Queer people of faith

wingless_sephiroth
atheist
wingless_sephiroth's picture
Posts: 117
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
Queer people of faith

As a total faggot, I sometimes wish I was born earlier, before the AIDS epidemic began. Why? Because, at that point in history, being queer also meant you were a skeptic and freethinker, if not a downright atheist. The guy you were fucking wouldn't have to take a condom out of his ass and go to church the next morning.

 

After the AIDS epidemic, we saw lots of gay men running back to faith. This is when the gay-friendly churches were founded, later to be follow by the gay Jewish and gay Muslim help groups.

 

As someone who was president of my university's queer organization, and someone who has been relatively active in the community (ie, sleeps around a a shitload), I will certainly say that queer people of faith outnumber those who are freethinkers. We even have queers who are "waiting for marriage." The only thing I'd say is notable is the high amounts of New Age faiths, such as Wicca.

 

Now, there was a good two years where my religion and my queerness overlapped, and that was because I couldn't think of a rational way to reject my religious beliefs, and my understanding of Islam had always been rather liberal anyway. But, when I did find a way out, oh boy did I jump off that boat.

 

So, honestly, for other queers here, or others with at least some vague familiarity with the community, does the high amount of religious folk these days bother you? Unlike me, not all of them want a way out of faith. Certainly they're not as dogmatic as the straight ones, but still, why do they resign themselves to religious groups, where 90% of the believers find their lifestyle and feelings an abomination, as opposed to a philosophical position that almost anyone who holds it affirms their rights? It's just moronic.


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Sandycane wrote:Gauche

Sandycane wrote:

Gauche wrote:

Sandycane wrote:

SEX, imo, should not come into the picture until/unless there has been a serious, monogamous relationship cultivated first.

Sexual promiscuity is something I frown upon, now that I am older and wiser.

But you will hop into a car with a man you just met for destinations unknown to have a sexual encounter if he's charming enough right?

No. What brought you to that conclusion?

It's not my conclusion. My conclusion is that charm doesn't resolve the moral, let alone safety issues a woman might have about doing that. That's the bone of contention I have with NoMoreCrazyPeople and rednef. That women sleep with charming men is a trivial generality. It has little to do with what stops women from fucking men immediately.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:It puts me

BobSpence1 wrote:

It puts me here;

 

And Rob, as when you first  got into a discussion on homosexuality, the most troubling thing is the sort of acts you bring up as some sort of comparison or examples. They always seem to be things that are way-over-the-top offensive, as others have mentioned. It really suggests your gut reaction to homosexuality is extreme, and you are trying to justify it.

 

 

How did I miss this little post. Of course they have to be over the top Bob, it's how I go about stressing things. Nothing strange about it. The problem is that people see this as a direct comparison of what I personally think and it is not, it is a comparison of idea's and in this case it was what I believe a religious person would consider. It was not what I myself would compare it too. I might compare vanilla icecream to dogshit if I am discussing someone or "someone's" who I believe think this way and hate vanilla icecream. I personally like vanilla icecream just fine so it really has no bearing on what I personally think at all. I could probably phrase this a little better but oh well.

Stressing something to get a point across about others does not mean it's what I think at all. Saying what they might be thinking is not what I'm thinking.

Make sense?

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Sandycane
atheist
Sandycane's picture
Posts: 970
Joined: 2010-10-16
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote:It's not my

Gauche wrote:

It's not my conclusion. My conclusion is that charm doesn't resolve the moral, let alone safety issues a woman might have about doing that. That's the bone of contention I have with NoMoreCrazyPeople and rednef. That women sleep with charming men is a trivial generality. It has little to do with what stops women from fucking men immediately.

I don't think it's 'trivial'. A charming man is more attractive to me than an obnoxious oaf... safety and moral issues aside. I would never consider sleeping with someone as dumb as a rock who cries on command either.

But, as has been observed on another thread - it seems my opinions do not represent the majority. .. and I'm fine with that.

'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Sandycane wrote:I don't

Sandycane wrote:
I don't think it's 'trivial'. A charming man is more attractive to me than an obnoxious oaf... safety and moral issues aside. I would never consider sleeping with someone as dumb as a rock who cries on command either.

But, as has been observed on another thread - it seems my opinions do not represent the majority. .. and I'm fine with that.

So what if women sleep with men they find charming. It doesn't support the conclusion that women don't sleep with men immediately because they are not charming enough. It is of little value, importance or significance in terms of this issue.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Sandycane wrote: But, as

Sandycane wrote:

 

But, as has been observed on another thread - it seems my opinions do not represent the majority. .. and I'm fine with that.

It doesn't make you wrong either, it's all in perception in how we see things. There is no right or wrong, good and bad, there is only productive and non productive (in the societal sense) and in some cases self serving, unless someone can point out definitively how your idea's are unproductive or self serving it's fine. Otherwise that's where the real debate begins.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


greek goddess
Rational VIP!Science Freak
greek goddess's picture
Posts: 361
Joined: 2008-01-26
User is offlineOffline
Sandycane wrote:greek

Sandycane wrote:

greek goddess wrote:

Well, my earlier attempt at distracting people from arguing over things unrelated to the intention of this thread didn't work, haha.

But I just wanted to say that this was exactly how I realized I was bi when I was 10 or 11 (unfortunately, due to religion and whatnot, it would take me about 10 more years to actually admit it and come out, but that's a story for another day). I often wondered why I felt "like a man should" around some of my girl friends when I was in middle school. But I also felt attracted to boys my age, so I was really confused as to whether I was gay or straight - wouldn't find out for a couple of years that there was an in-between option. 

But anyways, just wanted to say that this part of your theory is right on, as my first indication was that I sometimes felt masculine, despite otherwise being a mostly girly girl. 

Don't most, if not all, children experiment with their new-found sexuality?

Oh, absolutely. I was just saying that I expected to be strictly heterosexual, and was both surprised and confused when I discovered that I also had attractions toward the same sex. But yes, I think it is something that drives a lot of social interactions, especially at that tender and impressionable age.

Sandycane wrote:

At the same time, they are trying to define their place in the world, their place on the totem pole. How you react to another person is directly related to how that person reacts to you (obviously). What is not so obvious is that some people are the dominate type and others are the dominated... and your position changes, sometimes you are more aggresive and others, more passive depending on who you are dealing with. You (me, anyone) normally adjusts their persona, depending on the personality type of the other person.

I read a good book on this a while back and it has nothing to do with sex:

The Corporate Dominatrix

 For a dominatrix in everyday life, the key to
effectiveness lies in being switchable–knowing when to be firm and direct
and when to be flexible and accommodating. A Corporate Dominatrix dominates without being domineering and is submissive to authority (when necessary) without being subservient. She stands up for her rights in an open and straightforward way, and she is confident enough to intuit what her clients or colleagues want and she responds accordingly. 

 

Example: If I am in the presence of a self-confident, intelligent, 'strong' male, I will feel more submissive (I use that word figuratively). If I am in the presence of a bimbo, I view her as the submissive one and react accordingly.

