Question about porn preferences
Meredith Chivers
very apparent to me...
Women love gay porn. More than every other type out there. Many of the
women who've participated in the study (straight, bi and lesbian) have
told me afterwards that they really like gay porn.
What do you all think of that? What are your preferences? Why do you
think that women prefer gay porn? Do you think I'm seeing a biased
sample?
I think it's because 1) the guys are better looking 2) they actually look
like they are enjoying themselves instead of the typical silent f***ing
machines you see in straight stuff 3) they are usually better quality
films.
But why would lesbians be interested in watching men go at it? Most
lesbians have told me it's because they do enjoy penetration, and want it,
but not from a guy. So why not watch 2 women with a strap-on? Is it
because there is no really good lesbian porn? Lots of stuff pretends to
be the real thing and ends up being two girls in pearls and heels
pretending for straight guys.
I just don't know what to think of this, but I definitely know it's
interesting!!
And..for those out there who do like gay porn...go rent "Chapters". ;)
Thanks!
Meredith
--
Soc.women.lesbian-and-bi is a moderated newsgroup. The moderation policy
and FAQ are available at <http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~wjfraser/swlab/>.
Questions and concerns should be emailed to the moderators at
<swlab-...@panix.com>.
Ali
Meredith Chivers <m-ch...@nwu.edu> wrote in article
<1.-yri-24*1...@panix.com>...
> I'm really curious about something that the sexual arousal study has made
> very apparent to me...
>
> Women love gay porn.
Been researching long?
> More than every other type out there. Many of the
> women who've participated in the study (straight, bi and lesbian) have
> told me afterwards that they really like gay porn.
So?
>
> What do you all think of that? What are your preferences? Why do you
> think that women prefer gay porn?
How is anyone supposed to answer this w/out knowing about the options in
your 'research.'
> Do you think I'm seeing a biased
> sample?
You probably don't want to know the first thought that comes into my head
at the moment.
Where have the bold offers of paying to participate in your 'research'
gone?
>
> I think it's because 1) the guys are better looking 2) they actually look
> like they are enjoying themselves instead of the typical silent f***ing
> machines you see in straight stuff 3) they are usually better quality
> films.
Did you collect your 20 dollars?
>
> But why would lesbians be interested in watching men go at it? Most
> lesbians have told me it's because they do enjoy penetration, and want
it,
> but not from a guy. So why not watch 2 women with a strap-on? Is it
> because there is no really good lesbian porn? Lots of stuff pretends to
> be the real thing and ends up being two girls in pearls and heels
> pretending for straight guys.
Do you get out much?
>
> I just don't know what to think of this, but I definitely know it's
> interesting!!
Fascinating...
Ali
Julie the MS
>women who've participated in the study (straight, bi and lesbian) have
>told me afterwards that they really like gay porn.
I don't think this is a very good general statement. One thing that I've
noticed (I used to be a very avid fanfic reader) is that a lot of women liked
reading m/m slash (fanfic about gay male relationships). But just as many women
hated reading this kind of stuff, so it all depends on one's personal
preference. (Also, these were mostly straight women.)
Julie
-----
"How do they manage it, these humans--starting each time so innocently, yet
always ending up with the most blood on their hands?" -- _Xenocide_ by Orson
Scott Card
Ali
Eliza Ross <el...@fcc.net> wrote in article <1.awx...@panix.com>...
> In article <1.-yri-24*1...@panix.com>, m-ch...@nwu.edu (Meredith Chivers)
> wrote:
> >
> >I'm really curious about something that the sexual arousal study has
made
> >very apparent to me...
> []
> >What do you all think of that? What are your preferences? Why do you
> >think that women prefer gay porn?
>
> If I answer this, do I get the big twenty bucks?
Isn't the money supposed to be in big bold bright letters, just so you know
there isn't any inducement?
>
> >Do you think I'm seeing a biased sample?
>
> Instead of asking us, you might want to ask your professor for help with
> your little research project.
