Postmodern Critic
Morgan Bell
Jeff MusallWhy Is The 'Is Homosexuality Normal?' Argument Homophobic?
May 31st 2008 14:23
This year I have met two young men (one in real life, and one online) who believed that raising the question of whether homosexuality was normal or not was a sign of being clear-headed and objective. I pity these young men because they obviously have not taken the time to get to know people with homosexual tendencies and witnessed how beautiful and inspiring they can be. If they did so they would realise that they are clinging onto arguments made my their forefathers and other homophobes who are so fearful of homosexuality that they cannot accept that it is part of natural human behaviour.
Let's discuss the case of the person I met in RL first. A Sydney University psychology and history undergraduate student of many neuroses, recovering from mental illness and, admirably, vocal about it, we got around to talking about homosexuality, and he cast the problematic question of 'might not homosexuality be a mental disorder' in a 'sad but true consideration' kind of light. My first instinct was never to talk to him again. This probably had to do with the fact that I didn't think that much of him anyway - I would have had a different reaction if this question had been posed by someone I had more in common with.
Perhaps I should tell you a bit about my background. I was brought up to be homophobic (amongst other prejudices instilled upon me from a young age). This made my 15 year-old discovery that I was attracted to other women pretty mind-boggling. Comforting me in the face of the discrimination I knew I would have to face, directly or not, was how pleasurable it was to be attracted to women, and how natural. I believed I was a better person because I could appreciate the beauty of females. My homosexuality has brought me much inspiration, compassion for others and a love of life I never imagined possible - as did my heterosexuality when I discovered that - shock! horror! - I had those tendencies too. I now identify as pansexual. Actually, I now identify as someone who doesn't feel the need to define themselves, but I know that labels continue to be useful to a wide range of people, so I pander to those less enlightened than I.
One more thing: I believe that I choose to be attracted to women as well as men. I also choose to be attracted to things like clouds in the sky, a beautifully framed photo, an exquisitely painted landscape, or other such objects.
Anyway, I have seen first hand how homophobia comes about. 1. Not questioning the people around you who introduce homophobia to you in the first place. 2. Harbouring fear, generalised and/or specific, sometimes of your own sexuality. 3. Having little or no experience with homosexuality in any meaningful way.
Back to that mall in Bondi Junction - I asked him why he thought homosexuality might be a mental illness, and he said that the continuation of the species depended on heterosexuality. In his world, he had doubts that homosexuality was part of the grand design for human beings. He was defensive about it. I told him that loving somebody was perfectly natural, and just because homosexual sexual activity does not lead to reproduction doesn't make it unnatural, and he didn't have any reply. I also told him that he should be careful about who presents this argument to, because, as a bisexual personal (yeah, I use whatever label is currently convenient, dependent on the context. With people who don't have much experience with homosexuality, 'bi' is a good one) I considered his argument in ill taste. I also mentioned that overpopulation is already a problem, so homosexuality serves a productive role by keeping the number of progeny in the world down.
A few thoughts went through my mind. One was that this guy probably picked up this argument from someone older and (probably) more homophobic than him. Let's not forget that it was only in 1972 that homosexuality was taken out of the list of mental illnesses. Prior to that, open up any psychology textbook and it would have been lumped with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. This argument somehow struck a chord with this poor, insecure Australian, and he modified it to fit his style. Seeing as it was pretty generic, I think it's pretty safe to assume he finds homosexuality threatening to his world. It is likely that he finds questioning his sexuality (which everyone should be doing, as often as possible) alarming, and feels the need to identify it as a mental disorder because it's not somewhere he wants to go. Either way, I feel sorry for him - he's a very conflicted character.
Later, something interesting happened. We were playing a game of 'Articulate', and I noted that he was a bit reluctant to come sit next to me as we were the last two people not to be part of a duo. We played for quite a while, and won, then he went away to sit in another part of the room. A little bit later the question of his homophobia came up, and he started listing reasons why he was not homophobic. The first was that he had had 'no problem' being on my team for the game. Now, if he really had no problem with my sexuality, it wouldn't even have crossed his mind that there would be a problem with being on my team. I should point out that a game of Articulate involves trying to convey a person, place, event or so on through your powers of description. It doesn't even involve physical contact, just talking to the other person.
I accused him of being a homophobe and he got agitated, saying that he didn't discriminate against anyone in any way. He then mentioned that he had had a meaningful relationship with a bisexual girl. Clearly this woman's sexuality must have been a shock to his delicate ego, and probably the first close-at-hand experience he had with homosexuality. In spite of, or because of, this experience, his homophobia was all the more apparent to me. No one around me wanted to believe that he was being homophobic, which infuriated me because this willfull blindness was incredibly self-serving. I should have argued the point further, but I was so sick of everyone in the room that all I could think about was when I could leave.
So, if you wanted it, there's the further proof of this individual's unfortunate homophobia.
Anyway, so then I came across Ahmed's post, 'Is Homosexuality Natural?'. In it he says: 'In a way I sympathise with the extremist religious groups claiming that homosexuality will destroy our countries and governments. The long term effect of homosexuals is yet to be seen [...]'
How homosexuality is supposed to corrode the fabric of reality remains beyond my mental power to conceptualise of. Perhaps, according to Ahmed, homosexuality encroaches upon heterosexuality? But heterosexuality has never been, and likely never will be, under threat. Heterosexuality has been historically viewed as socially acceptable, and with such a long history of a thriving culture, it is likely that it will continue to be engaged with in the future. It is part of popular culture, high culture, even of social expectations to this day. And if for some reason it goes 'out of fashion', well, don't despair: artificial semination will surely keep the species reproducing. It surprises me that just because homosexuality is becoming more visible and socially acceptable, people find it threatening. It is perfectly natural and normal for human beings to engage in many different types of sexual behaviour, including with both males and females (and not to mention people who don't fit into that strict gender binary). I may also point out that there are a plethora of sexual acts that heterosexuals can engage in that don't lead to reproduction (in fact, there is only one that does).
As I relayed to Ahmed, his need to position homosexuality as unnatural shows that he is so threatened by it that he will go to extremes to reduce its legitimacy in his world. However, he insisted that he was not homophobic, even though his first reaction to news of my pansexuality was to suggest that I work in the sex industry, going as far as to suggest I take up the degrading field of corpophilia. The implication here is that I am sexually promiscuous, lacking the moral standards that would keep 'ordinary' people from getting involved in pornography, and willing to engage in not just any fetishes but one of the most repulsive I can think of. Panphobia or homophobia, however you want to call it, Ahmed is yet to apologise for this comment, despite being reprimanded by the Orble administration on my behalf. As with the RL acquaintance, if you doubted the homophobia inherent in representing homosexuality as not normal, his homophobia clearly shows up in other ways.
