You weren't at Rooster Rock, that's for sure.
>>No, and now I feel more self-conscious than ever. I feel
>>like if I'm ever at a motss-con in a clothing-optional
>>situation that everybody's going to be staring at me,
>>checking it out. That makes me feel like a freak! No thank
>>you.
>
>If you let the matter plague you to such a point, there's no
>way in hell you can hold others responsible. For better or
>for worse (I think it's for worse, but it's also a given),
>people in our culture react to exceptional people in a
>constrained and largely predictable fashion. If you let
>that distort and otherwise afflict your life, it's your
>choice, but it certainly won't do to hold others accountable
>for it beyond a certainly fairly limited extent.
Bravo.
As it happens, I too get my share of bizarre reactions from
people due to my well-beyond-shoulder-length hair and very
substantial beard. I'm talking about people crossing the street
to get away from me, apparently because they think I'm a Jr.
Charlie Manson, based solely on my hair.
THIS IS *THEIR* FUCKING PROBLEM, NOT *MINE*.
I'm not going to repeat what several other people have said well
on this issue, Brent -- they're right.
() The greatest cunning is to have none at all.
() -- Carl Sandburg
-----
[> George D. Madison | NBCS: B8f+t+w-e+s+k+a!cv | Just say NO to razors! <]
[> It's a BEAR thing -- you wouldn't understand. <|> fu...@cup.portal.com <]
Greg Parkinson
|>
|> >In article <C02xF...@agora.rain.com> bca...@agora.rain.com (Brent Capps) writes:
|> >>I'm sitting at my terminal debating on whether to post this or
|> >>abort. I know I'm going to get flamed by morons who can't believe
|> >>that anybody would consider this to be a problem.
|> >>Fuck it. I'm tired of remaining silent.
|>
|> >Wanna trade?
|>
|> You still don't get it, do you? Your response is a prime example
|> of why we don't want to talk about it. We know that if we try to discuss
|> our feelings somebody's going to respond with a flip remark or
|> laugh at us for being self-conscious or accuse us of bragging.
But Brent, you have to admit that it *sounds* like
"Don't hate me because I'm beautiful"! You've got
a physical attribute that other people would like
to have (in both senses of the word.) What's wrong
with that?
I'm not sure what sort of response you were looking
for or thought would be appropriate. No one is denying
or degrading your experiences in school, and some people
*are* saying - as friends - "I should have such a problem!"
|> I threw away my tape measure. What difference does that make?
|> I wish I'd never posted that article now. Every size queen on
|> the net has been pestering me for details. None of these guys
|> ever bothered to reply to my posts before. What kind of a message
|> do you think that conveys? That I'm a piece of meat, that's what.
Well, you *are* a piece of meat, along with all the
other things you are. You are physically attractive
to some people - lucky you. I *like* being physically
attractive to my lovers.
|> No, and now I feel more self-conscious than ever. I feel like if
|> I'm ever at a motss-con in a clothing-optional situation that
|> everybody's going to be staring at me, checking it out. That
|> makes me feel like a freak! No thank you.
Not a freak, Brent! Just a man with a big dick, like
some guys are furry and some muscular and some tall and
some with whatever attributes people find attractive.
--
Greg Parkinson Phone: 212-657-7814 Fax: 212-825-8607
Citibank,111 Wall Street E-Mail: g...@fig.citib.com
New York, New York 10043
The opinions expressed are my own and not those of the big 'ol bank.
Hot Young Star
bca...@agora.rain.com (Brent Capps) anonymously printed my correspondence:
>Letter 2 -------------------------------------------------------------------
>: I totally identify with you...totally. It's very discouraging sometimes!
Well, I decided to "come out of the closet" myself, since seeing myself
quoted anonymously made me realize that I too was succumbing to a sense
of shame by keeping my thoughts private.
The experience is not to be trivialized, but at the same time I know in
my heart that it's not really that important. Now that I've been in a
relationship for almost four years, my partner has succeeded in assuring
me that people do indeed enjoy my company with the presence of clothing.