>
> Oh, wait, you can't.
> Despite your writing in article <1.^&hg-...@panix.com>, "This
> research is being conducted by Meredith Chivers and J. Michael
> Bailey, Department of Psychology at Northwestern University,"
> the NWU directory says you're no longer there.
>
I got her listed as Bailey's graduate student. If you really want to read
some stuff to gag over go and read his cv. It will also give you a
different purpose for the sexual arousal study than that given on the web
page posted here previously.
Here the destruction of data, rather than the storing of it safely in a
manner that continues to maintain confidentiality is a big research no-no.
So is inducement to participate in research. And so is presenting
inaccurate information about the purpose of study in any public manner. I
can't think of an institutional ethics committee that would support a
website which gives so little information and glosses over the risks of
participation. Especially for such an invasive methodology.
ali
Beth Linker
: In article <1.-yri-24*1...@panix.com>, m-ch...@nwu.edu (Meredith Chivers)
: wrote:
:>Do you think I'm seeing a biased sample?
: Instead of asking us, you might want to ask your professor for help with
: your little research project.
Or just read his paper on the topic: Dunne, M. P., Martin, N. G., Bailey,
J. M., Heath, A. C., Bucholz, K. K., Madden, P. A. F., & Statham, D. J.
(1997). Participation bias in a sexuality survey: Psychological and
behavioural characteristics of responders and non-responders.
International Journal of Epidemiology, 26, 844-854.
Of course, I'm much more intrigued by his articles on "What distinguishes
women with unusually high numbers of sex partners?" and "Parental
selection of children's sexual orientation" (is that a how-to? My mother
would love it).
And for even more fun, check out
http://www.psych.nwu.edu/psych/people/faculty/bailey/research.html
According to Prof. Bailey, "homosexual people are, by definition, like the
opposite sex with respect to their sexual orientation. Are they also like
the opposite sex in other respects?" Could this guy be any more sketchy?
But wait, he could. Check out the "Tomboy Study" at the bottom. They are
"still recruiting new tomboys and hope to follow them for many years."
-Beth, wondering if we should set up a tomboy rescue network or something
--
Beth Linker
be...@homosexualmenace.com | bsli...@unix.amherst.edu
"then again, sleeping with madonna *is* on
the squicky-immoral side..." - bitty
Roving Reporter
electronic fuchsia crayon to soc.women.lesbian-and-bi and scribbled:
>>Women love gay porn. More than every other type out there. Many of the
>>women who've participated in the study (straight, bi and lesbian) have
>>told me afterwards that they really like gay porn.
Probably never read any good stuff such as X&G stories. If you mean
video, well, I have only seen bits of ONE video that struck me as
interesting from a female perspective. The rest was crap filmed for
male interests.
>I don't think this is a very good general statement. One thing that I've
>noticed (I used to be a very avid fanfic reader) is that a lot of women liked
>reading m/m slash (fanfic about gay male relationships). But just as many women
>hated reading this kind of stuff, so it all depends on one's personal
>preference. (Also, these were mostly straight women.)
And then there are also things one would watch but not want to do, so
the voyeur factor could be part of it too.
--
Therese Shellabarger - tls...@concentric.net
http://www.concentric.net/~tlshell/ Shalom chaverot!
Meredith Chivers
Łnoticed (I used to be a very avid fanfic reader) is that a lot of women liked
Łreading m/m slash (fanfic about gay male relationships). But just as many women
Łhated reading this kind of stuff, so it all depends on one's personal
Łpreference. (Also, these were mostly straight women.)
Thanks for the response Julie. I was pretty sure that this wasn't a
typical thing, but I wanted to get a broader view of it all.
All the women I talk to about this tend to be a biased sample...mostly
other sex researchers and friends. It doesn't seem to a popoular idea,
give the reaction of folks on the list!