Hmm, this is an interesting concept! I have not heard of the book before, but have often thought of how we are dominant in some situations and submissive in others. For instance, around men I feel much more submissive, whereas when I am attracted to a female, it is in a more dominant, take-the-lead sense. 

And you are right, it is applicable to other non-sexual situations. My role varies depending on who I am dealing with. I'll have to check out the book, because that sounds like something I would be interested in reading more about.

Sandycane wrote:

SEX, imo, should not come into the picture until/unless there has been a serious, monogamous relationship cultivated first.

Sexual promiscuity is something I frown upon, now that I am older and wiser.

Haha, everything is clearer in hindsight, I suppose. For now, I disagree, but you are definitely entitled to your opinion. For what it's worth, my mom (also an atheist) is of the same opinion as you. 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13836
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
robj101

robj101 wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

robj101 wrote:

Thats why I called you out. I doubt anyone here really thinks even for one moment I was actually comparing being gay to any of that. You fuking pussy bleeding heart bastard. So afraid to see anything unpolitically cis to Christianityorrect that might even possibly make being gay seem "bad". Trying to infer that being gay had anything to do with any of that caused you to totally miss the point. You are so far out in left field you can't see the ball even if it did fly out your way. I could go on but I'll let you stew in this.

Proofread and think before you accuse someone of some stupid shit.

"Oh maybe he was just making an example of the way the other side might be thinking instead of trash talking and actually comparing being gay to sucking blood from goats ..ooh I get it."

Yes I did some name calling, it's appropriate though.

 

    What Jean is to Christianity Brian is to political correctness.  

You know, someone who represents their pov in such an over the top manner that you have to stop and ask yourself if anyone could really be that bat shit insane about a cause.  If I wasn't already familiar with Brian I would swear that he was a poe.

Yea well political correctness is a pet peeve of mine. It's a form of fukin mind control.


Much like when you say that there is no God, are you denying the rights of Christians to go around claiming there is? You may not say, nor should you, "You don't have the right to claim that". But merely saying "There is no god" is not "politically correct". Suggesting that government and religion shouldn't mix is not "political correctness" no matter how much Christians might claim that.

Simply saying, "you have an unfounded phobia of gays" is not political correctness anymore than you would say to a Christian, "You have an unfounded phobia of atheists".

 

It boils down to data. Other than "I find gays yucky" what do people have? Nothing.

I find fat women yucky, so what.

You can claim whatever you want, I will never deny anyone that right. But merely challenging a claim is not political correctness.

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Sandycane
atheist
Sandycane's picture
Posts: 970
Joined: 2010-10-16
User is offlineOffline
greek goddess wrote:Hmm,

greek goddess wrote:

Hmm, this is an interesting concept! I have not heard of the book before, but have often thought of how we are dominant in some situations and submissive in others. For instance, around men I feel much more submissive, whereas when I am attracted to a female, it is in a more dominant, take-the-lead sense. 

And you are right, it is applicable to other non-sexual situations. My role varies depending on who I am dealing with. I'll have to check out the book, because that sounds like something I would be interested in reading more about.

Sandycane wrote:

SEX, imo, should not come into the picture until/unless there has been a serious, monogamous relationship cultivated first.

Sexual promiscuity is something I frown upon, now that I am older and wiser.

Haha, everything is clearer in hindsight, I suppose. For now, I disagree, but you are definitely entitled to your opinion. For what it's worth, my mom (also an atheist) is of the same opinion as you. 

Yeah, it's a real good book. I bought it when I was having trouble with a fellow employee on my last job. It worked.

It's a generational thang, for sure.

'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:robj101

Brian37 wrote:

robj101 wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

robj101 wrote:

Thats why I called you out. I doubt anyone here really thinks even for one moment I was actually comparing being gay to any of that. You fuking pussy bleeding heart bastard. So afraid to see anything unpolitically cis to Christianityorrect that might even possibly make being gay seem "bad". Trying to infer that being gay had anything to do with any of that caused you to totally miss the point. You are so far out in left field you can't see the ball even if it did fly out your way. I could go on but I'll let you stew in this.

Proofread and think before you accuse someone of some stupid shit.

"Oh maybe he was just making an example of the way the other side might be thinking instead of trash talking and actually comparing being gay to sucking blood from goats ..ooh I get it."

Yes I did some name calling, it's appropriate though.

 

    What Jean is to Christianity Brian is to political correctness.  

You know, someone who represents their pov in such an over the top manner that you have to stop and ask yourself if anyone could really be that bat shit insane about a cause.  If I wasn't already familiar with Brian I would swear that he was a poe.

Yea well political correctness is a pet peeve of mine. It's a form of fukin mind control.


 

Much like when you say that there is no God, are you denying the rights of Christians to go around claiming there is? You may not say, nor should you, "You don't have the right to claim that". But merely saying "There is no god" is not "politically correct". Suggesting that government and religion shouldn't mix is not "political correctness" no matter how much Christians might claim that.

Simply saying, "you have an unfounded phobia of gays" is not political correctness anymore than you would say to a Christian, "You have an unfounded phobia of atheists".

 

It boils down to data. Other than "I find gays yucky" what do people have? Nothing.

I find fat women yucky, so what.

You can claim whatever you want, I will never deny anyone that right. But merely challenging a claim is not political correctness.

 

 

 

I'm not "denying" anyones right. They can believe a toothbrush sprang everything into existence and made up some rules if they like. I argue that this should not be used to manipulate or have an effect on other peoples real lives and the easiest way to do this is to argue against the initial cause, which happens to be belief in said nonsense. My having to point this out is very telling, Bryan.

Nowhere here did I say I had a phobia of gays and nothing I said could really have been taken that way untill after the fact. You are assuming, once again because you wish too mr. pc.

Why are you suddenly off on "finding gays yucky"? Mr anti bigot.

You dig your own hole so very well.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:Brian37

robj101 wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

robj101 wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

robj101 wrote:

Thats why I called you out. I doubt anyone here really thinks even for one moment I was actually comparing being gay to any of that. You fuking pussy bleeding heart bastard. So afraid to see anything unpolitically cis to Christianityorrect that might even possibly make being gay seem "bad". Trying to infer that being gay had anything to do with any of that caused you to totally miss the point. You are so far out in left field you can't see the ball even if it did fly out your way. I could go on but I'll let you stew in this.

Proofread and think before you accuse someone of some stupid shit.

"Oh maybe he was just making an example of the way the other side might be thinking instead of trash talking and actually comparing being gay to sucking blood from goats ..ooh I get it."

Yes I did some name calling, it's appropriate though.

 

    What Jean is to Christianity Brian is to political correctness.  

You know, someone who represents their pov in such an over the top manner that you have to stop and ask yourself if anyone could really be that bat shit insane about a cause.  If I wasn't already familiar with Brian I would swear that he was a poe.

Yea well political correctness is a pet peeve of mine. It's a form of fukin mind control.


 

Much like when you say that there is no God, are you denying the rights of Christians to go around claiming there is? You may not say, nor should you, "You don't have the right to claim that". But merely saying "There is no god" is not "politically correct". Suggesting that government and religion shouldn't mix is not "political correctness" no matter how much Christians might claim that.