[He wouldn't have it any other way! :^)]
To keep it in proper perspective, I remember my own past, when I used to
flaunt it, and the several fondly remembered, if not shallow, events which
would follow. I think some of my sense of guilt had been conflated with
lingering homophobic internalizations---you know, that I wasn't appreciated
for my brains, just my looks---falling into several stereotype traps
with which some folks still categorize gay men. I think really that perhaps I
shouldn't have been so cynical after all, since I myself find an occasional
voyeuristic interest, and I would be setting myself up for hypocrisy if I
discounted myself from what I consider something basically human---appreciation
for the naked human body and all its various and sundry (sun-dried?)
appendages.
I don't think size-queens should be embarrassed in the least. However, if
some of them persist in ignoring the mental faculties of their objects of
desire, they are only cheating themselves. After all, unless they're having
sex constantly, there are an awful lot of hours in the day to fill up with
stuff other than dick-worship.
So in summary, I think my own self-healing advice is that we shouldn't be
ashamed of our own bodies nor our prurient interests, nor so disparaging
of others---as long as everything is kept in proper perspective. What a
waste to show off your body if you don't have a cultured mind with which
to give and receive love.
Brian
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kane@{buast7,astro}.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) Astronomy Dept, Boston University,
Boston, MA 02215. True personal salvation is achieved by absolute faith in
ones true self.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Henry Mensch
->.... Look, everyone has the equipment they have. The problem, however,
->is not that your dick is big or small. It seems to be associated with
->your caring what other people think. Fuck em.
... or not.
they're only people, brent ... they can be replaced.
--
# henry mensch / booz, allen & hamilton, inc. / <he...@ads.com>
# "fight the real enemy." -- sinead o'connor, and many others.
Henry Mensch
->This is my absolute last word on this subject.
thank heavens.
Henry Mensch
->I hope that, the next time someone is tempted to post to the effect that
->soc.motss is "safe space" or "supportive", they wil remember this thread.
i don't recall anyone who had a recent clue saying any such thing.
Joseph Francis
a new Bearhunt) and by way of introduction a somewhat drunk friend
said: "what can you say? Look at him. He's good-looking, got a
fantastic huge blond beard, muscles, and a great big cock". I've never
been shy, but I was immediately nonplussed. How big is it. Is it big,
/big/ or what? The trap is focussing on the expectations of others and
depending upon them. I've always had fun making fun of my eternal
self-promotion because I think, in the vein of people like Marilyn
Monroe, the only appropriate method of responding to unrealistic
expectations is to be unrealistic - you know, I'm not just pleasant
looking, I'm not just well-muscled, but people run off the road
driving by me when I'm semi-undressed. Entire bars become silent if I
walk in wearing lycra shorts with a big fat hardon snaking down the
leg. And so on. Fortunately people are usually judged quickly by
externals. You can control the response to your appearance greater or
lesser degree than you can control whether or not you have a pleasant
personality; if you have an exceptional appearance (big cock, big
breasts (I've had big tits since I was a little boy), etc.) then you
can modulate peoples responses two ways: minimizing, or maximizing to
the point where it is meaningless. It is hard to minimize, and boring
after a point. So, if you have big tits, wear decollete clothing. Big
Cock? Tightish pants, shorts, brief swimsuits. Acknowledging and
enjoying, a burlesque to a point, will make you happier, and others
less sensitive because you are /over/ sensitive.
As for people who want to have sex solely because you have a big cock,
is that bad? If you played clarinet exceptionally well and someone
wanted to play clarinet duets with you, but outside of your musical
accords you had little to be friends with in common, is this bad?