Everyone else took this as an opportunity to bash me, my advisor, and the
research I do. It's really a shame. Neither I, nor Mike Bailey, has any
agenda. If folks took the time to read this research without negative
preconceptions, they might see this. We know so little about female
sexual arousal and I hope that this project might illuminate some of the
misconceptions out there. Given the hostile reception, I think I'll stop
posting on this list.
Thanks again Julie.
Sincerely,
Meredith
Meredith Chivers
ŁOh, wait, you can't.
ŁDespite your writing in article <1.^&hg-...@panix.com>, "This
Łresearch is being conducted by Meredith Chivers and J. Michael
ŁBailey, Department of Psychology at Northwestern University,"
Łthe NWU directory says you're no longer there.
Unfortunately, the server is screwed up. Try the URL I posted. I am a
bonified grad student here.
Meredith Chivers
ŁI got her listed as Bailey's graduate student. If you really want to read
Łsome stuff to gag over go and read his cv. It will also give you a
Łdifferent purpose for the sexual arousal study than that given on the web
Łpage posted here previously.
There is no different purpose. What is the one you are inferring?
Ł
ŁHere the destruction of data, rather than the storing of it safely in a
Łmanner that continues to maintain confidentiality is a big research no-no.
The data is also stored safely in locked cabinets in the lab.
ŁSo is inducement to participate in research. And so is presenting
Łinaccurate information about the purpose of study in any public manner.
There is no inaccurate information. What is it the you perceive to be
inaccurate?
I
Łcan't think of an institutional ethics committee that would support a
Łwebsite which gives so little information and glosses over the risks of
Łparticipation. Especially for such an invasive methodology.
The internal review board for use of human participants (ethics commitee),
after reviewing this study for 6 months, approved the study without
incident, except to have an ob/gyn come to the lab to review procedures
with me. If you want more info about the methodology, contact me. My do
you think the risks are glossed over? What other risks do you foresee?
Many women have participated thus far, and have enjoyed the experience.
Meredith
Gwendolyn Alden Dean
>Everyone else took this as an opportunity to bash me, my advisor, and the
>research I do. It's really a shame. Neither I, nor Mike Bailey, has any
>agenda. If folks took the time to read this research without negative
>preconceptions, they might see this. We know so little about female
>sexual arousal and I hope that this project might illuminate some of the
>misconceptions out there. Given the hostile reception, I think I'll stop
>posting on this list.
Nice work, swlabbers!
Al
:Unfortunately, the server is screwed up. Try the URL I posted. I am a
:bonified grad student here.
how do you get bonified?
-al, wanting to be a bonny lass
al...@columbia.edu
http://eclipse.barnard.columbia.edu/~anastasi
Ali
Meredith Chivers <m-ch...@nwu.edu> wrote in article
<1.z3/i-2...@panix.com>...
>
> ŁI got her listed as Bailey's graduate student. If you really want to
read
> Łsome stuff to gag over go and read his cv. It will also give you a
> Łdifferent purpose for the sexual arousal study than that given on the
web
> Łpage posted here previously.
>
> There is no different purpose. What is the one you are inferring?
The one mentioned on Bailey's page is not the same one as on the web page
you advertised.
>
> Ł
> ŁHere the destruction of data, rather than the storing of it safely in a
> Łmanner that continues to maintain confidentiality is a big research
no-no.
>
> The data is also stored safely in locked cabinets in the lab.
And destroyed at the end of the project, according to your web page, which
here just shouts to the research world that you don't want to ever have to
back up your claims.
>
> ŁSo is inducement to participate in research. And so is presenting
> Łinaccurate information about the purpose of study in any public manner.
>
> There is no inaccurate information. What is it the you perceive to be
> inaccurate?
>
Do you read? Your web page, and Bailey's page do not give the same purpose
for the study. They don't even give the same description for the study...
> I
> Łcan't think of an institutional ethics committee that would support a
> Łwebsite which gives so little information and glosses over the risks of
> Łparticipation. Especially for such an invasive methodology.