Ahmed's attempt to be 'objective' about his question shows how detached he is from his emotions. He believes that they key to managing his insecurities is to brand the part of him that is scared stiff as justified. He intends to keep assuaging his fear by feeding off this homophobic argument that people more vehemently opposed to homosexuality before him have espoused. Perhaps he is not aware of how hateful he seems.
Ahmed has also brought to my attention that he is in favour of gay marriage because he thinks that people who aren't doing any harm should be allowed to get married. This is a good sign and I hope he will continue to take such a liberal attitude, even if his homophobia further comes out when he offers that gay adoption could be unsavoury a practice.
If he wishes to discuss the matter further I am happy to engage in such a discussion, instead of deleting his comments as I have warned him that I will on my other blogs.
So what do you think, people - have you come across this argument before? And if so, how have you interpreted it?
Perhaps I should tell you a bit about my background. I was brought up to be homophobic (amongst other prejudices instilled upon me from a young age). This made my 15 year-old discovery that I was attracted to other women pretty mind-boggling. Comforting me in the face of the discrimination I knew I would have to face, directly or not, was how pleasurable it was to be attracted to women, and how natural. I believed I was a better person because I could appreciate the beauty of females. My homosexuality has brought me much inspiration, compassion for others and a love of life I never imagined possible - as did my heterosexuality when I discovered that - shock! horror! - I had those tendencies too. I now identify as pansexual. Actually, I now identify as someone who doesn't feel the need to define themselves, but I know that labels continue to be useful to a wide range of people, so I pander to those less enlightened than I.
One more thing: I believe that I choose to be attracted to women as well as men. I also choose to be attracted to things like clouds in the sky, a beautifully framed photo, an exquisitely painted landscape, or other such objects.
Anyway, I have seen first hand how homophobia comes about. 1. Not questioning the people around you who introduce homophobia to you in the first place. 2. Harbouring fear, generalised and/or specific, sometimes of your own sexuality. 3. Having little or no experience with homosexuality in any meaningful way.
Back to that mall in Bondi Junction - I asked him why he thought homosexuality might be a mental illness, and he said that the continuation of the species depended on heterosexuality. In his world, he had doubts that homosexuality was part of the grand design for human beings. He was defensive about it. I told him that loving somebody was perfectly natural, and just because homosexual sexual activity does not lead to reproduction doesn't make it unnatural, and he didn't have any reply. I also told him that he should be careful about who presents this argument to, because, as a bisexual personal (yeah, I use whatever label is currently convenient, dependent on the context. With people who don't have much experience with homosexuality, 'bi' is a good one) I considered his argument in ill taste. I also mentioned that overpopulation is already a problem, so homosexuality serves a productive role by keeping the number of progeny in the world down.
A few thoughts went through my mind. One was that this guy probably picked up this argument from someone older and (probably) more homophobic than him. Let's not forget that it was only in 1972 that homosexuality was taken out of the list of mental illnesses. Prior to that, open up any psychology textbook and it would have been lumped with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. This argument somehow struck a chord with this poor, insecure Australian, and he modified it to fit his style. Seeing as it was pretty generic, I think it's pretty safe to assume he finds homosexuality threatening to his world. It is likely that he finds questioning his sexuality (which everyone should be doing, as often as possible) alarming, and feels the need to identify it as a mental disorder because it's not somewhere he wants to go. Either way, I feel sorry for him - he's a very conflicted character.
Later, something interesting happened. We were playing a game of 'Articulate', and I noted that he was a bit reluctant to come sit next to me as we were the last two people not to be part of a duo. We played for quite a while, and won, then he went away to sit in another part of the room. A little bit later the question of his homophobia came up, and he started listing reasons why he was not homophobic. The first was that he had had 'no problem' being on my team for the game. Now, if he really had no problem with my sexuality, it wouldn't even have crossed his mind that there would be a problem with being on my team. I should point out that a game of Articulate involves trying to convey a person, place, event or so on through your powers of description. It doesn't even involve physical contact, just talking to the other person.
I accused him of being a homophobe and he got agitated, saying that he didn't discriminate against anyone in any way. He then mentioned that he had had a meaningful relationship with a bisexual girl. Clearly this woman's sexuality must have been a shock to his delicate ego, and probably the first close-at-hand experience he had with homosexuality. In spite of, or because of, this experience, his homophobia was all the more apparent to me. No one around me wanted to believe that he was being homophobic, which infuriated me because this willfull blindness was incredibly self-serving. I should have argued the point further, but I was so sick of everyone in the room that all I could think about was when I could leave.
So, if you wanted it, there's the further proof of this individual's unfortunate homophobia.
Anyway, so then I came across Ahmed's post, 'Is Homosexuality Natural?'. In it he says: 'In a way I sympathise with the extremist religious groups claiming that homosexuality will destroy our countries and governments. The long term effect of homosexuals is yet to be seen [...]'
How homosexuality is supposed to corrode the fabric of reality remains beyond my mental power to conceptualise of. Perhaps, according to Ahmed, homosexuality encroaches upon heterosexuality? But heterosexuality has never been, and likely never will be, under threat. Heterosexuality has been historically viewed as socially acceptable, and with such a long history of a thriving culture, it is likely that it will continue to be engaged with in the future. It is part of popular culture, high culture, even of social expectations to this day. And if for some reason it goes 'out of fashion', well, don't despair: artificial semination will surely keep the species reproducing. It surprises me that just because homosexuality is becoming more visible and socially acceptable, people find it threatening. It is perfectly natural and normal for human beings to engage in many different types of sexual behaviour, including with both males and females (and not to mention people who don't fit into that strict gender binary). I may also point out that there are a plethora of sexual acts that heterosexuals can engage in that don't lead to reproduction (in fact, there is only one that does).