Clearly not. That is because we give music high status as an aesthetic
pursuit. A talent for playing Clarinet or other musical instrument
could be considered as natural an attribute as a large cock. One
doesn't worry that after a few pages of Pleyel the duet breaks up and
people go home. And playing a duet can be as intimate as sex, take it
from one who knows. Where does that leave us? The thing is bad when
you are taken advantage of because of what is natural, against your
wishes, or contrary to your needs. That is, unfortunately, your
responsibility to guard against (you do that with money, with your
home, with your clothing, etc., and to a greater degree, how you
function in the work-place). In lamenting that you have a naturally
big cock, you are only lamenting that the activities which that give
you a natural advantage for are those which you don't like, or are of
a social status which isn't interesting. Someone with the voice of an
angel who doesn't like singing is in the same position, and will
forever hav people pestering them to grace the world with their gift.
I think it is interesting that you posted on this topic; the trick is
to get past /reaction/ to the 'revelation' (I must admit that the 'e'
bear code is one of the least useful parts since it is so subjective;
I have always thought that such coding systems need to be put together
by someone other than the bearer anyway (ignore the pun)).
If a big cock is a problem in sex (and it certainly can be), there is
a Dutch support group (Dutch men tend to have very big cocks) which
helps to share information on how to make sex a more pleasurable
experience for all involved. I can give you an address to write to.
--
US Jojo; damp, slighly soiled, but tasty nonetheless.
Mark Spriggs
>In <5544...@hpscit.sc.hp.com> jpri...@hpscit.sc.hp.com (John Prigeon) writes:
>
>>Anyway, I've spent some time figuring out my smurf and bear codes.
>>Allow me to share them with you:
>
>>S4 b g l+ y+ z n o- x- a+ u v- j++
>
>I'm clueless (so what else is new?) -- could someone email me the smurf
>codes so I can understand? ^^^^^ ^^
Me toooooo! A mind is a terrible thing to waste.
Michael Portuesi
In article <1993Jan5.1...@spdcc.com>, j...@spdcc.com writes:
> Entire bars become silent if I walk in wearing lycra shorts
> with a big fat hardon snaking down the leg.
I simply MUST go to Paris and visit again sometime.
m.
--
Michael Portuesi Silicon Graphics, Inc. port...@sgi.com
Rod Williams
>> j...@spdcc.com writes:
>> Entire bars become silent if I walk in wearing lycra shorts
>> with a big fat hardon snaking down the leg.
>
>I simply MUST go to Paris and visit again sometime.
I'm still trying to figure out how a big fat hardon
could be described as *snaking* -- unless of course
there's a rattle attached...
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
rod williams -=- pacific bell -=- san ramon, ca -=- rjw...@pacbell.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jess Anderson
rjw...@PacBell.COM (Rod Williams) writes:
>> port...@tweezers.esd.sgi.com (Michael Portuesi) writes:
>>> j...@spdcc.com writes:
>>> Entire bars become silent if I walk in wearing lycra shorts
>>> with a big fat hardon snaking down the leg.
>>I simply MUST go to Paris and visit again sometime.
>I'm still trying to figure out how a big fat hardon
>could be described as *snaking* -- unless of course
>there's a rattle attached...
I wondered about that too, then decided it was a simple
typo; he must have meant to write "flaunting." :-)
Henry Mensch
->In article <1993Jan5.1...@spdcc.com>, j...@spdcc.com writes:
->> Entire bars become silent if I walk in wearing lycra shorts
->> with a big fat hardon snaking down the leg.
->
->I simply MUST go to Paris and visit again sometime.
you HATEFUL bitch!
Joseph Francis
>port...@tweezers.esd.sgi.com (Michael Portuesi) wrote:
>->In article <1993Jan5.1...@spdcc.com>, j...@spdcc.com writes:
>->> Entire bars become silent if I walk in wearing lycra shorts
>->> with a big fat hardon snaking down the leg.
>->
>->I simply MUST go to Paris and visit again sometime.
>
>you HATEFUL bitch!
>
I thought about it, and we actually should have suspended Michael from
the upstairs loft while the drag queens did their show on Thanksgiving
and had Carmen Miranda whip him.