Simply saying, "you have an unfounded phobia of gays" is not political correctness anymore than you would say to a Christian, "You have an unfounded phobia of atheists".

 

It boils down to data. Other than "I find gays yucky" what do people have? Nothing.

I find fat women yucky, so what.

You can claim whatever you want, I will never deny anyone that right. But merely challenging a claim is not political correctness.

 

 

 

I'm not "denying" anyones right. They can believe a toothbrush sprang everything into existence and made up some rules if they like. I argue that this should not be used to manipulate or have an effect on other peoples real lives and the easiest way to do this is to argue against the initial cause, which happens to be belief in said nonsense. My having to point this out is very telling, Bryan.

Nowhere here did I say I had a phobia of gays and nothing I said could really have been taken that way untill after the fact. You are assuming, once again because you wish too mr. pc.

Why are you suddenly off on "finding gays yucky"? Mr anti bigot.

You dig your own hole so very well.

I wonder if you will notice what I did there btw.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3704
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:   How did I

robj101 wrote:

 

  How did I miss this little post. Of course they have to be over the top Bob, it's how I go about stressing things. Nothing strange about it. The problem is that people see this as a direct comparison of what I personally think and it is not, it is a comparison of idea's and in this case it was what I believe a religious person would consider. It was not what I myself would compare it too. I might compare vanilla icecream to dogshit if I am discussing someone or "someone's" who I believe think this way and hate vanilla icecream. I personally like vanilla icecream just fine so it really has no bearing on what I personally think at all. I could probably phrase this a little better but oh well.

Stressing something to get a point across about others does not mean it's what I think at all. Saying what they might be thinking is not what I'm thinking.

Make sense?

 

  Hey rob allow to take your thought experiment a bit further in a way that I think parallels your original intent. 

 

 

   What if there were a media campaign where members of  NAMBLA   (  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American _Man/Boy_Love_Association  ) publicly endorsed atheism ?  

  The peculiarities of their sexual habits are not the issue under consideration. Instead is anyone hear naive enough to believe that having the cause of atheism coupled to this particular group is going to soften the image of atheism in the eyes of the general public ?  

 

  [edit: I have no freaking idea why the wiki link will not work as I typed it in exactly as it reads  ]

 

 

www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/misanthropy

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." Rudyard Kipling


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

robj101 wrote:

 

  How did I miss this little post. Of course they have to be over the top Bob, it's how I go about stressing things. Nothing strange about it. The problem is that people see this as a direct comparison of what I personally think and it is not, it is a comparison of idea's and in this case it was what I believe a religious person would consider. It was not what I myself would compare it too. I might compare vanilla icecream to dogshit if I am discussing someone or "someone's" who I believe think this way and hate vanilla icecream. I personally like vanilla icecream just fine so it really has no bearing on what I personally think at all. I could probably phrase this a little better but oh well.

Stressing something to get a point across about others does not mean it's what I think at all. Saying what they might be thinking is not what I'm thinking.

Make sense?

 

  Hey rob allow to take your thought experiment a bit further in a way that I think parallels your original intent. 

 

 

   What if there were a media campaign where members of  NAMBLA   (  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American _Man/Boy_Love_Association  ) publicly endorsed atheism ?  

  The peculiarities of their sexual habits are not the issue under consideration. Instead is anyone hear naive enough to believe that having the cause of atheism coupled to this particular group is going to soften the image of atheism in the eyes of the general public ?  

 

  [edit: I have no freaking idea why the wiki link will not work as I typed it in exactly as it reads  ]

 

 

Yea I thought about mentioning nambla. It could be said that the gay rights folks way back (in the early 70's I think) distanced themselves from nambla for what I was speaking of. They knew it was hard enough to push for gay rights let alone tacking something insane like nambla to the bill.

edit: I didn't use nambla as an example before because it is a real example and they would accuse me of putting that with gays or atheism lol. Can't win when people don't want to take things the way you mean them.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
A guy once told me that "the

A guy once told me that "the only thing we have to fear is fear it's self" meant we should fear and that he must have been a terrible president based on this quote.

edit: (pointless addendum) we sharpen chainsaw blades where I work, to shorten a blade you remove 2 links then use a master link to put it back together. This same guy never could figure out why you couldn't just take 1 link out even though you have to have a master link to put it back together ... major brainpower.

 

 

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


NoMoreCrazyPeople
atheistSuperfan
NoMoreCrazyPeople's picture
Posts: 969
Joined: 2009-10-14
User is offlineOffline
wingless_sephiroth wrote:I

wingless_sephiroth wrote:

I remember when one gentleman told me how he was part of a secret society of men that studied female psychology in order to advance their amount of sexual encounters. 

You could imagine what kind of "winners" would be signing up for this club, what a bunch of tools.  You can study feamle psychology as much as you want, that won't help for the simple fact that all girls are different, and even the individual girls are different from day to day.  Studying female psychology to get laid more is like reading a golf course flyer to improve your golf game.  Any guy who thinks theirs like some "secret" trick to attract women is an idiot, he problabny watches late night informercials and thinks theirs some "secret" to getting rich too and purchased the 12 disk set for 6 easy payments of 29.99.  You get rich by having a good plan, making good decisions, and working hard, that's it, it's not rocket science.  You attract women by being comfortable in your own skin, making them feel comfortable, making them laugh, treating them as equals not worshipping them, being sexual enough to keep some tension (don't be the geeky puppy dog) but not to much that it comes off awkward or pushy, that's it it's not rocket science either.

 

  Are you a girl wingless?  If you are, It makes this guy an even bigger loser.  It is unimaginable to me how a guy would use this as a pickup line of any kind, it makes me embaressed for the caliber of men out their.  What kind of idiot would proclaim he is in a secret society dedicated to improving game (admitting he doesn't have any, which is why he signed up) and scoring chicks to a girl he is trying to score with, what a turd burgeler.

 

  In my experience the biggest problem men have with "getting" women is they are blatantly trying to get women.  It's embaressing, I watch these guys all over the place trying so hard, pumping themselves up, it's hillarious.  My favorite thing to do when these guys are working their bunk game is casually make a joke in the girls ear about how he is a (something clever about his particular blend of idiot).  Then leave her to be hit on by him/others for a while,glance over every once and a while and we both laugh at them. 

 

  Once I was at a party and met this girl, we were talking/laughing for about 15 minutes or so.  Then these silly boys walk in loud, chest puffing away.  One of the guys asked me if it was my girlfriend and I said no I just met het, she's fair game buddy.  He sat down on the couch, and worked his best stuff on her for about 10 minutes right in front of me, it was awesome.  "I work out alote, do you?" "You are sooo gorgeous" hahaha  I just sat their with a smerk making jokes behind his back to her.  He didn't have a chance, his mistake was making it obvious he was trying, it was awful, it often is from what I see.

 

  A toast!  To all the pushy guys who have no clue, if it wern't for you guys, it wouldn't be so easy for me to make them laugh at you with me... 

 

 

 

 


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:  

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

   What if there were a media campaign where members of  NAMBLA   (  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American _Man/Boy_Love_Association  ) publicly endorsed atheism ?  