>
> The internal review board for use of human participants (ethics
commitee),
> after reviewing this study for 6 months, approved the study without
> incident, except to have an ob/gyn come to the lab to review procedures
> with me.
Do they also support you trolling usenet? And they are ok with one
descriptor for the study being given by one researcher, and another by
yourself? Have they seen your web site? They are ok with the font being
used to give more emphasis to the $20- than anything else of importance?
Yeah, right...
> If you want more info about the methodology, contact me.
No, you brought your research into this forum, I have no interest in
discussing it with you elsewhere. You chose the forum. You invited women
from <this> group to participate. Why not discuss it here?
> My do
> you think the risks are glossed over? What other risks do you foresee?
> Many women have participated thus far, and have enjoyed the experience.
What risks do <you> foresee? This research is <your> responsibility. It
is <your> responsibility to foresee risks and warn participants, not mine.
Your website is acting as a plain language statement inviting participants
to your research. Do you save the risk-sharing until after the $20? Nice
one. Unethical in the extreme, but probably catchy.
ali
Ali
Meredith Chivers <m-ch...@nwu.edu> wrote in article
<1./$?i-2=d...@panix.com>...
[...]
> Thanks for the response Julie. I was pretty sure that this wasn't a
> typical thing, but I wanted to get a broader view of it all.
> All the women I talk to about this tend to be a biased sample...mostly
> other sex researchers and friends. It doesn't seem to a popoular idea,
> give the reaction of folks on the list!
So, you wander into a soc. group and start making ott statements to glean
information? Do you treat your research participants with the same lack of
respect? Surely if you wanted to discuss an aspect of your research it
could have been done without all the ridiculous claims of what "women"
like.
>
> Everyone else took this as an opportunity to bash me, my advisor, and the
> research I do. It's really a shame. Neither I, nor Mike Bailey, has any
> agenda. If folks took the time to read this research without negative
> preconceptions, they might see this.
Well, if you can't see the political impact of the ridiculous descriptions
given for a whole range of folk on Bailey's web site, then bully for you.
But are you bordering on ridiculous again making claims that researchers -
any - don't have an agenda. Your attempted retreat into objectivity
implodes on itself pretty quickly.
We know so little about female
> sexual arousal and I hope that this project might illuminate some of the
> misconceptions out there.
You know, it makes sense to spell out a project's purpose <fully> each time
it goes public. Otherwise you start looking as if you change the purpose
to suit the audience.
Given the hostile reception, I think I'll stop
> posting on this list.
This is hostile? Better avoid peer review... And the conferences, imagine
all those nasty dykes questioning you in person! horror!
misfit
>
> The idea that gay male erotica is the most stimulating form of erotica
> to women has been known for years.
That is both fascinating and very difficult for me to believe. Do you
have any citations, Johannah? I'm just wondering whether this 'idea
that has been known for years' is based on fact or on the kind of
conventional wisdom that so often turns out to be false.
- misfit
Chris Waigl
>I got her listed as Bailey's graduate student. If you really want to read
>some stuff to gag over go and read his cv.
Good gracious! This makes the hair in my neck rise...
>From http://www.psych.nwu.edu/psych/people/faculty/bailey/research.html
"Homosexual people are, by definition, like the opposite sex with
respect to their sexual orientation."
Ah. By definition. Could the good man perhaps formulate this a little
clearer? Like, "As their choice of sexual partners differs from the
norm, lesbians are not totally like real women and gay men are not
totally like real men." (As far as I'm concerned, I'm sorry,
I'm not "like" any sort of man wrt my sexual orientation...)
"One general program of research I am engaged in aims to elucidate
the ways in which homosexual people are like the same sex and the
ways in which they are like the opposite sex."
Huh? Like, whether they prefer milk coffee or black coffee? With
sugar (like men do) or without (like women do)? [Hey, here
I am like the opposite sex!]
What the hell does it _mean_ to "be like the same [or opposite] sex"?