For the uninformed, unparticipated, there were quite a bevy of
MOTSSers in Euroland over Thanksgiving, and I, being totally obsessed
with getting a magazine done, managed to ignore them effectively,
except for the night their activities actually drove everyone out of
the backroom of a Leather Bar (a scene between Michael et al, Martin
Prime, a huge bodybuilder skinhead who liked to be stepped on (not
Martin: Martin is a tall English skinhead with a devestaing cobination
now of shortgrey hair and jet-black moustache who likes to step on
bodybuilder skinheads), and a whip. As everyone knows from classical
drama, whips and guns and such are always persona in a situation.) I
wasn't in the backroom. I had affected a rapproachment with a
particulary fuzzy and well put-together (ahem) Persian who showed up
suddenly. For thanksgiving dinner, there were three drag queens at the
shouse, one doing Josephine Baker, one doing "I am a Song" in a
particularly unaffected and natural style as a combination stripper,
leatherman, dragqueen, and a friend of mine doing Carmen Miranda. The
net effect was like Annie Lennox in "I need a man" since it was all
videoed. I think this was all a prelude to the evening in the Leather
bar, an evening when I started wearing a chain-mail half-masque, but
couldn't bear the weight, so I took it off and stormed through a
houseful of people later with Martin in rubber and leather, causing
consternations and ripples of excitement. Surprisingly, at no time
were there phallic revelations on my part, though they were potential
at all moments. Michaels charms were not revealed to me either. At the
next MOTSS con, there is a "Birds of A Feather" forum for hateful
hosemonsters to get together and beat each other off, since ordinary
people do it for the wrong reasons. I'm bringing a Nimslo camera to
take 3D pictures of the event.
Tim Pierce
>Peni don't have much appeal to me;
>large breasts have a certain appeal in some contexts. But I'm not
>much of a size queen under any circumstances... : )
Wouldn't you be a size king, anyway?
--
____ Tim Pierce /
\ / twpi...@unix.amherst.edu / Rocks say goodbye.
\/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) /
Tracey McCartney
twpi...@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
>In article <16B49BC51...@ua1vm.ua.edu> TMCC...@ua1vm.ua.edu (Tracey McCartney) writes:
>
>>Peni don't have much appeal to me;
>>large breasts have a certain appeal in some contexts. But I'm not
>>much of a size queen under any circumstances... : )
>
>Wouldn't you be a size king, anyway?
>
>--
>____ Tim Pierce /
Tracey
Tane' Tachyon
I'm posting this for a friend who has just found a way to read
soc.motss but seems unable to post. He's replying to Jojo.
>--------------------------- cut here ------------------------------<
[stuff deleted]
> As for people who want to have sex solely because you have a big cock,
> is that bad? If you played clarinet exceptionally well and someone
> wanted to play clarinet duets with you, but outside of your musical
> accords you had little to be friends with in common, is this bad?
> Clearly not. That is because we give music high status as an aesthetic
> pursuit. A talent for playing Clarinet or other musical instrument
> could be considered as natural an attribute as a large cock.
but they are certainly not equivalent. Although I may have an inherent
musicality, I sweat buckets for an hour or so every day on finger
dexterity, tonguing, muscle relaxation, lip and cheek control, and
controlled blowing in order to play the clarinet without causing pain to
other musicians and the audience. (If I do not practice every day, I lose
my agility in making music. Cocks get softer if one doesn't use them, but
can one permenently change their size through practice? :-) ) The same
finger dexterity, tonguing, lip and cheek control and controlled blowing
ain't gonna do anything for my cock size -- a perfectly adequate 16 cm.
It may do something for my partner's cock size, but that is a another
matter. :-)
> One doesn't worry that after a few pages of Pleyel the duet breaks up and
> people go home.
jerking off at a urinal. This is certainly not true if one was doing
Poulenc or Koechlin. All sorts of kinky things go on in Poulenc and
Koechlin. A whole lot more is at stake.