As I relayed to Ahmed, his need to position homosexuality as unnatural shows that he is so threatened by it that he will go to extremes to reduce its legitimacy in his world. However, he insisted that he was not homophobic, even though his first reaction to news of my pansexuality was to suggest that I work in the sex industry, going as far as to suggest I take up the degrading field of corpophilia. The implication here is that I am sexually promiscuous, lacking the moral standards that would keep 'ordinary' people from getting involved in pornography, and willing to engage in not just any fetishes but one of the most repulsive I can think of. Panphobia or homophobia, however you want to call it, Ahmed is yet to apologise for this comment, despite being reprimanded by the Orble administration on my behalf. As with the RL acquaintance, if you doubted the homophobia inherent in representing homosexuality as not normal, his homophobia clearly shows up in other ways.
Ahmed's attempt to be 'objective' about his question shows how detached he is from his emotions. He believes that they key to managing his insecurities is to brand the part of him that is scared stiff as justified. He intends to keep assuaging his fear by feeding off this homophobic argument that people more vehemently opposed to homosexuality before him have espoused. Perhaps he is not aware of how hateful he seems.
Ahmed has also brought to my attention that he is in favour of gay marriage because he thinks that people who aren't doing any harm should be allowed to get married. This is a good sign and I hope he will continue to take such a liberal attitude, even if his homophobia further comes out when he offers that gay adoption could be unsavoury a practice.
If he wishes to discuss the matter further I am happy to engage in such a discussion, instead of deleting his comments as I have warned him that I will on my other blogs.
So what do you think, people - have you come across this argument before? And if so, how have you interpreted it?
Never be afraid to love... 
| 207 |
| Vote |
Shared on
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by Ahmed
techy.Bytes
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
Qwerk
Cinema Three
You are making a few key mistakes, taking a lot of assumptions and well, at the end of the day I have to take your word for this other 'young man' you speak of.
I can't trust you on the finer details because you have disregard thereof, case in point my post was not titled 'Is Homosexuality Normal?' but 'Is Homosexuality Natural?'. Irrespective of what the definition of either means it puts into question the way you rephrase things to suit your mood. Unfortunately taking such liberties does not have a place in objective and rational discussion.
I might have given you the benefit of the doubt about the other 'young man' but there are two issues I can't look past, one is your inherint unconscious bias, the other is that I am getting this information from your perspective. There is another POV here and as such I can't just assume what ou're syaing is true, even if it is your experience it isn't the whole truth.
I do like how you make anything I say personal, it's as if I can't have an opinion unless I'm insecure about myself (possibly my sexual orientation?). See I am detached from my emotions when I discuss topics froma scientific standpoint because emotions will actually cloud my judgement, for you that may not be such a big issue but for me it is.
There can be no discussion here because you have this innate inability to keep any discussion from turning personal, it has to be that I'm insecure about my feelings and that is the source of my problems. It is nto a question of homosexuality or homophobia but a question of Ahmed who is 'insescure about himself, he may possibly be gay and that would perfectly fit in my world view'.
And here's the other thing;
It was a god damn joke and you blew it out of proportion, you still are! XD
As for apologising, normally I would but i've decided I'm going to be a jerk and not apologise since the only thing I would be apologising for is the joke being made in poor taste. I'm not going to apologise for something I didn't do, i.e. attack you on a personal level because I have some sort of dislike for you. I'm a fairly nice guy but like most people I don't like taking blame for things I didn't do.
The real difference between you and me is you have a very rosey outlook on life, if someone does not share that view you have then that someone has a problem. It would be inconcievable for you to believe someone has a different opinion to you unless that someone has a problem with him/herself.
Comment by Kleonaptra
Kalikapsychosis
Comment by Morgan Bell
Deep Pencil
Current Business News
Movie Train
Artist Quirk
Comment by Tracy
Movies and Life
Tracy
Comment by Louie
Climate Forum
Climate Red
randomthoughts
Phil's Wellness Tips
This comment you made
I think is the Tip of a MASSIVE ice berg when it comes to Homophobia, a lot of us are brought up to be homophobic and my theory is, that those of us that have, that then wake up to the shock that they are in fact this "horrible" creature themselves, have to go through a torturous journey of shame and guilt which fortunately for most of us ends in enlightenment that being gay is truly a wonderful situation to be in. Like you said, I think it has made me a better and far more tolerant person in many aspects of my life and I actually feel sorry for people who have never had to make such a personal journey, because, accepting yourself leads to so many other kinds of acceptances accross all areas of life. It saddens me to see people who havent made this journey live in a world of fear and hate, mostly of themselves.
This whole debate actually pisses me off, and I usually don't play, but I think I am learning the world needs to go through it so we get to a place where we are all loved and accepted for who and what we are. I guess I can thank Orble for that.
I think for those of us that have fought the battle, have to be tolerant of those who can't empathise and think that we have choices or that acceptance of yourself as a gay and homophobic person is easy.
Anyhows. The longer we take the high road the longer they have to meet our standards.
cheers Louie
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
That said, I don't think that everyone who raises the question hates gays, maybe they are just fighting the conflicting thoughts in their heads? After all, as you stated PoMo, most people are raised to be homophobic, it takes great strength of mind and character to fight against early indoctrination.
Comment by Matthew Pejkovic
This is an interesting point, and one I have thought about quite a bit lately.
A question: If homosexuality does serve a productive role by keeping the number of progeny in the world down, should Gay IVF be discouraged?
A thought provoking post, by the way.
Comment by Anonymous
Comment by postmoderncritic
Postmodern Critic
Daily Inspirations
Relativity Watch
Padsoc
Ah, you are not the centre of my world... It so happened that you were one of two examples that I used for this post. Why would I make up an elaborate story about meeting another person who asked a similar question? I could have focused on you alone, but I thought that I'd put your views into context with this other guy's.
you rephrase things to suit your mood
I'm sorry that I didn't get the title of your post right - I was thinking about different variants of the question you posed and I got a bit mixed up. I have edited the post above.
objective and rational discussion.
There is no such thing. This is why I didn't study science in uni: the people teaching it going around trying to claim that they are being 'objective' and 'rational'. No one has access to an objective reality because we are all subjective beings. No one thinks like anyone else, and therefore cannot come to the same conclusion with another, let alone a group of people. As for rationality, it's just another buzz word that has far too much currency with you non-postmodernists.
your inherint unconscious bias
Everyone is biased. No one is free of it. Hence the lack of access to an objective point of view. If an objective world did exist, no one would be able to see it. Thus, it's a figment of your imagination, backed up by people similarly hooked on its problematic premise. I celebrate my biases, and I think you underestimate how conscious I am about the way my mind works.
See I am detached from my emotions when I discuss topics froma scientific standpoint because emotions will actually cloud my judgement, for you that may not be such a big issue but for me it is.
The more you try to keep your emotions 'in check' the more warped your analysis will be. It takes courage to dispense with the armour of detachment and go into your personal feelings, much more than following some kind of restrictive emotional journey for the sake of 'being scientific' does. Contrary to popular belief, getting personally involved does not take away from an analysis - it only ads to it. You, Ahmed, have a personal reason for asking 'Is Homosexuality Natural?' - this questions inevitably gets you emotionally involved. In fact you ask the question because you have inspected it and your emotions tell you it is OK to go forth with this line of questioning. Why? Embrace your bias, examine your emotional landscape as part of your analysis. You are not an objective observer: you are shaping the history of this question by asking it in a way that has never been asked before. It means something to you that it could never mean to anyone else. You could not be objective if you tried. Where does the instinct to ask this question come from? Trying to be 'detached' will not impress me. By trying to attain detachment you are actually doing a deep disservice to your line of enquiry, because you are reluctant to accept the emotional factors that bring you to it. You're still every bit as emotionally involved, it's just that you're trying to suppress it all. How can that possibly help?
It is nto a question of homosexuality or homophobia but a question of Ahmed who is 'insescure about himself, he may possibly be gay and that would perfectly fit in my world view'.
So show me you are not insecure about yourself. Tell me why asking 'Is Homosexuality Natural?' is not a sign of homophobia. If you have something new to tell me, I would want to know.
I don't care what your sexual orientation is, and don't know you well enough to comment on it either way, I was simply saying that, from personal experience, people who are homophobic usually have issues with their sexuality. If you want to talk about your orientation I can recommend seeing a psychologist. You probably don't have a lot of gay-friendly friends, do you?
It was a god damn joke and you blew it out of proportion, you still are
Yes, 'jokes' are the perfect way to disguise mistrust, ridicule and disdain. If you had respect for my sexual orientation you would have made no such 'joke'. Dismissing it as toothless only ads insult to injury. You are implying that I am the one with the issues and that you have done nothing to cause offence. Well think again. I know a passive-aggressive slur when I see one. But in a way I should thank you, because if it hadn't been for that comment I wouldn't have started this blog, or written this post. And you wouldn't be having your prejudices examined by someone who has the patience to want to be a friendly guide.
Comment by postmoderncritic
Postmodern Critic
Daily Inspirations
Relativity Watch
Padsoc
My best gay friend also disagrees with me on the 'nature vs. nurture' argument. He believes he was born gay. I am happy to respect your stance if you respect mine.
In a way, I don't think either homosexuality or heterosexuality are 'natural' - they are learned behaviours. It annoys me that when someone asks 'Is Homosexuality Normal/Natural?' they are trying to cover up their paranoias about homosexuality co-existing peacefully with heterosexuality, and not questioning what it means to be normal or natural, along postmodernist concerns.
If you're interested in how I think about sexual orientation being a choice, I would interpret your attempts to be heterosexual as half-hearted, because you didn't really want to stop being attracted to women.
I wasted too much energy worrying about how to describe myself to my friends. When I kissed my first guy on the day of the Mardi Gras Parade (I'm in Sydney and I was attending/participating regularly in it), of all times, I realised how much more fun I could be having if I didn't worry about labels and categories. I decided that my sexuality was fluid and ever-changing, and I was just happy to be me, and open to life.
I wrote a post on sexual orientation on Daily Inspirations that might interest you here. Enjoy.
Comment by postmoderncritic
Postmodern Critic
Daily Inspirations
Relativity Watch
Padsoc
And then there's the panphobic, biphobic, transphobic, dragphobic, interphobic and heterophobic, within any part of the community... the more awareness we have of these issues, the better, I think. That's why I try to address discrimination in any form as often as I can.
Comment by Kleonaptra
Kalikapsychosis
Thats what Im all about!
Its true that labels are destroying us, confusing us. I tend to see things differently to other people because Ive always lived in a farm environment amoungst animals. When people say "homosexuality is wrong because animals dont do it" I laugh my arse off, and I'll tell you why....
Every animal in creation is bi sexual trisexual pansexual....Whatever! They do anything that feels good. My mare has been bred by other mares, my cats are all desexed and have no idea about sex itself yet roll around on the floor and do things they shouldnt know how to do if its all for procreation. Ive even seen footage of a wilderbeast humping a hydrant!
The truth is that animals will do anything to get off, and we are exactly the same, and we are so keen to prove that we are civilized that we have to label sexuality and bash it into categories when the actual truth is we are just like that wilderbeast humping the hydrant.....Try explaining a vibrator to him, I think he'd get it.
My mare has also been known to deliberately pee on the electric fence while in season. Hows that for a sex toy!
I was about 8 years old when I noticed I was developing a serious crush on spider woman. I was getting the fire and brimstone sermons and told to repent my evil ways - at the time I did want to unchoose it, very much. I was already strange and different and that was the last thing I needed. I got sick of pretending to perve on boys and came out as bi in my last year of high school. I got nothing for it except all my 'friends' stopped hugging me.
I believe it can be a lifestyle choice, but I dont think you can unchoose your orientation.
Watch Amercan Dad episode 'lincoln lover' its got great arguments for the choice side of it.
Comment by postmoderncritic
Postmodern Critic
Daily Inspirations
Relativity Watch
Padsoc
I'm glad that you got a lot out of the post, it required considerable concentration to write because it was so long and dense.
I would have gone into more detail about how I dealt with my sexual orientation but I didn't want to go too far off topic.
I didn't actually experience any shame or guilt over my sexuality... it never occured to me to actually feel bad about my orientation once I realised what was happening, so all those negative vibes I had reserved for homosexuality in general just completely dwindled away. I felt I had been incredibly misguided and massively prejudiced, and I felt bad about that instead. I felt like going back and apologising to everyone whom I had given the impression I didn't like homosexuals to. It was a huge shock to my system (I remember writing that I felt like I was swimming under water when trying to recontextualise my world in the light of this new revelation), but I dealt with it quite constructively. It made me ask myself 'Well, if I can be so wrong about this issue, don't I need to keep re-examining everything in my world on a regular basis?' I know I wouldn't be the postmodernist I am without having gone through that journey.
I would so choose to be non-heterosexual over Heterosexual any day - it opened me up to thinking outside the box even further, and has informed my identity in a major way.
Thinking back to the 'nurture vs. nature' argument, a gay American law exchange student I met in Stonewall (for those who don't know, Sydney's most famous gay pub/hotel/dancefloor area) asked me 'who would choose to be gay'. I would. It's like that philosophical question: If you had the choice between being free of pain, and living in a society of people who were also free of pain as long as you kept a person trapped in a cell who experienced pain all the time, or pressing a button, setting that person free and having to experience pain yourself, what would you choose? I would choose to press the button, because I had already explored the previous state. I am forever attracted to the unknown.
And I also feel sorry for people who don't have to experience what it's like making your own way in the world of romantic and sexual politics. I totally reinvented what romance was to me. Before I expected to engage in particular rituals I had associated with heterosexuality, such as receiving red roses and being bought sparkly jewellery, and now all that seemed irrelevant. Not that those things can't be touching and meaningful to people who engage with them, but suddenly my world became so much more complex. Like, how could you really tell if you were attracted to someone, and what attracts you to them? It became about so much more than gender.
This whole debate actually pisses me off, and I usually don't play, but I think I am learning the world needs to go through it so we get to a place where we are all loved and accepted for who and what we are. I guess I can thank Orble for that.
And thank you for your candour and honesty. I was reluctant to write this post because I was worried it might get me down. But then I realised it didn't have to if I didn't let it. I could perform a useful sources for both those that are already secure within themselves and those who are still struggling with their inner turmoil, add to public discourse on a topic which needs to be discussed much more prominently than it is now. And all of that makes me feel happy.
Thanks for dropping by, I really appreciated your comment.
Comment by Ahmed
techy.Bytes
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
Qwerk
Cinema Three
Again, taking what I say out of context and misrepresenting my point of view, honestly I'm not surprised you're an 'english literature person', they'd have your head if you tried taking such liberties with words in any science degree
You lack a basic understanding of what science is, which is essentially a pursuit for the absoloute truth. While the ability to achieve that goal is a matter of another discussion the only way in which it could be achieved is through objectivity. Believe it or not science is based on the simple fact there is a truth to everything, when scientists talk about hteir respective fields they attempt to be as objective and rational as possible because science is all about getitng the facts right. It isn't about skipping around day dreamingly with 'oh but there is no objective truth', 'oh we're subjective beings'.
You do not even understand what a rational discusion is and yet you're trying to have one with me? Are you just trying to make yourself sound smart?
there is a difference between 'celebrating' your biases like a fool and understanding they will hamper you from finding the truth. Just because an inherint bias exists in all of us does not mean we should, like you, embrace it. Such actions are dangerous and only those who are too caught up indulging themselves in their own ego would do so
That is an absoloute load of bullshit and I'm sincerely glad people like you tend to represent the bottom denominator of societies population. God forbid such a fool be put in charge of the sciences.
No, it is easy to fall into the warped thinking you have 'gee I am so comfortable with my feelings', it takes strenght and self control to put those aside and look at matters clearly. Emotions do not help when researchin, there is an absoloute truth that exists which will continue to exist irrespective of your petiful emotions. I'm sorry but Niels Bohr did not think 'wow when things go around in orbits it looks so lovely... I'm sure electrons go around the nucleues of an atom because it just feels so right...'.
I'm sorry but the sciences do not exist so that people might go on intellectual excercies, it exists because some people, a lot of people, are looking for facts. Science is not just a journey of spiritual fullfilment, it is a study about the world around us. The world exists based on objective principles, therea are no ambiguities, things fall to the ground, the earth goes around the sun. It's just that simple sweetheart. We cannot take liberties with those simple facts and we often find ourselves asking 'why?'. Why are things the way they are? That is what I'm trying to find out. If that is homophobic then so be it, but you're no different to religious nuts calling my character into question for talking about evolution.
There's quite a few things wrong with your statement, but it all goes back into your inability to understand science (or your fear thereof). I'm not going into just how dangerously wrong what you are saying is except to say that if that is how science worked we'd still be under the notion the earth is 6000 years old.
My only bias is my bias to learn about the world, I have no other biases.
I will continue to ask such questions, these questions are not for the sake of spiritual fulfilment and what have you, these questions are asked for the only purpouse of undrestanding the world, nothing more, nothing less. If you cannot put this besides yourself it is because you are uncomfortable with the truth, for whatever reason you see it necessary to turn anything I say into something personal, bypassing my scientific arguments and calling my character into question. Unfortunately for you I'm not stupid enough to fall for such a pathetic trap for the second time. Like the saying goes, 'never argue with an idiot, they will bring you down to their level and beat you with experience'.
I'm sorry, I am trying to be objective and I am being objective by only using facts rather than opinions. I'm not saying I can be totally objective, but that is no excuse for me to fully throw away any and all forms of reality out the window in favour of my emotions simply because it makes me feel good or whatever else. The truth will continue to exist irrespective of my emotions and will not be found if I start arguing about peoples character rather than what they have to see.
For me learning is about learning, for you it seems to be about making yourself feel better, if it doesn't do that then it should be avoided.
I'm not trying to impress you, perhaps you are being impressed by me? I dunno, but I never did try to impress you. SO where does this instinct to ask this question come from? Haha, I'm a naturally curious person, I'd just as well ask why is the sky blue as i would ask is homosexuality natural. Like I said, my pursuit of knoweldge is simply to learn, that is my bias and my 'instinct'.
Of course I will bring some emotion into it, I am not a machine, however these emotions are fairly clear and unambiguous, it's my desire to learn and perhaps engage in rational and objective discussion
I let the facts speak, then I give my opinion based on those facts. Whatever emotional involvement I have is minimal, probably negligable. I'm not some emotionally unstable fool who cannot accept fact vs. fiction.
You live in a world you've created for yourself, one that is perfectly imperfect. I live in a world where I recognize I'm not perfect, but the place I live in is perfect. Nothing happens by chance and everything has a reason, all I'm trying to do is find that reason. If someone disagrees with me I look at the facts and see how they work out, sometimes there can beno agreement, but even that is an acceptable conclusion to any discussion, far better than accusing people of having alterior motives and questioning why they ask questions simply because I don't like that they are asking it
And like they say, never argue with an idiot, they will bringyou down to their level and beat you with experience.