  The peculiarities of their sexual habits are not the issue under consideration. Instead is anyone hear naive enough to believe that having the cause of atheism coupled to this particular group is going to soften the image of atheism in the eyes of the general public ?  

 

  [edit: I have no freaking idea why the wiki link will not work as I typed it in exactly as it reads  ]

Try this link : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church 


NoMoreCrazyPeople
atheistSuperfan
NoMoreCrazyPeople's picture
Posts: 969
Joined: 2009-10-14
User is offlineOffline
greek goddess wrote:sooo....

greek goddess wrote:

sooo.... i'm bisexual.  just thought i'd throw that out there...

 

So are 90% of girls. 


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3704
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse

Anonymouse wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

   What if there were a media campaign where members of  NAMBLA   (  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American _Man/Boy_Love_Association  ) publicly endorsed atheism ?  

  The peculiarities of their sexual habits are not the issue under consideration. Instead is anyone hear naive enough to believe that having the cause of atheism coupled to this particular group is going to soften the image of atheism in the eyes of the general public ?  

 

  [edit: I have no freaking idea why the wiki link will not work as I typed it in exactly as it reads  ]

Try this link : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church 

 

    Spot on, dude !

www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/misanthropy

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." Rudyard Kipling


NoMoreCrazyPeople
atheistSuperfan
NoMoreCrazyPeople's picture
Posts: 969
Joined: 2009-10-14
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote:Sandycane

Gauche wrote:

Sandycane wrote:

Gauche wrote:

Sandycane wrote:

SEX, imo, should not come into the picture until/unless there has been a serious, monogamous relationship cultivated first.

Sexual promiscuity is something I frown upon, now that I am older and wiser.

But you will hop into a car with a man you just met for destinations unknown to have a sexual encounter if he's charming enough right?

No. What brought you to that conclusion?

It's not my conclusion. My conclusion is that charm doesn't resolve the moral, let alone safety issues a woman might have about doing that. That's the bone of contention I have with NoMoreCrazyPeople and rednef. That women sleep with charming men is a trivial generality. It has little to do with what stops women from fucking men immediately.

And there you go, you found an exception just like I said you would, sandycane is the exception, not the rule.  Also she is a little older (I'm not guessing how old) but I'm talking mainly about younger women here 18-35.  For every "sandycane" I've met I've met 114 non sandycanes.  And ofcourse their is nothing wrong with being very strict with your sexual activity, most aren't.

 

 


Sandycane
atheist
Sandycane's picture
Posts: 970
Joined: 2010-10-16
User is offlineOffline
NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:And

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:

And there you go, you found an exception just like I said you would, sandycane is the exception, not the rule.  Also she is a little older (I'm not guessing how old) but I'm talking mainly about younger women here 18-35.  For every "sandycane" I've met I've met 114 non sandycanes.  And ofcourse their is nothing wrong with being very strict with your sexual activity, most aren't.

 

 

I wouldn't say 'strict'. I'd say discriminating.

It seems to me, most of you view having sex as normal bodily function, no more special than eating or taking a crap.

I'm saving myself for someone special.

'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein


NoMoreCrazyPeople
atheistSuperfan
NoMoreCrazyPeople's picture
Posts: 969
Joined: 2009-10-14
User is offlineOffline
Sandycane

Sandycane wrote:

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:

And there you go, you found an exception just like I said you would, sandycane is the exception, not the rule.  Also she is a little older (I'm not guessing how old) but I'm talking mainly about younger women here 18-35.  For every "sandycane" I've met I've met 114 non sandycanes.  And ofcourse their is nothing wrong with being very strict with your sexual activity, most aren't.

 

 

I wouldn't say 'strict'. I'd say discriminating.

It seems to me, most of you view having sex as normal bodily function, no more special than eating or taking a crap.

I'm saving myself for someone special.

There are many differents kinds of sex.  Sex can very well be like a bodily function like eating, it is pleasurable and if both parties are concensual there is no problem.  I have had alote of this kind of sex, however I much prefer sex with someone I care about.  If you can't seperate your emotions from the act of sex then no you shouldn't be having casual sex.  I see no reason to mix the 2 with every sexual encounter.  I am manogomous with my partner for 3 years.  If we were to break up, I wouldn't be waiting to form a new real emotional relationships with someone (which takes me years) before endulging in the pleasurable act of casual sex which has nothing to do with that.   


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote:My conclusion

Gauche wrote:

My conclusion is that charm doesn't resolve the moral, let alone safety issues a woman might have about doing that.

I disagreed with you, and gave you my reasons why. And I stand by them.

Gauche wrote:
That's the bone of contention I have with NoMoreCrazyPeople and rednef. That women sleep with charming men is a trivial generality. It has little to do with what stops women from fucking men immediately.

I really don't know what grounds you have to your conclusions, except to assert them over and over, when I tell you what I observe is different than what you observe about human sexuality.

You simply disagreeing with me, doesn't even come close to being accurate with your observations, or conclusions, on the topic of human sexuality.

I gave a fairly detailed response to some basics of female sexuality.

I noticed you haven't even touched them, but rather, just kept talking past me.

Feel free to debunk anything I said. I doubt you can. Most of that you can learn from listening to women.

I think you're just trying to convince yourself, mostly, that it's very unlikely people don't just end up in bed together, very quickly, because of 'morals', or 'ethics', or 'fears', when simply it has more to do with circumstances and interaction.

Gauche wrote:
That doesn't matter because you're not very charming

No, actually, I am. Always have been. Some people really dislike me, but will fully acknowledge that I'm one of the most charismatic and attractive 'people' they know.

You just see, what you want to see.

In any event, your opinion isn't relevant, your wife might have a very different opinion of my 'appeal', if she met me, by chance.

Gauche wrote:
and even if you were it doesn't address the issue of why women are disinclined to sleep with men they barely know...

I addressed very specifically the issues of how it works. You just seem to have a very different definition of 'charm', and perhaps think that 'sexually appealing' has everything to do with being 'nice', or 'polite'.

Maybe you missed it, but Sandycane quoted my entire response to you, and said that she agreed 100% (which I'm not even inclined to take too literally) with everything I said. Yet, her and I are diametrically opposed on a lot about the fundamentals of sexually intimate relationships.

As you'll soon see, because I'm going to challenge a few points she's made...

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Sandycane
atheist
Sandycane's picture
Posts: 970
Joined: 2010-10-16
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote: ...As you'll

redneF wrote:

 

...

As you'll soon see, because I'm going to challenge a few points she's made...

Oh no, Prince Charming, let's not spoil the mood.

I've been listening to Luther, Barry, Al, Teddy and Marvin all evening... thanks to you.

'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Sandycane wrote:redneF

Sandycane wrote:

redneF wrote:

 

...

As you'll soon see, because I'm going to challenge a few points she's made...

Oh no, Prince Charming, let's not spoil the mood.

I've been listening to Luther, Barry, Al, Teddy and Marvin all evening... thanks to you.

Just for tonight then, Dawling...

 

 

 

But tomorrow we do it my way...

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Sandycane
atheist
Sandycane's picture
Posts: 970
Joined: 2010-10-16
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote: ...Just for

redneF wrote:

 

...