> And playing a duet can be as intimate as sex, take it from one who knows.
myself into light sexual desire, playing as seduction. It really does help
the performance, which otherwise might be very routine. Yet the experience
of playing a duet is a whole lot less compromising merely because meaning
in music can be misconstrued with impunity. But in another sense you are
right. There is nothing more awful in playing duets than being sabotaged
by a bottom who cannot count four to a bar. (Are rhythm difficulties
ultimately a form of sexual fear? If such awkwardness should appear, then
perhaps more foreplay is required.)
> Where does that leave us?
an argument. :-) Da capo, I should think. This is not as bad as having
an instrument that leaks from its holes, causing squeaks, or an embouchure
that is the bitting sort.
[stuff deleted.]
> Someone with the voice of an angel who doesn't like singing is in the
> same position, and will forever hav people pestering them to grace the
> world with their gift.
going to know what to do with the voice. Not everyone gets beyond the
barriers of deep throating. What is more, the emotional attitude will come
through. The singing will gag. There are people without great natural
endowments who do know what to do them. This is what makes a great artist
either in sex or music.
[stuff deleted]
> If a big cock is a problem in sex (and it certainly can be), there is
> a Dutch support group (Dutch men tend to have very big cocks) which
> helps to share information on how to make sex a more pleasurable
> experience for all involved. I can give you an address to write to.
question of natural endowments. Usually what is said is that there is no
such thing as a clarinet face and that lung capacity does not make the
clarinetist. Nor does everyone think that a Buffet is the only instrument
to have.
Eric, posting to soc.motss for the first time
sabi...@ccvax.unicamp.br
sabinson%bruc2....@lbl.gov
>--------------------------- cut here ------------------------------<
--
____________________________________________________________________________
| tac...@cats.ucsc.edu \ /__ Big glitter-slob weirdo bisexual |
| tac...@ucscb.ucsc.edu \ / / feminist vegan homeschooling parent |
| tac...@deeptht.armory.com \/ / science fiction computer bum i.n.p.o. |
-------------------------------\/-------------------------------------------
S. Spencer Sun
>
>I'm posting this for a friend who has just found a way to read
>soc.motss but seems unable to post. He's replying to Jojo.
>
>>--------------------------- cut here ------------------------------<
>> Someone with the voice of an angel who doesn't like singing is in the
>> same position, and will forever hav people pestering them to grace the
>> world with their gift.
>
>Someone with a voice of an angel who doesn't like singing is probably not
>going to know what to do with the voice. Not everyone gets beyond the
>barriers of deep throating. What is more, the emotional attitude will come
>through. The singing will gag. There are people without great natural
>endowments who do know what to do them. This is what makes a great artist
>either in sex or music.
I'm not sure what I have to say is relevant any more, but for what it's
worth... I am ill at ease when I hear people say things like "You have
such talents, and you aren't doing anything with them," with the
implication that you are somehow below other people with similar gifts
or talents who actually use them.
I'm not sure I agree with this sentiment that you have to make use of
all your abilities. I think that when someone has a gift or talent,
they have along with it a responsibility to use it wisely, and also the
right to choose NOT to use it.
It's like people telling tall people "Why aren't you a basketball
player?"
Along similar lines, I used to get subtle harrassment from fellow Asians
in high school that I wasn't in the Asian Awareness Club. Someone once
even said something to the effect of "You're Asian, you should be in the
AAC." Those are nearly his exact words.
This all gets back to what Brent and Caroline and others have said --
no one likes being categorized or pigeonholed. It only gets worse when
people start to belittle you or lay guilt trips on you for refusing to
fit the mold.
-----
sss / Princeton University Class of 1994 / Department of Computer Science
Laws... so widely disobeyed and which cannot be enforced only promote
disrespect for the law in general. [NJ Ass'yman Mikulak, RE: 55 MPH
limit]
John S. Bibb
> In a previous article, d000...@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu (David Speakman) wrote:
> >whatever that is between your navel and...
>
> The "goody trail."
Happy trail.....the trail to Mr. Happy ;-)
J.Bibb