I will give you the last word here too, in fact I should never have said anything to begin with. Now that I am fully aware of what kind of person you are I have come to realize that there is no chance of discussion. If your idea is that a rational discussion cannot take place and that I have to start taking this discussion on a personal level, a discussion that for me is based completely in the realm of science then you are asking me to argue like a child. I'm sorry but humans did not reach this point we are in the sciences by bringing each others characters into quesetion.
Your inherint distaste for a quest for an absoloute truth is initself disturbing as is your irrational thought process. Take it up with people who agree with you, because they are the only ones you are ever going to be happy with.
I'm not interested in trying to reason with you. To me you sound like just about every other crackpot I've ever had the pleasure of dealing with.
Don't feel too bad though, take solace in knowing you're probably the biggest left wing crackpot I know. And if I gained anything from this it is the comfort of knowing their are insane people on both sides of the fence who refuse to look at any facts in favour of their emotions and who would rather turn a discussion personal than try at all to have it =)
oh and again, I'm not gay -_- haha, I know you'd just love that but sorry.
Comment by postmoderncritic
Postmodern Critic
Daily Inspirations
Relativity Watch
Padsoc
It must be difficult to grow up in a rural environment in regards to dispensing with homophobia. I don't think Sydney is nearly progressive enough, and it's one of the so-called 'gay capitals' of the world!
I think every human being is bipotential. We all have the capacity (and opportunity, unless you were brought up in a strictly same sex environment) to be attracted to both sexes. It's just that we are conditioned to express desire for the opposite sex, so whatever feelings we may have for the same sex are not gone into or repressed, until the fog starts to lift and we feel free to be attracted to anyone.
I came out as gay to my friends a few months after I realised I was attracted to women, and they all surprised me by being okay with it. However, one friend passively-aggressively said that she was cool with it 'as long as you don't try to come on to me, or whatever'. But when I told my friends that I was attracted to a guy I noticed a slight shift in their treatment of me. They were suddenly more friendly and forthcoming when discussing who they were attracted to, and included me more in such discussions. In short, they felt more comfortable around me. I was repulsed, because I didn't want them to treat me any differently, but apparently my newfound heterosexual impulses got me in 'the club'. It almost put me off expressing my heterosexuality.
Thanks for the 'Lincoln Lover' tip, I will look it up.
Have a nice day,
Epiphanie
Comment by postmoderncritic
Postmodern Critic
Daily Inspirations
Relativity Watch
Padsoc
its going to take many more generations before it is accepted fully
Well some people have already accepted it fully, and the number of people who accept it fully is expected to grow, but there will always be some cult or sect that doesn't accept it, even many generations from now... I take comfort that I am forward-thinking, mindful of history, and living in the present.
That said, I don't think that everyone who raises the question hates gays, maybe they are just fighting the conflicting thoughts in their heads?
Homophobia was defined as fear and/or hatred of homosexuals by dictionary.com, so they might simply be afraid.
After all, as you stated PoMo, most people are raised to be homophobic, it takes great strength of mind and character to fight against early indoctrination.
I actually think it's the other way around. It's difficult to maintain such a high level of prejudice. It's draining, it's demanding, and it takes its toll on you. The moment I stopped fearing non-Caucasians, non-Europeans and homosexuals was the moment I felt light, free and happy. I found letting go of my prejudices easy, because I wanted to. It gave me peace of mind.
Comment by postmoderncritic
Postmodern Critic
Daily Inspirations
Relativity Watch
Padsoc
Thanks for your comment -
If homosexuality does serve a productive role by keeping the number of progeny in the world down, should Gay IVF be discouraged?
Only if heterosexual IVF is also discouraged at the same time... otherwise, gay people should be able to use it just like people of any other sexual orientation.
However currently the number of people who use IVF is relatively small, so I don't see it being a target in the future.
Comment by postmoderncritic
Postmodern Critic
Daily Inspirations
Relativity Watch
Padsoc
I am leaving for England tomorrow, so I have to go and pack now and do not have the time to compose a post of the length your comment requires. I may not be able to get back to you for a few weeks ahead, even.
It is my hope that you will see that I am intelligent person with a lot to offer in any debate. In the meantime you may wish to look up postmodern approaches to science, so that my approach doesn't seem so foreign to you. Richard Rorty might ease you into it, as he also believes in absolute truth.
All the best now,
Epiphanie
Comment by Morgan Bell
Deep Pencil
Current Business News
Movie Train
Artist Quirk
firstly, i dont think sexuality is the same as love or beauty, i think sexual attraction comprises of the body of another person turning you on and the desire to follow through on that arousal with a sex act . . . all too often we say something or someone is attractive, beautiful, charming, alluring etc when it really has no basis in sexual desire, they are just aesthically pleasing or emotionally fulfilling
secondly, sexual desire and sexual behaviour are two different things, a multitude of social factors contribute to sexual behaviour, sex acts are regularly performed by people where there is no attraction on one part
thirdly, i think sexual attraction and desire are involutary and are not choices, i think people are predisposed towards one gender or the other (or both, or neither etc) and people are born with their sexual desires programmed in . . . environmental factors may inhibit the resulting behaviour but i think the desires are unchangeable it it just a matter of if and when people decide to be true to themselves
i consider homosexuality to be "natural" as it occurs naturally across humanity and the animal kingdom currently and throughout history without being induced or manipulated
a friend of mine when confronted with the "gay isnt normal" argument often says, whats normal anyway? just because it is less common doesnt make it wrong
from a scientific point of view i think it is entirely possible that homosexuality is hereditory, there may be a gay gene, it may be caused by a less common hormonal balance . . . homosexual behaviour may correspond with child sexual abuse, although i doubt it . . . i like that we continue to study it, another of my friends is gay with a straight identical twin and they participate in studies
i would only hope that as a society we use the information as interesting facts to facilitate acceptance and not try to find a "cure" . . . that is what most gay people worry about, what is the purpose of understanding the science of why they are gay if they have no desire to change it
many gay people chose to have heterosexual marriages because they prioritise other factors over their sexual desires, but you often find later in life when they are financially secure and confident in their own skin that they stop under-valuing their natural sexuality
only an individual can declare their own sexual identity and decide whether they want to publicly acknowledge their sexual desires . . . i can understand people in certain circumstances choosing to remain in the closet as homophobic hate crimes really are something to fear
Comment by Cibbuano
20/20 Filmsight
Science News
Hunt Famous
Orble Post of the Day
Fat Cult
Techbreak
I posted this up on the Post of the Day.
Ahmed, some comments about your comments:
You seem to have an idealistic view of science and what it stands for. Sure, it's meant to be, ideally, a pursuit of the truth, but scientists are people too, and are just as biased and emotional as anyone else.
You say a few odd things:
- this is an irrational thing to say, full of bias and stereotypes.
- this is an entirely offensive, hateful statement. Bottom denominator? Fool? You clearly have strong biases which cloud your judgement.
Personal emotions seemed to play a large part of the love of physics, at least.
Max von Laue on wave-particle duality: If that turns out to be true, I'll quit physics
and my favourite, Richard Feynman:
and, of course, Albert Einstein, with his most famous quote regarding quantum mechanics:
Ahmed, you went on to say:
It'd be nice if this were true, but perhaps you should examine your motives a little closer. It seems pretty obvious to me that you are, in fact, quite biased, even based on this one comment.
Another massive flaw with your arguments is the age-old problem of the veracity of facts. What are your sources? Do you reference them? How do you know that the original creator of those facts weren't biased? If they were, then you are merely carrying that bias.
This is in direct contrast to the generally accepted theories of quantum mechanics. What happened to your trust of science?
Actually, the truth is that science is heavily reliant on character. Well, reputation, at least. The entire scientific world seems to hinge on the idea of trusting reputable scientists.
Comment by Cibbuano
20/20 Filmsight
Science News
Hunt Famous
Orble Post of the Day
Fat Cult
Techbreak
Comment by Brenton
Dr Spin
Tales From The Other Side
Downwrite
Blip Blog
Gadget Museum
It seems perfectly lkely that you could label Homosexuality as a disoreder in the sense that Aspergers is a disorder. This is not to allow the connotations out - all I mean is that it could possibly be a psychological condition derived from certain abnormailities (again, not wishing the connotations, abnormal in the sense of not they normal, or the usual) in the brain.Missing the point here - All i mea is there may be a cause for homosexuality from wtihin the way the brain works. This could be complete rubbish; I'm just speculating.Thing is, I do think we need to be able to look at things like this, i as objective terms as possible, and while I'll gladly admit Ahmed goes a little bit mad now and then, I thought the original article was quite good.
Now I completely understand that your personal experience and P.O.V makes the idea of homophobia completely repugnent; but there's a point at which we have to accept that we learn by questioning and theorising, and that this doesn't mean those of us who try to pull things apart are filled with anything worse than curiousity. And my hoest feeling is that when we begin labelling things as 'hate' left right and centre, we begin to make the idea of hate itself seem a bit more justified.
they obviously have not taken the time to get to know people with homosexual tendencies and witnessed how beautiful and inspiring they can be
Tangental, and not meang offence but i found this a bit amusing. I mean sure, gay people are cool, but you know... they're not elves.
Comment by Ahmed
techy.Bytes
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
Qwerk
Cinema Three
How exactly did those characters biuld? Until Newton showed off his discoveries he was not at all well known or respected, neither was Einstein, do some research
EVER example you are bringing up about the scientists is completely irrelevant, an inspiration is not the same as a discovery, a love for facts is not the same as making up stories based on emotions to prove facts.
Try to take what I'm saying in its whole context, dont make up crap and put it in a fake context and parrot it around like this.
Comment by Ahmed
techy.Bytes
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
Qwerk
Cinema Three
Comment by Ahmed
techy.Bytes
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
Qwerk
Cinema Three
Do you know how facts are collected? In fact the sources I used forthat post pmc is riding on WAS BIASED IN FAVOUR OF HOMOSEXUALITY. The reason I went for that source and OPENLY ADMITTED IT was because of inherint bias.
THough the truth is the truth, facts are derived from reality, not made up and a fact is just that, free of biases. If you want to question my sources then BY ALL MEANS, but if you're going to tell me emotions are better than facts because of this?
What are you trying to say? Let me quote ALbert Einstein 'I don't believe god plays dice'. Let me further add: I, AS In, I, me, don't believe homosexuality 'just happens', I believe there's a reason for it happening and I want to know that reason.
So I don't see the relevance of it with quantum mechanics, it seems like you're pulling irrelevent examples off the air just to counter what I'm saying. Well actually that is what youare doing.
Exactly, and what is your point? Because as I already said, reputation builds from a certain something that has everything to do with facts.
If I discover how to travel through time tomorrow I'll be well known throughought the scientific world, if I come up with some crackpot theory I will remain just as I am, no one will pay attention. Even if I pull some elaborate story about a flux capictor, and what have you, it's just a story, unsubsantiated, untestable, unprovable. That is what I am against, and I would appreciate it if you could accept that your attempts to compare a love of science with an appreciation for the cold hard truth just don't gel very well with me.
A fear of the simple question, because god knows, it might have an unfavourable answer, is the true great injustice being done. What did PMC do when she saw that post I made so long ago? Think 'gee Ahmed is homophobic, anyone who asks that question is homophobic'.
I'm sure you agree with that, of course it's homophobic. It jsut feels right doesn' tit? Well I've had a lot of uncomfortable questions asked of me so I'm kind of numb, forgive me if it sounds homophobic, because I'm not.
Comment by Mountain Fog
Infognito
The fact that someone may argue that their religion claims such a practise as abhorrent, abnormal and an evil offense to 'god', does not mean that this a scientific fact! It just makes it a religious based homophobic concept.
The fact that psychiatry now admits it was wrong, to have classified homosexuality as abnormal, should have had anyone of today's world satisfied, that the argument of whether it is "normal" or "natural" irrelevant, and in fact to raise such a question, is to betray a certain negative attitude towards the topic, or ignorance of it, or, demonstrating that the person is still within the clutches of religious or culturally embeded homophobia.
As for my own experience, I always knew I was attracted to men. From the age of four, I can remember knowing this. From the age of 10 or so, through playground antics and general social inter-actions, I became troubled about my sexuality, and chose to hide it, because of the anti-homosexual attitude my religion, the law and society in general, had towards homosexuality.
The 40 years of experiences I have had, of homophobia, in all its hues, strengths and justifications, has given me the knowledge to learn to identify the now more subtle ways of the bigot and homophobe.
Ahmed stated;
Quote:
'In a way I sympathise with the extremist religious groups claiming that homosexuality will destroy our countries and governments. The long term effect of homosexuals is yet to be seen..
Unquote
What does, "In a way" mean?
What way?
Anybody who agrees with that statement, who is also in possession of an average suburban intelligence, and has studied some history at school, even in its basic form, knows homosexuality has been around as long as mankind, and has never 'brought down' any culture.
In fact, the reverse is true; there is a lot of evidence that points to homosexuals enriching cultures of all kinds, through the arts particularly.
In Ancient Greece, it was openly accepted, as was bisexuality. In Ancient Rome, it was considered normal for a master to have homosexual sex with his slaves.
Nowhere in any history, that I have read, has the downfall of a society been attributed to homosexuality.
For anyone to say they "sympathise" with such a statement by extremist religious groups (which ones Ahmed does not identify), either betrays a homophobic attitude, or a retarded or simplistic intellect, and/or, a total ignorance on the subjects of sexuality, history, psychology and society.
By the way, the Bible is a wonderful book, but it is not an historical record. For if its veracity was challenged in court, the Bible would surely fail the test of evidence.
Following the bigoted ideals of a fanatical doctrine, whether it be Jewish, Christian or Islamic, does not exonerate a person from being homophobic.
The first step towards solving a problem, is admitting you have a problem in the first place....
Comment by Ellis Currer Bell
Australia Day 2008
Computer Journal
i too am an "english literature" person and i refuse to consider this as some kind of defectetive quality. some how, not too sure just yet, but some how i think defining charactter by your undergraduate degree is somewhat limiting. god forbid after all people like "us" get to the healm of the sciences.
wake up.
for anyonme actually interested in discussion (of a theoretical kind) of homosexuality and its "abnormality according to existing illusuions of heteronormativity should read Eve Sedgwick "epistemology of the closet" and judith butler's gender trouble. maybe once these polemics are read ignorance can be quashed to a certain degree.
Ahmed, please widen you horizons or you are doomed to being trapped within binarys- an existence that is limited in the most profound sense.
and finally PMC thank you for sparking a much needed debate. the minute we consder the natual illusion of the abnormality of homosexuality is the minute our society and civilisation dies. really your not the lowest denominator, your past denominators and such distinctions and im sure those who do not see such discussion as being beyond measures and stats are death in their own right.
Comment by Norm
Consumption Malfunction
Equal and Opposite
Arses and Elbows
Footy Power
Comment by Norm
Consumption Malfunction
Equal and Opposite
Arses and Elbows
Footy Power
Comment by Matthew Pejkovic
Not meant to offend, just trying to tell it like it is.
Comment by Norm
Consumption Malfunction
Equal and Opposite
Arses and Elbows
Footy Power
Comment by Matthew Pejkovic
Funny answer!
Seriously though, I think you have missed the point. If there is to be debate about what drives hetereosexuals to react aggresively towards homosexuals (males especially), then the differences between our sexual behaviour surely must be a main catalyst.
If I am to assume correctly, your tongue in check answer was used to point out that heterosexuals also practice sodomy, which is undeniably true.
However, I believe it is safe to assume that the ratio of sodomy being used as a main sexual practice between homosexual males compared to heterosexual couples would be much higher in the former, rather than the latter.
Also, I also believe that the practice of sodomy within a heterosexual relationship is used by couples who are much more "adventerous" in their sexual activtites, and is driven by the popular use of it in heterosexual pornography, whose lewd actions have slowly taken over what was once considered to be normal sexual behaviour in heterosexual couples.
So, the aveage joe woud view sodomy in any realtionship to be perverted and unnatural, hence would act aggresively towards male homosexuals who would use sodomy as a main-or the main - sexual practice.
Personally, I believe sodomy to be quite disguting and degrading.
So, while I apprecaite your wit - and who cannot beneift from a good laugh? - please understand where I am coming from.
Note: If anyone out there does not agree with my conclusions, please feel free to counter them in a rational manner. Besides what some may think, I am always open to discussion.
Comment by Mountain Fog
Infognito
Personally, I believe sodomy to be quite disguting and degrading.
At least you eventually stated your true stance, and related how you actually feel, instead of remaining hidden behind a wall of generalisation.
So, cunnilingus is ok with you? Therefore, lesbianism is fine, its just that filthy homosexual practise that offends? Ok, now what about fellacio, how does that rate with you? Is that better, or worse, than buggery?
It is interesting to note, that I have met many homosexuals who think heterosexual sex revolting.
I criticise them too, as it is not what happens in the bedroom that is the point, it is what they do outside of it, how they treat their fellow beings, that is actually important.
Concentrating on the sexual act, as a means of justifying homophobia for example, or gays loathing the heterosexual act, really belongs to a more juvenile attitude, such as one would encounter in one's school days.
However, you feel as you feel, I cannot change that and I am not at all interested in trying to do so.
I am more concerned with the hate mongers, who wish to peddle their loathsome sociopathic agendas, involving both emotional and physical violence, than deal with someone who retains a childish outlook regarding homosexuality.
But, that is me. Others may feel differently, and while we remain a (pseudo) democracy, I support your right to express your opinion, but I do not have to agree with it.
fog
Comment by Cibbuano
20/20 Filmsight
Science News
Hunt Famous
Orble Post of the Day
Fat Cult
Techbreak
The only reason I posted a comment is because you seem to be putting science on a pedestal, driving yourself to an objective position with the use of facts.
My points are: a) you're not unbiased b) you should question your sources and c) scientists all carry biases and respond to emotion, just like anyone else.
For everyone else, I point to this (2003) theory that homosexuality may be linked to reproductive success.
One of the big questions is, if homosexuality is genetic, how is it passed on? An interesting paper, published in Elsevier by Colin Dewar.
"An association between male homosexuality and reproductive success"
Comment by Cibbuano
20/20 Filmsight
Science News
Hunt Famous
Orble Post of the Day
Fat Cult
Techbreak
Comment by Anonymous
As for Ahmed; I believe he is the same religiously bigoted Ahmed I used to clash with on the late WritingUp blogsite a couple of years ago. A really rude character who is most likely a closet gay?
Comment by Anonymous
As for Ahmed; I believe he is the same religiously bigoted Ahmed I used to clash with on the late WritingUp blogsite a couple of years ago. A really rude character who is most likely a closet gay?
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
Comment by Matthew Pejkovic
In answer to your question, I do not find oral sex to be suitable either, and speaking from my heterosexual point of view, having a woman go down on a guy is rather misogonystic.
Hi Cibbuano,
Thank you for the link. It was an interesting read. But I still stand by my evaluations.
Comment by Morgan Bell
Deep Pencil
Current Business News