Just for tonight then, Dawling... 

But tomorrow we do it my way...

Ooooh, you're bad but, I have to confess, you're very good at it.

I'll leave you with one, too...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54-9Jvq1Li4

 Why doesn't my flash feature work any more?

'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
I didn't respond to your or

I didn't respond to your or NoMoreCrazyPeople's personal experience and what you might have gleaned from that because I'm not certain what that is supposed to prove. Does that prove that women who are not inclined to sleep with men immediately will do it if the man is charming? Because neither one of you are actually saying that anything happened immediately anyway. Though I suppose we could soften the definition of immediately for the sake of argument.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


Sandycane
atheist
Sandycane's picture
Posts: 970
Joined: 2010-10-16
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote:I didn't

Gauche wrote:

I didn't respond to your or NoMoreCrazyPeople's personal experience and what you might have gleaned from that because I'm not certain what that is supposed to prove. Does that prove that women who are not inclined to sleep with men immediately will do it if the man is charming? Because neither one of you are actually saying that anything happened immediately anyway. Though I suppose we could soften the definition of immediately for the sake of argument.

I need to change my previous answer... if redneF were actually TP (yes, I know he's no longer with us), I wouldn't hesitate a second.

 

'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Sandycane wrote:Gauche

Sandycane wrote:

Gauche wrote:

I didn't respond to your or NoMoreCrazyPeople's personal experience and what you might have gleaned from that because I'm not certain what that is supposed to prove. Does that prove that women who are not inclined to sleep with men immediately will do it if the man is charming? Because neither one of you are actually saying that anything happened immediately anyway. Though I suppose we could soften the definition of immediately for the sake of argument.

I need to change my previous answer... if redneF were actually TP (yes, I know he's no longer with us), I wouldn't hesitate a second.

 

What if he were Ted Bundy? He was supposedly exceedingly charismatic. Strangely enough he was not able to realize his intentions with the majority of his potential victims.I don't think he could sing though.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


Sandycane
atheist
Sandycane's picture
Posts: 970
Joined: 2010-10-16
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote:What if he were

Gauche wrote:

What if he were Ted Bundy? He was supposedly exceedingly charismatic. Strangely enough he was not able to realize his intentions with the majority of his potential victims.I don't think he could sing though.

Nope. It would have to be TP... or, Marvin or,...

Seriously, no, I wouldn't hop into bed with any of them... although it's a pleasant thought.

 and I think you are missing 'it'. 'It' isn't only charm or, charisma. It's the entire package and how it is presented.

'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Sandycane wrote:Gauche

Sandycane wrote:

Gauche wrote:

What if he were Ted Bundy? He was supposedly exceedingly charismatic. Strangely enough he was not able to realize his intentions with the majority of his potential victims.I don't think he could sing though.

Nope. It would have to be TP... or, Marvin or,...

Seriously, no, I wouldn't hop into bed with any of them... although it's a pleasant thought.

 and I think you are missing 'it'. 'It' isn't only charm or, charisma. It's the entire package and how it is presented.

I didn't think you were serious, my response was tongue in cheek.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


Sandycane
atheist
Sandycane's picture
Posts: 970
Joined: 2010-10-16
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote:Sandycane

Gauche wrote:

Sandycane wrote:

Gauche wrote:

What if he were Ted Bundy? He was supposedly exceedingly charismatic. Strangely enough he was not able to realize his intentions with the majority of his potential victims.I don't think he could sing though.

Nope. It would have to be TP... or, Marvin or,...

Seriously, no, I wouldn't hop into bed with any of them... although it's a pleasant thought.

 and I think you are missing 'it'. 'It' isn't only charm or, charisma. It's the entire package and how it is presented.

I didn't think you were serious, my response was tongue in cheek.

Oh. I couldn't tell, humor is often sadly lost on the intenet.

But, I was serious when I first wrote it. Then logic, comon sense and responsibility overpowered my emotions.

'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote: I didn't

Gauche wrote:
I didn't respond to your or NoMoreCrazyPeople's personal experience and what you might have gleaned from that because I'm not certain what that is supposed to prove.

It proves your assertions are not accurate. 

Gauche wrote:
Does that prove that women who are not inclined to sleep with men immediately will do it if the man is charming?

If he has the right 'sexual appeal', and the right kind of 'charming'?, then the answer is 'yes'.

The answer can be 'yes', if he's the right kind of 'charming', even if he isn't exactly the right 'sexual appeal'.

Gauche wrote:
Because neither one of you are actually saying that anything happened immediately anyway. Though I suppose we could soften the definition of immediately for the sake of argument.

When I was in my teens and 20's, I had a few 'immediate' encounters. And they were all initiated by the woman, first.

As a matter of fact, just about every woman I'd ever been with, pursued me, instead of the other way around. I didn't 'chase' women. I didn't have to. They were everywhere I happened to be.

That's when I learned that it's just a 'numbers' game. One's success is largely about how appealing they are, physically (to begin with), and how well they 'appeal', in other areas, with the opposite sex.

Some people have 'broad' appeal, that way. And it's not exclusive to women.

 

I'll bullet point your main assertions, and comment on them.

Gauche wrote:
I don't think being confident and funny will make a woman sleep with you immediately if she wasn't inclined to do that in the first place.

Disagree.

I've seen it happen, lots.

Gauche wrote:
The OP said women make men wait for sex and that makes sense because women have reasons to do that.

Doesn't matter if they have 'reasons'.

The 'rules' are different, for the 'right' guy.

Gauche wrote:
If you meet a woman and she has sex with you less than an hour later I doubt it's because you're charming and funny. 

Disagree.

But, like I said earlier, you might define 'charm' differently than I do.

Gauche wrote:
I'm saying what prevents women from having sex with men immediately isn't charm or lack thereof. 

Disagree.

Women aren't stupid. They know what appeals to them, and know that '1 in a million' guys don't grow on trees.

Their 'rules' are different for the men they find really desirable. The 'really' smart ones do the math real quick, if he's the 'right' one.

Gauche wrote:
Nobody is that charming.

Speak for yourself, because you're not speaking for me, so much.

Gauche wrote:
What if he were Ted Bundy? He was supposedly exceedingly charismatic.

Case in point. And don't even try and commit the genetic fallacy that Ted Bundy is some rational reason for women to wait to sleep with a man they've just met.

What about Tom Cruise? The guy is a fucking loon.

What about Al Pacino?

I wouldn't trade my looks for his, but some women get weak in the knees just thinking about him.

Why? Because he's got a charm about him, that really resonates with a certain fundamental aspect about them. But.....it's not the only fundamental aspects about them, that can elicit a similar sexual response.

A completely different kind of man, can just as easily get her into bed before her dress even hits the ground.

Well, maybe not Sandycane, but we're still holding out that she'll cum around...

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Sandycane
atheist
Sandycane's picture
Posts: 970
Joined: 2010-10-16
User is offlineOffline
Tom Cruise Al Pacino  

Tom Cruise

Al Pacino

 


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
I've also had the dubious

I've also had the dubious pleasure of meeting women who have sex with men immediately. I'm not conceited enough to think charm had anything to do with it. What you saw were women going around fucking indiscriminately. If you want to believe it was because of charm go ahead but your anecdotes don't really prove anything. 