I'd be interested in a study in what respect psychology researchers
are like the same sex. Or like the opposite sex.
"Gay men and lesbians vary markedly in their degree of masculinity and
femininity."
<giggle> Bingo! Like straight people! (Hey, that's an aspect of how
lesbians and gay men are "like the same sex". But also "like the
opposite sex", 'course men and women both "differ markedly in their
degree of masculinity and femininity".)
Of course, we'd have to find out first what "masculinity" and
"femininity" could reasonably mean... [Shouldn't there be at
least some sort of fig-leaf reference, à la "Our understanding
of m./f. is inspired by the ideas exposed in Tweedledum, Tweedledee
et al., 1899"?]
"[... L]esbians are somewhat prejudiced against masculine-looking women.
We believe that these findings have important implications for both
basic and applied science."
Wow! Basic _and_ applied!
But, <sniff>, I'm not a lesbian, then. At least I _think_ I'm not
prejudiced against "masculine-looking women"; or can I be prejudiced
against something I don't believe in?
"sexual orientation appears to reflect a preference for sex-typical
members of one's preferred sex"
This must be the masterpiece: a definition that removes the entire
raison d'être of the term-to-be-defined.
"In this study we have members of gay and lesbian couples rate their own
and their partners' masculinity-femininity. [...] How does each
partner's sex typicality affect the other's satisfaction?"
Come on, _this_ one should't be difficult! Most lesbians will probably
agree that if it's the wrong sex, dissatisfaction ensues sure as
hell.
........
And it goes on and on like this sexist, heterocentric crap. If this is
supposed to represent the ultimate heights of sexual orientation
research, there's real trouble. And I thought that the proliferation
of writings on "femininity" is a runing-to-its-end French fashion
right now, prompted by the little straight identity crisis in the
aftermath of the PACS discussions. Ali? What's going on there?
To end with a little ultra-short bedtime story (it's after all high
time I went there...):
One of the most fabulous queer groups I ever met, and, as an aside,
the only one who'd probably endorse the term "queer", even though,
to quote one of their members, they don't consider themselves in
charge of importing "queerness" into France, has chosen a particularly
apt name: the group calls itself the "zoo". And no, this is not quite
exactly about reclaiming the role of the living exhibit being
exposed to the curious people's gaze...
Chris, not_mod
--
address change imminent -- changement d'adresse en cours -- Adresse ändert sich !
--> cwa...@free.fr already in use -- déja valable -- bereits in Betrieb !
Chris Waigl
m-ch...@nwu.edu (Meredith Chivers) écrivit:
>Ali wrote:
>ŁI got her listed as Bailey's graduate student. If you really want to read
>Łsome stuff to gag over go and read his cv. It will also give you a
>Łdifferent purpose for the sexual arousal study than that given on the web
>Łpage posted here previously.
>
>There is no different purpose. What is the one you are inferring?
Well, let's see:
"The purpose of this study is to examine what types of audiovisual
erotica women find sexually arousing"
is substantially different from
"[...] Furthermore, there has been only one study to date (by Ellen Laan
and Erick Janssen) of women's arousal patterns and sexual orientation.
That is, are homosexually identified women most subjectively and
physiologically aroused to female erotic stimuli?"
The first one is the full purpose of the study given as information
on the project's page you posted here; the second is additional info
from your advisor's page
(http://www.psych.nwu.edu/psych/people/faculty/bailey/research.html).
>ŁHere the destruction of data, rather than the storing of it safely in a
>Łmanner that continues to maintain confidentiality is a big research no-no.
>
>The data is also stored safely in locked cabinets in the lab.
Um, I find it logically a bit difficult to resolve what it may mean that
the data are at once destroyed and safely stored.
>There is no inaccurate information. What is it the you perceive to be
>inaccurate?
I don't speak for Ali, of course, but I find the above example
pretty inaccurate.
Chris, not_mod$
Helena Schultz
> news:1.^c|i-2...@panix.com...
> > And for even more fun, check out
> > http://www.psych.nwu.edu/psych/people/faculty/bailey/research.html
the
> > opposite sex with respect to their sexual orientation. Are they also
like
> > the opposite sex in other respects?" Could this guy be any more sketchy?
Uhm, this kind of people make me question half of the questions I used on my
test for being lesbian.... I had no purpose of being serious... is this guy
actually trying to be serious???? I looked his name up on my university
server... Luckaly he has not made any pubications that reached
university-land in the Netherlands... Lucky for him that is... Meredith, you
claim that you are doing research and yet you even state yourself that the
researched population has a high level of bias, why then take the result
serious yourself?
Further more, the more I read about Prof Bailey, the more I start to think
that he gives the whole subject of psycology a bad name... His 'research' is
totally based on quicksand, he totally forgets to show any numbers and any
indication that these (not mentioned) numbers are accurate and how
accurate... Btw, if there are such statistics available, then he/you have
hid them well, maybe that serves a particular purpose?
I know that if I submit a report like I have read from Prof. Bailey to my
professors they would first ask me many a question about the validity of the
results, heck, they would have such a field day with that they would not
even get to the actual content... But hey, I guess engineering is not the
same as psycology...
I personally like to make fun of being a lesbian and make fun of
homosexuality in genereal... But hey, I am one and the people I make fun of
know this and know I am making harmless fun... Would you atleast state on
the page of you research that this whole thing is just ment to be a good
laugh for anyone to read and not act like you actually are doing serious
research, and in the event that you are, please prove this the proper way,
and as a serious scientist, you will not take that as an insult, but a
challenge.
Kind regards,
---
Helena Schultz
Page of Enlightment
http://members.tripod.com/h_and_t/
sarah heather cardin
>Unfortunately, the server is screwed up. Try the URL I posted. I am a
>bonified grad student here.
>
couldn't spell 'bonafide' correctly.
sarah cardin
Laziness is an art: idleness is only a craft.
-- Comtesse Diane (1898)
Dianne Millen
>Everyone else took this as an opportunity to bash me, my advisor, and the
>research I do. It's really a shame. Neither I, nor Mike Bailey, has any
>agenda. If folks took the time to read this research without negative
>preconceptions, they might see this. We know so little about female
>sexual arousal and I hope that this project might illuminate some of the
>misconceptions out there. Given the hostile reception, I think I'll stop
>posting on this list.
Good Lord. What do you do when you get a paper review
back from a journal? Stomp off and promise never to
publish in it again? Do you always take criticism of
your work so personally?
I also find it disingenuous to claim that you and
your advisor have no 'agenda'. All researchers
have some sort of agenda - the differences between
us are that some of us try to probe and clarify
and reflect on our agendas, and some hide
behind 'quantitative' methodology and pretend to
be objective.
I would recommend that, if you truly want to
probe sexual arousal in women, you develop the
technique of showing some more respect for your
potential participants and their arguments. The
world does not need another androcentric,
heterocentric study of what gets women off, to
be quite frank. I realise that you can't
express doubt about your thesis advisor in a
public space but at least give the objectors
credit for having reasoned arguments rather
than 'preconceptions'.
Dianne
x
--
"When you're doing a show called "Homicide" and you start bringing people
back from the dead, it ruins the furniture."
- Tom Fontana in the New York Times
Lowpulse
><snort>
>
>--
>"Wasn't Claire of the Moon atrocity enough?" -Jills
>
Love this. There's actually a video of the making of Claire of the Moon if the
screen version wasn't horrible enough. Merrill
just julia
: I'm really curious about something that the sexual arousal study has made
: very apparent to me...
: Women love gay porn. More than every other type out there. Many of the
: women who've participated in the study (straight, bi and lesbian) have
: told me afterwards that they really like gay porn.
Um....some women love gay porn, some don't.
: What do you all think of that? What are your preferences? Why do you
: think that women prefer gay porn? Do you think I'm seeing a biased
: sample?
I think some women like gay male porn because it neatly dances around the
issue of women's consent and position in porn. You don't have to cringe
at scary long fingernails clawing at vaginas, or "lesbian" sex that ends
when a guy comes into the room, or "lesbian" sex in which tongues are not
actually touching genitalia and everyone looks bored, etc.
: I think it's because 1) the guys are better looking 2) they actually look
: like they are enjoying themselves instead of the typical silent f***ing
: machines you see in straight stuff 3) they are usually better quality
: films.
Well....depends on the straight porn. Some guys in porn talk lots.
Seymore Butts, and Ed Powers are classic examples.
: but not from a guy. So why not watch 2 women with a strap-on? Is it :
: because there is no really good lesbian porn?
There is more gay male porn than lesbian porn, and it's easier to get your
hands on it, which is one factor. Also, a lack of access to good lesbian
porn is another issue. If anyone gets a chance, rent "San Francisco
Lesbians" which is a series of about 8 tapes. Lots of fun, and I remember
a hot scene with two older butch dyke tops, and a cute sassy femme bottom.
j
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/Jul...@hotmail.com
essays and bra obsession http://www.medianstrip.net/~julia
"Nobody's interested in sweetness and light." --Hedda Hopper
just julia
: "The purpose of this study is to examine what types of audiovisual
: erotica women find sexually arousing"
: is substantially different from
: "[...] Furthermore, there has been only one study to date (by Ellen Laan
: and Erick Janssen) of women's arousal patterns and sexual orientation.
: That is, are homosexually identified women most subjectively and
: physiologically aroused to female erotic stimuli?"
Speaking of which, what is female erotic stimuli? Is that pictures of
naked women, or erotica that is supposed to turn women on? Also, what
about them hot bi bi grrrls?
grr.
Cruller Nose
> women who've participated in the study (straight, bi and lesbian) have
> told me afterwards that they really like gay porn.
um... no.
I enjoy watching two *live* men go at it, but tahts because of
their sexual energy and a connection knowing the people involved. male
porn has *never* done anything for me.
Bethany "Bitty" Ramirez http://www.amherst.edu/~bkramire/
bi...@homosexualmenace.com
"Fuck a muppet for Jesus!" - Arthur
Meredith Chivers
that I could get a more diverse picture of the attitudes about gay porn.
BTW, I've seen the San Fran series too, and it is pretty good!
Meredith
Meredith Chivers
Ł>BTW, I've seen the San Fran series too, and it is pretty good!
Ł
ŁIs this part of you "posing as a curious dyke?"
No, I am not posing.
ŁNot that you have an agenda or anything, right?
Oh Johanna...relax.
Mary Mc
removed the attributions:
>
> =
> Ł>BTW, I've seen the San Fran series too, and it is pretty good!
> Ł
> ŁIs this part of you "posing as a curious dyke?"
>
> No, I am not posing.
just curious?
>
> ŁNot that you have an agenda or anything, right?
>
> Oh Johanna...relax.
maybe that's your entire problem, Meredith, you are too relaxed and not
taking your academic work seriously enough. just because Johannah (with
two h's) and other's have called you on your lack of credibility, doesn't
give you the right to tell her, or anyone else, how to think, act, or be.
Mary
Imperialist Running Pig
>meredith chivers:
>>Unfortunately, the server is screwed up. Try the URL I posted. I am a
>>bonified grad student here.
>hmmm ... this grad student would be pretty embarassed if she
>couldn't spell 'bonafide' correctly.
No, no, she's bonified by Bailey on a regular basis.
--
Piglet "But male conditioning, nonetheless. You
pig...@piglet.org were not treated like a woman." [to Julie H.]
1. Pardon me, my plurals are slipping.
2. Piglet Needs (full-time, nyc-area) Programmers!! Apply Within.