What you're doing is taking one factor that accounts for something happening and saying that because it does it can explain why it doesn't occur at another point temporally. That's shoddy reasoning. Would you say that people eat dessert because it is sweet, therefore people don't eat dessert for breakfast because it's not sweet enough?

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote: What you saw

Gauche wrote:
 What you saw were women going around fucking indiscriminately.

How do you know this?

Gauche wrote:
... your anecdotes don't really prove anything. 

Then why do you keep resorting to anecdotes?

Gauche wrote:
  That's shoddy reasoning.

STFU.

You aren't saying anything intelligent at all.

Gauche wrote:
 Would you say that people eat dessert because it is sweet, therefore people don't eat dessert for breakfast because it's not sweet enough?

1- People have Cornflakes at night.

2- Fruit salad with yogurt and honey is a great breakfast, and a great dessert.

3- Ask Sandycane what else you can do with yogurt and honey.

4- Generally, people eat what they most desire to eat. Not what's best for them to eat.

 

I don't know about you, but with the majority of my exes, we couldn't stand each other by the time we broke up, but I'd get calls for months and months, and sometimes years, wanting to have sex again.

WTF do you think that is?

Coz I'm that hot? Coz I'm hung like a horse?

No.

Coz I'm '1 of a kind'.

And they know it, and can't forget it. And that's not just an 'anecdote'. I have the emails...

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
You're not really addressing

You're not really addressing the point about your reasoning. And to be honest it's tiresome to talk to people who are completely lacking humility. You're saying that if you can identify a factor that can account for something happening it can explain why it doesn't happen at another time. If there are several competing factors involved that's not sound.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


wingless_sephiroth
atheist
wingless_sephiroth's picture
Posts: 117
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
Sandycane wrote:greek

Sandycane wrote:

greek goddess wrote:

Sandycane wrote:

Personally, and I know no one asked for it, I thought the OP was vulgar and from what I have read here, wingless seems to have an unnatural fear of and disrespect for straight women and men. If you are going to bad mouth straight people for their personal choices, don't be surprised if you receive the same back from them. 

Where did wingless demonstrate an "unnatural fear of and disrespect for straight women and men," if you don't mind my asking? I just read through his OP and a few of his posts and didn't see anything that stood out to me as such. 

I also think he's a flop at practicing what he preaches:

Post #54 wingless wrote

Quote:
But, it's seems a tad extreme to start attacking an individual for an opinion by stating he has no interpersonal skills in the real world, craves for a gigantic soapbox, and putting him in the same sentence as that messiah complexed Jean Chauvin.

Then post #136, addressed to me

Quote:

Gonna take the bait, using the new debating techniques introduced to me through this thread.

 

 

Jean Chauvin wrote:

 

 

Of course you won't like what I say, because you hate God so much, and actively repress what your nature realizes.

 

Sandycane wrote:

 

Nope. I agree with you on this.... and please don't anyone ask me to elaborate because most of you won't like what I have to say about people who call themselves 'faggots'.

 

Judging on forum precedent, probably best for you, oh menacing eye of Sauron.

 

 

Look, there might be honest confusion, but if you're going to criticize me at least criticize me on things that I'm actually doing.

 

First off, you're being silly with that Jean Chauvin thing. That was the whole entire point of me doing that, it was meant from the outset to be ironic. Can you please read the first sentence of the last thing you quoted me saying? You know, "Gonna take the bait, using the new debating techniques introduced to me through this thread." And also, it seems you brought up this point without actually giving evidence for what the Goddess was originally asking you.

Second, why would I be afraid of straight men and women, or even dislike them? Once again, if you had read what I said, I already stated that when I was coming out, and to this day, my greatest supporters were straight people. My queer friends weren't that helpful in that time of my life. The rest of my comments were severely tongue-in-cheek, and everyone who posted in response seemed to understand that. The joke I hoped to get across was that I was a homosexual stereotyping heterosexuals, instead of vice versa. I don't honestly think things like beer choices and sexual appetite somehow differentiate meaningfully along already blurry lines such as sexual orientation. And to go further into that, in terms of the priorities in my self-definition, 'radical feminist' comes well before 'homosexual'. Being a homosexual doesn't really change much outside of who I fuck, but radical feminism has always helped me understand the world in a sociologically consistent manner that I feel to be very accurate. The radical feminist belief that all forms of oppression in homo sapiens evolved from the initial oppression of men against women, I feel, is extremely accurate. That's why I'll disagree about waiting until marriage for sex: marriage is an institution that was created to appropriate ownership of women to men. I hardly can sympathize with it at all.

Third, lol @ vulgarity. I do talk pretty fucked up. No dispute there.
 

 


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote: You're not

Gauche wrote:
You're not really addressing the point about your reasoning.

You're a fucking idiot, to try and have a dialogue with. Do you know that?

Maybe that's the difference between my experience with women, and yours.

Ever think of that?

Probably not...

Gauche wrote:
And to be honest it's tiresome to talk to people who are completely lacking humility.

Who's the one just hammering that they're right, and not much else?

You.

Not only are you extremely arrogant, stubborn, and combative, you haven't said anything remotely intellectually thought provoking as a rebuttal to what myself and others have gone into detail with, and given examples of.

You're the 'debating' equivalent of a 'two pump chump'.

I know what your problem is, you're fucking childish and annoying.

You 'argue' with a woman with childish rebuttals like this, and you'll be sleeping on the couch, because you're just annoying and a complete turn off.

I, on the other hand, in an argument with a woman, make her blood boil passionately, because I push the issue deeper, and she has to use her mind.

I can anger her to where she's throwing plates while screaming at me, but it ends up where we're tearing our clothes off and going at it like animals.

Gauche wrote:
You're saying that if...

Awww, grow the fuck up, already. Would you?

Is this how you argue?

You respeak differently, what others have said, and then debate the respeak of yours?

I communicated exactly what I wanted to say, exactly the way I said it.

I won't debate your rebuttals to your 'paraphrasing' or your 'interpretations' of my comments.

If you want to challenge what I said, then quote what I said, and give me your rebuttal.

 

So far, you're just proving that you and I are completely different men.

Which is completely in line with why I seem to have very different reactions from women.

Even Sandycane can see that I could have quite a bit of charm with the ladies, under certain circumstances.

And she's probably seriously wanted to drown me a couple of times...

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Sandycane
atheist
Sandycane's picture
Posts: 970
Joined: 2010-10-16
User is offlineOffline
Awww fuck, I just lost my

Awww fuck, I just lost my typed reply in cyberspace. I hate when that happens.

I'll be back after I eat breakfast.

'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein


Sandycane
atheist
Sandycane's picture
Posts: 970
Joined: 2010-10-16
User is offlineOffline
wingless_sephiroth

wingless_sephiroth wrote:

Look, there might be honest confusion, but if you're going to criticize me at least criticize me on things that I'm actually doing.

 

First off, you're being silly with that Jean Chauvin thing. That was the whole entire point of me doing that, it was meant from the outset to be ironic. Can you please read the first sentence of the last thing you quoted me saying? You know, "Gonna take the bait, using the new debating techniques introduced to me through this thread." And also, it seems you brought up this point without actually giving evidence for what the Goddess was originally asking you.

Second, why would I be afraid of straight men and women, or even dislike them? Once again, if you had read what I said, I already stated that when I was coming out, and to this day, my greatest supporters were straight people. My queer friends weren't that helpful in that time of my life. The rest of my comments were severely tongue-in-cheek, and everyone who posted in response seemed to understand that. The joke I hoped to get across was that I was a homosexual stereotyping heterosexuals, instead of vice versa. I don't honestly think things like beer choices and sexual appetite somehow differentiate meaningfully along already blurry lines such as sexual orientation. And to go further into that, in terms of the priorities in my self-definition, 'radical feminist' comes well before 'homosexual'. Being a homosexual doesn't really change much outside of who I fuck, but radical feminism has always helped me understand the world in a sociologically consistent manner that I feel to be very accurate. The radical feminist belief that all forms of oppression in homo sapiens evolved from the initial oppression of men against women, I feel, is extremely accurate. That's why I'll disagree about waiting until marriage for sex: marriage is an institution that was created to appropriate ownership of women to men. I hardly can sympathize with it at all.

Third, lol @ vulgarity. I do talk pretty fucked up. No dispute there.
 

 

Okay. Maybe I just don't understand the whole 'gay' 'lesbian' bi-' thing.

Are you a man who thinks you are a radical feminist because you are opposed to the way you perceive men treat women, who enjoys being fucked by other men? Seems to me, if you were truly a radical feminist, you wouldn't put yourself in a submissive position with other men.

It was the content of your OP that I thought was vulgar, not the language.

I didn't say I think sex should be saved for marriage. I think that marriage is an antiquated ritual that only now has legal and financial benefits... and also beneficial if you have kids or plan to.

As to the bed-hopping... obviously, there is physical sex for the purpose of scratching an itch and then there is the kind you have with someone special. Honestly, I think I have more respect for myself and my body than the majority who sleep around indiscriminately. If you are doing it and those you are doing it with are doing it, it sounds like one big nasty cluster-fuck to me.

Personally, I wouldn't let anyone touch me intimately if I didn't know I was the only one. It makes me nauseous just thinking about kissing someone on the mouth and having to wonder where those lips were the night before.

'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein


Sandycane
atheist
Sandycane's picture
Posts: 970
Joined: 2010-10-16
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:...You 'argue'

redneF wrote:

...

You 'argue' with a woman with childish rebuttals like this, and you'll be sleeping on the couch, because you're just annoying and a complete turn off.

I, on the other hand, in an argument with a woman, make her blood boil passionately, because I push the issue deeper, and she has to use her mind.

I can anger her to where she's throwing plates while screaming at me, but it ends up where we're tearing our clothes off and going at it like animals.

 

...

So far, you're just proving that you and I are completely different men.

Which is completely in line with why I seem to have very different reactions from women.

Even Sandycane can see that I could have quite a bit of charm with the ladies, under certain circumstances.

And she's probably seriously wanted to drown me a couple of times...

You wouldn't happen to have some Italian blood in you, would you? That would explain a lot.

From my (minority) woman's' pov, for what it's worth, I think you are right on the money about this... so far.

'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
I wouldn't want to address

I wouldn't want to address your reasoning if I were you either. Women sleep with men because they are charming and if they don't sleep with men it's because they are not charming. That's non-validating, it could be for other reasons.

Setting that aside though, if the people have sex immediately when does the charming take place? How do you know the women weren't inclined to do that? Even if the men were charming how do you know that's the reason they had sex immediately?

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


wingless_sephiroth
atheist
wingless_sephiroth's picture
Posts: 117
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
Sandycane wrote:Okay. Maybe

Sandycane wrote:

Okay. Maybe I just don't understand the whole 'gay' 'lesbian' bi-' thing.

Are you a man who thinks you are a radical feminist because you are opposed to the way you perceive men treat women, who enjoys being fucked by other men? Seems to me, if you were truly a radical feminist, you wouldn't put yourself in a submissive position with other men.

It was the content of your OP that I thought was vulgar, not the language.

 

Well, initially I was going to say my first impression, which was I don't think you understand the whole 'gay', 'lesbian' or 'bi-' thing, but who knows, you might've been one and just had a different perspective. Didn't want to assume anything. I'm pretty sure there are queers out there you'd hit it off better with. I'm hardly representative.

Well, this is a common criticism about feminism. The point of feminism is not the dominance of women, or that men are intrinsically evil; the point of feminism (and the reason why 'masculinism' is a redundant term) is the equality of the sexes. To say that having dominative or submissive relationships with men (most of whom, because of my preferences, tend to be feminists themselves) is somehow against feminism doesn't seem to add up. There's nothing wrong with being a man, but historically, men have oppressed women. That's what feminism, even radical feminism, amounts to.

But, I think it's funny you still bring it up. I wish I wasn't homosexual, because I just seem to be much closer to women than I could ever be with men. Maybe it's akin to how straight men often have closer friendships with other straight men, than they do with their own female partners? Still, I hate how often women hit on me, because I wish I could return those feelings, but I rarely can. There are rare times when I will find a woman sexually arousing (sexuality, as Brian said, is truly a continuum), but any attempt at a relationship breaks down when they realize I'm not good at wearing the pants. My very first relationship ever with a woman, back when I thought I was straight, devolved into her watching lousy television shows every day and me telling her we don't spend enough time together talking. Well, I mean, what really fucked it up was probably me not being able to get my dick hard when we jumped into bed for the first time; I thought it'd be easy because all the guys around thought she was the hottest thing ever.

Still, I'm allowed to dream of the day when an exotic and a tad masculine woman and I will fall in love and she'll sweep me off my feet or something, and we'll get married and on our wedding day we'll do each other's makeup. That's how straight relationships work, right?


Sandycane
atheist
Sandycane's picture
Posts: 970
Joined: 2010-10-16
User is offlineOffline
wingless_sephiroth

wingless_sephiroth wrote:

 

Well, initially I was going to say my first impression, which was I don't think you understand the whole 'gay', 'lesbian' or 'bi-' thing, but who knows, you might've been one and just had a different perspective. Didn't want to assume anything. I'm pretty sure there are queers out there you'd hit it off better with. I'm hardly representative.

That's okay...I'm hardly representative of the general  female population.

Quote:
Well, this is a common criticism about feminism. The point of feminism is not the dominance of women, or that men are intrinsically evil; the point of feminism (and the reason why 'masculinism' is a redundant term) is the equality of the sexes. To say that having dominative or submissive relationships with men (most of whom, because of my preferences, tend to be feminists themselves) is somehow against feminism doesn't seem to add up. There's nothing wrong with being a man, but historically, men have oppressed women. That's what feminism, even radical feminism, amounts to.
I guess I had the wrong definition of 'radical feminism' in my head. But, I still don't understand why a man would want to submit himself to another man.

Quote:
But, I think it's funny you still bring it up. I wish I wasn't homosexual, because I just seem to be much closer to women than I could ever be with men. Maybe it's akin to how straight men often have closer friendships with other straight men, than they do with their own female partners? Still, I hate how often women hit on me, because I wish I could return those feelings, but I rarely can. There are rare times when I will find a woman sexually arousing (sexuality, as Brian said, is truly a continuum), but any attempt at a relationship breaks down when they realize I'm not good at wearing the pants. My very first relationship ever with a woman, back when I thought I was straight, devolved into her watching lousy television shows every day and me telling her we don't spend enough time together talking. Well, I mean, what really fucked it up was probably me not being able to get my dick hard when we jumped into bed for the first time; I thought it'd be easy because all the guys around thought she was the hottest thing ever.
I could be wrong (and it wouldn't be the first time) but, it sounds to me that while you may be 'queer', you're not really a homosexual at heart... and that you've just not figured out how to have an intimate relationship with a woman.

Quote:
Still, I'm allowed to dream of the day when an exotic and a tad masculine woman and I will fall in love and she'll sweep me off my feet or something, and we'll get married and on our wedding day we'll do each other's makeup. That's how straight relationships work, right?

Why not? Seems to me, not every hetero relationship has the man 'wearing the pants'. You see it all the time, some men who are 'hen-pecked' - and like it - and women who are completely submissive to their spouses - and like it that way.

You remind me of a man I met on another forum a few years ago. We got started off as debate opposites and over a years time, we became good friends. He was highly intelligent and seemed self-confident, assertive in a masculine way and firm in his opinions. When he came to visit me, I was shocked to see him in person and how little  he physically resembled his Internet persona. He was very feminine in his mannerisms yet, sight unseen, we were very attracted to each other. Come to find out, the only way we could ever have actually had a sexual encounter was if I were to be a total dominatrix... and that was too weird for me. However, he told me about a girl he knew in Canada who was filthy rich and very popular because she 'professionally' serviced the needs of such men.

He also told me that when he was little, his mother who wore the pants in the family, would make him wear his sisters dresses to punish him when he misbehaved... and he would masturbate at these times. So, as an adult, he can only be sexually aroused when he is humiliated by a dominatrix-type woman. He was conditioned to be this way as a child - not born this way.

So, I don't think your dream is unattainable at all. I do think you have found it easier to settle for less though. Why couldn't you find a woman who wants to wear the pants, while still being a woman and you being the man?

'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
vid may or may not be

vid may or may not be related...
 

 

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Sandycane
atheist
Sandycane's picture
Posts: 970
Joined: 2010-10-16
User is offlineOffline
Perfect visual to the

Perfect visual to the dialogue.

I wish I could understand what the hell they were saying, though... or, maybe it's better I don't.

'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Probably because they were

Probably because they were speaking Danish???

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Sandycane
atheist
Sandycane's picture
Posts: 970
Joined: 2010-10-16
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:Probably

Kapkao wrote:

Probably because they were speaking Danish???

Really? That would explain it.

There are a lot of new 'english' songs that have lyrics I can't understand, either. 

 

'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13836
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
wingless_sephiroth

wingless_sephiroth wrote:

Sandycane wrote:

greek goddess wrote:

Sandycane wrote:

Personally, and I know no one asked for it, I thought the OP was vulgar and from what I have read here, wingless seems to have an unnatural fear of and disrespect for straight women and men. If you are going to bad mouth straight people for their personal choices, don't be surprised if you receive the same back from them. 

Where did wingless demonstrate an "unnatural fear of and disrespect for straight women and men," if you don't mind my asking? I just read through his OP and a few of his posts and didn't see anything that stood out to me as such. 

I also think he's a flop at practicing what he preaches:

Post #54 wingless wrote

Quote:
But, it's seems a tad extreme to start attacking an individual for an opinion by stating he has no interpersonal skills in the real world, craves for a gigantic soapbox, and putting him in the same sentence as that messiah complexed Jean Chauvin.

Then post #136, addressed to me

Quote:

Gonna take the bait, using the new debating techniques introduced to me through this thread.

 

 

Jean Chauvin wrote:

 

 

Of course you won't like what I say, because you hate God so much, and actively repress what your nature realizes.

 

Sandycane wrote:

 

Nope. I agree with you on this.... and please don't anyone ask me to elaborate because most of you won't like what I have to say about people who call themselves 'faggots'.

 

Judging on forum precedent, probably best for you, oh menacing eye of Sauron.

 

 

Look, there might be honest confusion, but if you're going to criticize me at least criticize me on things that I'm actually doing.

 

First off, you're being silly with that Jean Chauvin thing. That was the whole entire point of me doing that, it was meant from the outset to be ironic. Can you please read the first sentence of the last thing you quoted me saying? You know, "Gonna take the bait, using the new debating techniques introduced to me through this thread." And also, it seems you brought up this point without actually giving evidence for what the Goddess was originally asking you.

Second, why would I be afraid of straight men and women, or even dislike them? Once again, if you had read what I said, I already stated that when I was coming out, and to this day, my greatest supporters were straight people. My queer friends weren't that helpful in that time of my life. The rest of my comments were severely tongue-in-cheek, and everyone who posted in response seemed to understand that. The joke I hoped to get across was that I was a homosexual stereotyping heterosexuals, instead of vice versa. I don't honestly think things like beer choices and sexual appetite somehow differentiate meaningfully along already blurry lines such as sexual orientation. And to go further into that, in terms of the priorities in my self-definition, 'radical feminist' comes well before 'homosexual'. Being a homosexual doesn't really change much outside of who I fuck, but radical feminism has always helped me understand the world in a sociologically consistent manner that I feel to be very accurate. The radical feminist belief that all forms of oppression in homo sapiens evolved from the initial oppression of men against women, I feel, is extremely accurate. That's why I'll disagree about waiting until marriage for sex: marriage is an institution that was created to appropriate ownership of women to men. I hardly can sympathize with it at all.

Third, lol @ vulgarity. I do talk pretty fucked up. No dispute there.
 

 

No, don't coddle Sandy, you did nothing wrong in poking fun at bigots by using the slurs they use towards you. There is nothing wrong or "vulgar" about that. She is giving magic to words and your usage in making fun of bigots is taking that magic away from the bigots. She has yet to understand that.

Sandy has demonstrated her own insecurities in other threads with other minorities in other threads.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Sandycane
atheist
Sandycane's picture
Posts: 970
Joined: 2010-10-16
User is offlineOffline
STFU, Brian. You're a day

STFU, Brian. You're a day late and a dollar short, as usual.

You wouldn't recognize 'vulgar' if it sh1t in your face.

 

'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5907
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
"Vulgar" is a very

"Vulgar" is a very personally subjective and quaintly outdated term.

It doesn't deserve to be recognized. 

It is simply another way of saying that some things make you uncomfortable, especially in reference to sex. We get that. Just don't try and and make out it makes you more 'refined' or in some sense superior. You just have a certain set of not uncommon 'hangups'.

That harks back to the older sense of 'vulgar', referring to something as 'common', ie belonging to, or characteristic of, the 'common' people.

Those hangups , especially about sexual subjects, are at the heart of many of the more offensive doctrines in Christianity.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology