Tuesday, August 22, 2006
(Weekly Column) - Click here to listen to Wayne's columnThe world of men can be divided into two groups: Those who feel empty after the completion of a one night stand and those who roll over and go to bed feeling completely satisfied. This emotional divide among males is equally as dramatic as the more publicized difference in sexual orientation between gay and straight men. Yet, this phenomenon is rarely talked about as the conventional wisdom wrongly concludes that "men are pigs."
The gulf between the men who oink and boink and those who bed and wed is worth exploring. It seems to me that these men have little in common, as pigs are from Pluto and mensches are from Mars.This split in the way men think about sex is best illustrated in listening to the two groups discuss former President Bill Clinton's dalliance with Monica Lewinsky.
The mensches scratch their heads and ask, "How on earth could he do that? How can a man cheat on his wife and squander his presidency for a moment of joy with a chubby intern?"
While the pigs were disappointed with Clinton, on a fundamental level they understood his actions. "He was alone in the Oval Office, he was probably under a lot of stress, Monica walked in, and things just sort of happened," they reason. What flummoxes the pigs, more than Clinton's behavior, is the mensches' genuine bewilderment of how a man might jeopardize power over a fleeting moment of sexual gratification.
This battle of the male brain is now playing itself out in gay society after paparazzi ambushed pop star George Michael coming out of the bushes following a sexcapade with a pot-bellied peasant.
Michael, for his part, implied that his behavior was a result of entrenched gay customs. "Are you gay?" he asked the paparazzi, "No? Then f*** off. This is my culture."
This may have been true in the 1970's, when gay culture had been set up to accommodate married men on the sly. During this period, bathhouses were hugely popular and the gay bars had blackened out windows, creating a virtual cocktail-serving closet. Many of the patrons had to have sex inside the bar because they could not go home where an unsuspecting wife and kids waited.
Of course, there was a portion of men who did have options (such as Michael does today) but just enjoyed unfettered promiscuity for the thrill. However, the ability of people to come out combined with the fear of contracting HIV has sharply curtailed the carnal carnival the gay subculture once represented. Bawdy bathhouses have largely been replaced by couples shopping at Bed, Bath and Beyond.
The whole notion that gay men are more libidinous than straight men is a canard pushed by right wing fanatics in an effort to deny homosexuals basic rights. Indeed, one of the most guarded secrets of gay life is that a good portion of homosexuals are as undersexed as their straight counterparts.
Some of these lonely people keep long hours at the office and don't have time to pursue partners. Others are shy and have great difficulty meeting people. Many men - gay and straight - simply have low sex drives and hardly desire gratuitous encounters.From my observation, a surprisingly large portion of men find the notion of hooking up with strangers totally unappealing. It is not looks nor variety, but intimacy that is the greatest turn on.
Of course, for hyper-aggressive men who fancy uninhibited sexual exploration, it is easier being gay because you can always find another man looking for the same thing. But, instead of being blamed for a lack of self-control, the gay community should get a medal for restraint.
Heck, if straight men could have sex in public restrooms with women, would we ever again be able to use the facilities for legitimate purposes? If straight men could easily pick up women for sex in parks after midnight, would the grounds be so trodden that ants would become an endangered species? Yeah, gay men have access to sex if they want it bad enough and are willing to take risks, like Michael, but the majority consistently chooses not to recklessly cruise.
George Michael may "want his sex" but his placing the blame on the GLBT culture no longer reflects modern reality. Given a full range of choices, including marriage, GLBT life increasingly looks as diverse as mainstream culture with monogamously oriented men finally having the option to choose monogamy.
57 Comments:
While I think you're very right about the "oink and boink" dichotomy among both gay and straight men, I'm left feeling irritated by the "chubby intern" descriptor of that woman, Monica Lewinski. She was fleshy, voluptuous, lush. Easy...
posted by , at
8/22/2006 12:31 PM
George M is a sex addict--that's not cultural (certainly not mine) it's psychological.
B. Queer
posted by , at
8/22/2006 12:33 PM
I was ticked when I read that he said that. Anonymous sex with total strangers, and promiscuity is not now, and never has been a part of my 'culture'. Georgie's got some issues he needs to deal with badly. He's certainly not helping the gay image...
posted by , at
8/22/2006 12:47 PM
It's a cop out. But unfortunately, it's the way a lot of gay men come up thinking. "Straight guys have relationships and gay guys have sex." Especially when the only role models some of these men have are from QAF.
I will without shame admit to promescuity in my teens and twenties. But for Godssake George, grow up. It's time to start thinking with your head and your heart, not your dick.
posted by jekelhyde, at
8/22/2006 12:55 PM
I agree, George Michael IS a sex addict. What's more, I've never been convinced that he's Gay. If you read his Advocate interview, you'll see that he once described himself as bisexual, and he's got the idea that being partnered with a man is enough to make someone Gay. It's not enough. There very well may be female anonymous sex partners in his life we don't know about.
I was alarmed to see a poll about this subject in the most recent Advocate. The results indicated that most Gay people agree with George when he said anonymous sex is part of our "culture." I beg to differ! Things we did under duress in the bad old days of intense discrimination don't qualify as cultural. How long will it be before all Gay men are ready to leave furtive outdoor sex, public restroom trysting and other shame-based behavior behind? As long as the church and large segments of society continue to condemn Gay men, I'm afraid. That's what justifies the existence of the closet, and the closet comes in a package deal with closeted behavior. However, despite the widespread bigotry, a lot of us have had sufficient courage to change our bad behavior. We constitute a new kind of role model, and word is out that Gay men don't have to act like sexual outlaws. There is hope for the future.
posted by DC HAMPTON JACOBS, at
8/22/2006 1:26 PM
Wayne, interesting article.
Daisy, you forgot "Rubenesque"
Stuffed Animal, actually it isn't that the majority of gay people that think promiscuity is part of our culture, it's the majority of those who respond to Advocate's polls think that it is. I highly doubt that the poll respondants represent our community very accurately.
And you are right about hope for the future. Kids in thousands of schools across the country - including the most conservative parts - have a chance to join a gay/straight club (or at least know that they exist) and can grow up with the hope of falling in love and getting married. The mechanism of committing to someone forever wasn't available anywhere on the globe when I was their age; marriage was a foreign idea, not even something you would consider. If there is one silver lining to the whole anti-gay marriage movement, it's that it has introduced to gay kids from Alabama to Alaska the very idea of a life-long commitment as a goal. It completely changed the possibilities.
posted by Timothy Kincaid, at
8/22/2006 2:14 PM
I think we need to make a distinction between gay men who break the law by fucking in the park and gay men who do not aspire to monogamy. Not everyone is built for monogamy, and there isn't anything wrong with that.
Let's leave the sex-negative condemnation of others to the religious right.
posted by , at
8/22/2006 3:03 PM
I think we need to make a distinction between gay men who break the law by fucking in the park and gay men who do not aspire to monogamy. Not everyone is built for monogamy, and there isn't anything wrong with that.
Let's leave the sex-negative condemnation of others to the religious right.
posted by , at
8/22/2006 3:03 PM
Geez Louise! Agreeing that people shouldn't have anonymous sex in public places isn't sex-negative condemnation! It's good sense. Know what can happen if you "go outside" as George Michael suggests? You can get arrested. You can get Gay-bashed. You can get a disease that will kill you! Guys into slam, bam, thank-you-Sam sexual encounters are the least likely to practice safer sex. Personally, I think sexual monogamy is the best way to go, but it's like celibacy: You can't force it on someone. You don't have to be monogamous, but non-monogamy is not synonymous with screwing after dark in the park and stupid stuff like that.
posted by DC HAMPTON JACOBS, at
8/22/2006 4:12 PM
And you wonder why people don't give homosexuals legitimacy - they can barely give it to themsleves.
posted by , at
8/22/2006 5:00 PM
Stuffed Animal,
Try reading the post before blowing your top.
"I think we need to make a distinction between gay men who break the law by having sex in the park and gay men who do not aspire to monogamy."
That statement is in no way supporting public sex in parks. That statement was in response to people who have made somewhat disparaging remarks re: gay men they deem to be promiscuous. We're all different...I may prefer a monogamous relationship, but there are many gay men who do not. As long as they are practicing safer sex and being honest with their partners, who are we to judge them?
Now, if they are having sex in the produce aisle at Albertson's, that's a different story. They can fuck whomever they want, but that doesn't mean I should have to witness it.
posted by , at
8/22/2006 6:37 PM
OH BROTHER. This blog is usually good, but what the hell is all this crap...
I agree, I great minds of the world should really investigate this great division between guys who have casual sex and guys who don't??! Not! And guys who have casual sex are "pigs" while guys who don't are "persons having admirable characteristics".
Yeah yeah, there is no doubt that straight guys would slut around as much as gay men given the same opportunity. How else to explain why sex is everywhere - in adverts, on TV, at your local frat house, the corner bar, even plastered on the god damn bus you took home tonight. Some estimate that 60% of straight married men will cheat at some point. Some 70% of 19 year olds have oral sex. So yup there's a majority of "pigs" out there - straight or gay.
Sure there are some gay guys who never ever have had anonymous sex, yeah I am almost positive that there are some... or maybe at least one. There are also some who would never have anything but. The overwhelming majority of guys have gone through phases of both and so the fuck what?! So where is this great divide?
Being shy or having a hectic work life does not make you a "mensches". If that same guy while on vacation screwed every moving object is he not a pig? It's fine to remind people that gay men just like straight men run the gamut, but stone throwing at "pigs" is outta line because their is no real clear division. Its also probably dangerous. So called pigs far outnumber the frigid little prudes - I mean mensches.
One last thing, how is a choice of monogamy suddenly a modern gay reality? Seems monogamy would have been thrusted upon most people through the ages as the only option. Closeted people who find partners have great incentive to be faithful simply because finding a partner in a closeted world is difficult - once found you likely keep it. Thus the availability of free love for gay men is much more reflective of our modern situation when compared to any time prior to the 60's.
Ok, can we now get to something more important?
Sean in Phily
posted by , at
8/22/2006 6:44 PM
OH BROTHER. This blog is usually good, but what the hell is all this crap...
I agree, I great minds of the world should really investigate this great division between guys who have casual sex and guys who don't??! And guys who have casual sex are "pigs" while guys who don't are "persons having admirable characteristics" or mensches.
Yeah yeah, there is no doubt that straight guys would slut around as much as gay men given the same opportunity. How else to explain why sex is everywhere - in adverts, on TV, at your local frat house, the corner bar, even plastered on the god damn bus you took home tonight. Some estimate that 60% of straight married men will cheat at some point. Some 70% of 19 year olds have oral sex. So yup there's a majority of "pigs" out there - straight or gay.
Sure there are some gay guys who never ever have had anonymous sex, yeah I am almost positive that there are some... or maybe at least one. There are also some who would never have anything but. The overwhelming majority of guys have gone through phases of both and so the fuck what?! So where is this great divide?
Being shy or having a hectic work life does not make you a "mensches". If that same guy while on vacation screwed every moving object is he not a pig? It's fine to remind people that gay men just like straight men run the gamut, but stone throwing at "pigs" is outta line because their is no real clear division. Its also probably dangerous so called pigs far outnumber the frigid little prudes - I mean mensches.
One last thing, how is a choice of monogamy suddenly a modern gay reality? Seems monogamy would have been thrusted upon most people through the ages as the only option. Closeted people who find partners have great incentive to be faithful simply because finding a partner in a closeted world is difficult. Thus the availability of free love for gay men is much more reflective of our modern situation when compared to any time prior to the 60's.
Ok, can we now get to something more important?
Sean in Phily
posted by , at
8/22/2006 6:50 PM
Sean in Philly,
I do agree with you, to a point. True, the only reason gay guys have more sex is because they can. And, true, it shouldn't really matter. The big difference between hetero pigs and gay pigs is that in most gay pig scenarios, no one gets hurt. And don't throw disease at me. I'm talking about emotional hurt. If a pig is screwing another pig, there is a certain understanding in the mating ritual. Hetero pigs tend to screw unsuspecting females and the pain can be deep.
What I don't agree with you on, however, is the reason for homosexual monogamy. When gay sex was illegal in most states, men hid behind bathroom stalls and bushes and a name or face didn't matter. We took it as fact that we gay men weren't supposed to be committed. We weren't supposed to be monogamous. If there was a relationship at all, it was completely open, no strings attached. Today is completely new and different. Today, we know we have the capacity to love as much as our heterosexual counterparts. Today, we can actually seek out long term relationships instead of just coming upon them by chance. But yes, we can still reserve the right to be "pigs."
I came out at 15. My parents were very permissive. So yes, I had my share of promiscuity. Did I ever meet a man I had never seen just to have sex? No I did not. Did I ever have sex with a guy I had talked to for just a few minutes? You're damned right, I did. And I have no regrets. But, I've never had sex in a park, at a rest stop (a Virginia favorite), a public restroom...Well, just once, but we won't discuss that. My point is that promiscuity in itself isn't a horrid thing. The problem is when we are forced behind walls, bathroom stalls, glory holes, bushes... because we don't want our friends and family to know that we are gay. The other problem is when people continue to tell us that we don't have the capacity to love the men we choose to love, so marriage shouldnt be an option for us.
And to the anonymous who stated that we don't lend ourselves legitimacy, you are soooo far offbase. It's only been very recently that gay men, especially, have been able to, within ourselves, claim what is rightfully ours. Love, family, committment.
So screw around if you want, or search for love if you want. But feel free to search for forever love.
Lastly, Regan, I love you. I adore everything you say. If I were straight....
posted by jekelhyde, at
8/22/2006 8:40 PM
Wayne says, "Bawdy bathhouses have largely been replaced by couples shopping at Bed, Bath and Beyond." Actually there is a resurrection of gay bathhouses. Just ask Mr. Flex who just built a 50,000 sq ft facility in Ohio. More and more are popping up.
posted by , at
8/22/2006 10:25 PM
Wayne says, "Bawdy bathhouses have largely been replaced by couples shopping at Bed, Bath and Beyond." Actually there is a resurrection of baths. Just ask Mr. Flex who just built a 50,000 sq ft facility in Ohio.
posted by , at
8/22/2006 10:29 PM
"That statement is in no way supporting public sex in parks. That statement was in response to people who have made somewhat disparaging remarks re: gay men they deem to be promiscuous."
And where, pray tell, did Wayne disparage promiscuous men in his essay? Where did I disparage them? Where did anyone else do it in this thread? People have stated that promiscuity is not for them personally, but that's hardly disparagement. Your post complaining about "sex-negative condemnation" makes even less sense than before.
posted by DC HAMPTON JACOBS, at
8/23/2006 9:51 AM
Stuffed Animal,
Earlier, Anonymous said:
"Anonymous sex with total strangers, and promiscuity is not now, and never has been a part of my 'culture'"
Having anonymous sex with total strangers does not equal having sex in public. There are gay men who enjoy sex with strangers. And there are plenty of gay bathhouses (or "sex clubs" that exist purely for that purpose). Peruse Gay.com or the m4m section of Craigslist.
While many of us may not chose to engage in that type of behavior, it is inaccurate to claim that this type of behavior is not part of gay culture. I think it is unfortunate that some of us are so quick to distance ourselves from it simply because it is supposedly bad for the "gay image". Let's leave the moralizing to evangelical Christians.
posted by , at
8/23/2006 4:33 PM
Pursuing anonymous sex is not part of Gay culture any more than crack addiction is part of Black culture or anorexia is part of teen culture. It's a compulsive behavior. Anonymous sex pursuit isn't synonymous with non-monogamy, either; the two things are becoming confused here, and they shouldn't. And we are not concerned about sex with anonymous partners because of "the Gay image." We're concerned about it because of the increased likelihood of HIV transmission. We don't want people to get sick and/or die! Please don't act like the AIDS crisis never happened.
posted by DC HAMPTON JACOBS, at
8/23/2006 5:02 PM
Stuffed Animal,
I take it you've never heard of condoms.
It is undeniable that on average, gay men have more sexual partners than their hetero counterparts. There have been plenty of studies which indicate that this is the case. So what? If they are practicing safe sex, why does it matter?
I hardly think that promiscuity and the prusuit of anonymous sex can be compared to crack addiction. Are there gay men who are sex addicts? Of course there are. However, there are also many men who prefer to have casual sex from time to time without any emotional entanglements. Please don't act like the invention of condoms never happened.
posted by , at
8/23/2006 6:26 PM
Anonymous,
Most men who engage consistantly in nameless, faceless sex do not take the time to use protection.
IF gay men have more partners than their heterosexual counterparts, it's because they can. And that is a big if, considering the only studies I've seen are greatly exaggerated numbers put out by the Family Research Council. Unless the studies you site are from the 70's and early 80's. then you are probably correct.
There is a difference between promiscuity and anonymous sex. Before I met Scott, I would consider myself to have been rather promiscuous, but never anonymous; never nameless, faceless. Within the bounds of promiscuity, there is always possibility. It's the difference between seeking company and just taking a few minutes to get your rocks off, the latter of which I would consider unhealthy. And no, it is not a judgement, it's a concern. Because when I see a drowning man, I want to throw him a line.
Furthermore, the majority of the men in this day and age who consistantly seek anonymous sex do so because of psychological problems, or drug problems, or both. It's for this reason also, that I feel concern.
I've never personally been there, but I know people who have. And it's a dark, dark world they live in. Desperation is a scary place.
posted by jekelhyde, at
8/23/2006 8:00 PM
Condoms can only work if you use them, and men who pursue anonymous sexual encounters tend not to use them, just as jekelhyde pointed out. And I never said promiscuity was comparable to crack addiction. Didn't someone here say "try reading the post before blowing your top?" Maybe he should take his own advice.
posted by DC HAMPTON JACOBS, at
8/24/2006 10:16 AM
Well there, you guys have said it. Gay guys have more sex and the ones who are promiscuous are not taking the time to use condoms. Hmmm... and so AIDS is still spreading??? That is insane.
posted by , at
8/24/2006 12:11 PM
Stuffed Animal,
You said, "Pursuing anonymous sex is not part of Gay culture any more than crack addiction is part of Black culture or anorexia is part of teen culture. It's a compulsive behavior."
So that's NOT making a comparison?
Ok....
posted by , at
8/24/2006 12:22 PM
HIV infection is indeed spreading again, in communities of color and among younger Gay men of all ethnicities. Careless, often anonymous sexual contact is probably the biggest culprit. I would recommend that everyone here check out an ABC News documentary that's airing tonight (10:00 PM Eastern/9:00 PM Central). It's called "Out Of Control: AIDS in Black America."
posted by DC HAMPTON JACOBS, at
8/24/2006 12:28 PM
I don't get it. A disease that will shorten your life (ie: kill you eventually) lessen and lower the quality of life and yet gay men are still putting themselves at risk? And drug addicts I can at least understnad - they are not thinking coherently. And of course the other minor groups that are contracting AIDS because of unknown exposure ( cheating husbands, cheating drug addcits, bad blood, accidental exposure in hospitals etc..) But to put yourself knowingly into harms way just does not make sense. Why hasn't this epidemic been stopped! We know how to stop it and yet - you guys are saying quite openly that some gays just don't take the time to protect? How irresponsible is that?? I don't get it.
posted by , at
8/24/2006 4:10 PM
Let me give you a single word that you can use as a key to understanding this irresponsible behavior:
SHAME.
When felt deeply enough, shame perverts the thinking, and prompts a person to engage in the most self-destructive behavior imaginable. Anorexia. Alcoholism. Self-mutilation. Lethal sexuality. It all comes from the same place.
posted by DC HAMPTON JACOBS, at
8/24/2006 5:13 PM
No one believes youStuffed Animal - does someone else have an answer.
posted by , at
8/24/2006 5:57 PM
Killing yourself because of SHAME??? I don't buy it.
posted by , at
8/24/2006 5:58 PM
Okay, then, you provide an answer. Why do Gay men engage in suicidal behavior? I'd be most interested in hearing your theory.
posted by DC HAMPTON JACOBS, at
8/24/2006 6:29 PM
Most gay men who consistantly engage in nameless sex have mental problems and/or drug problems. Some of the mental problems come from family, some come from lack of acceptance. Some are simple chemical imbalances that could be repaired with medication or therapy or both. So they engage in unprotected sex because they don't think their life is worth it. Usually because someone has told them either in words or actions that their life isn't worth it. You said drug addicts aren't thinking clearly. Neither are gay men who feel they are not worthy of intimacy and resort to blind sex instead; sex that is devoid of passion, true desire. Sex that is degrading, and frankly akin to rape. They think the climax can kill all their pain. It is a self-medicating process, as is drug and alcohol abuse. And just as drug and alcohol abuse is a slow suicide, so is sex without protection.
posted by jekelhyde, at
8/24/2006 7:56 PM
I apologize for this being off-topic, but maybe I can stretch and say it's about celebrities and popular media.... I want to publicize this as I found it disturbing. Wayne, feel free to remove this (or place it elsewhere) if you wish. But I hope the word gets spread re Mr. O'Brien.
-----------------------------
late August 24, 2006
I just had an experience of having to doubt, or wanting to doubt, that my eyes and ears just perceived what they perceived. I caught a bit of an interview of Conan O'Brien by Charlie Rose, apparently in advance of O'Brien's hosting of the Emmy Awards on Sunday. They talked about this situation where O'Brien went to Finland, playing up his physical resemblence to the president of that country. Rose played a video of "highlights" of O'Brien's trip. There was a very painful long-lasting, horrifying, unbelievable bit where O'Brien reads the name of a tenant some building whose name is Force Fagerstrom. (And O'Brien pronounces it FAG not Fayg.) O'Brien knocks on Fagerstrom's door to try to meet him. Fagerstrom is not home. Then O'Brien is shown outside the building aggressively yelling "FAGerstrom! FAGerstrom!"
And Charlie Rose didn't say a word about this bit.
I couldn't believe how offensive it was, that this even made it on TV (much less Charlie Rose). What if the guy's name were Niggerstrom? Would O'Brien make fun of his name, and shout out "Niggerstrom! Niggerstrom!"
Conan O'Brien now has something in common with Fred Phelps in terms of being OK with "that word."
And the harassment of that person (never seen)...unbelievable.
posted by , at
8/25/2006 1:21 AM
did they show O'brien in the same shot as that building and was his voiced dubbed in later?? Either way it was a stupid skit but it may have been manipulated to imitate having really done those things.
posted by , at
8/25/2006 1:43 PM
I think people who engage in risky behavior have mental health issues and do not value theirs or anyone else's life. Now - stuffed animal - are you ashamed of being gay? You sound so ready to bite or argue that I just don't get it. No wonder people have piqued on you. I don't think it's a gay thing. I just think you have a huge chip on your shoulder.
posted by , at
8/25/2006 1:46 PM
Why is it OK in the GLBT community to talk about "fag hags" and not just roll one's eyes and walk away from some would-be comedian saying "FAGerstrom"?
Good grief. Hollywood claims to be tolerant of gay people yet people within the Hollywood community love to make fun of gay people all the time.
Comes with the territory.
posted by , at
8/26/2006 1:02 PM
I guess it's the same thing with members of the black community using the "n" word with each other, but it's forbidden for members of other ethnicities to use the word. It's the way it's used. If I call my partner a fag, he gets the joke. There is no hate, ignorance, or malice intended. The word is just a word. When uttered from the lips of a heterosexual, the word becomes malicious and hurtful, even if that was not the intention, it's the perception. Just my thought on the matter. But for the record, the Fagerstrom skit was just a stupid skit that I wasn't personally offended by. It just simply was not funny. On the other hand, I'll laugh up a blue streak when straight actors go over the top in trying to act gay. It's called not taking yourself too seriously.
posted by jekelhyde, at
8/26/2006 1:44 PM
"You said, 'Pursuing anonymous sex is not part of Gay culture any more than crack addiction is part of Black culture or anorexia is part of teen culture. It's a compulsive behavior.' So that's NOT making a comparison?"
There you go again, confusing anonymous sex with promiscuity . . .
posted by DC HAMPTON JACOBS, at
8/26/2006 2:39 PM
"I think people who engage in risky behavior have mental health issues and do not value theirs or anyone else's life."
I think it's reasonable to define profound shame as a mental health issue, and I also think that shame would affect how one behaved in relation to one's values.
"Now - stuffed animal - are you ashamed of being gay?"
No. Are you?
"I just think you have a huge chip on your shoulder."
That's not a chip. That's my faithful friend Rocky the Flying Squirrel!
posted by DC HAMPTON JACOBS, at
8/26/2006 2:45 PM
Well - any grown man who uses humor or a stuffed squirrel to address a real issue that is deeply disturbing him is no doubt underdeveloped. Good luck with your fantsy world.
posted by , at
8/26/2006 10:58 PM
Anonymous,
Stop it. Stop being so mean and hateful. I don't know what the problem is, but it seems that stuffed animal is being persecuted for his religious conviction. Regardless, you are being especially venemous. This school yard bullying needs to cease. It's cruel and heartless. Just stop, OK. I know I sound like a friggin hippie rap session, but if we all just practice the golden rule the world would be a much better place. Do unto others, right? So do it dammit.
posted by jekelhyde, at
8/26/2006 11:50 PM
Stuffed Animal is not being persecuted for his religious convictions. He is just an annoying, pitiful person who hides his insecurities behind childish banter and a nickname that is a euphamism for "fat guy".
posted by , at
8/27/2006 8:38 AM
No one is choosing him for HIS religious convictions. But boy he sure shoots at the feet of others who have something different to believe (so I have noticed) Anyhow, he is just an annoying guy with insecurities (as is obvious in in posts) But JH, I admire your desire to protect those of lesser fortune. That shows respect.
posted by , at
8/27/2006 11:57 AM
Stuffed animal - you are now re-writing the DSM? Honestly, in all sincerity - have you looked into getting some counseling for your self-esteem?
posted by , at
8/27/2006 12:32 PM
It doesn't really matter why, I guess. I am very uncomfortable with someone getting ganged up on. I stand by my original plea. Just stop being mean. Regardless of whether or not something he said may have offended you, it's no call for calling him fat or even insecure. We all have to follow our own path and I think many of you are taking what he says too personally. Sure, I could get offended when he states that promiscuity has never been part of his culture, but if it isn't, it isn't. Good for you. Live your life. Be happy. There is no time for meanness in life. It only fosters more meanness; more intolerance; more hate. I know I sound like a whiney little queen, but I don't care. I am just very uncomfortable with this personal attack. Hope everyone understands.
posted by jekelhyde, at
8/27/2006 1:52 PM
My self-esteem is in a very healthy state, I assure you. It may even be a little too healthy! Go ahead and attack me all you like. Call me a "fat guy." I've heard that before. Big deal! I'm not some shrinking violet who's going to wilt and die if bad people say mean things to me. I know how to take care of myself, and I also know enough to consider the source of verbal abuse. It's obvious that you attack me to avoid serious discussion of risky behavior in Gay men. Why is that? Is it because you aren't emotionally equipped to discuss a topic like that? Are you hiding a problem with low self-esteem? Why didn't you answer my question about being ashamed of your sexual orientation? And what did you mean by that reference to the Diagnostic and Mental Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM)? Are you trying to imply that being Lesbian or Gay is a mental illness? If you are, then you're the one living in a fantasy world.
posted by DC HAMPTON JACOBS, at
8/27/2006 3:07 PM
I know you don't me to defend you. But, I'm not. I'm defending a principle. Because, yes, you are a strong person who is secure and comfortable in his skin. But there are many who are not. It's strictly the principle of the thing that bothers me.
posted by jekelhyde, at
8/27/2006 4:28 PM
Stuffed Animal,
Your rambling posts suggest that you are an uneducated individual with an axe to grind.
Did you graduate from high school?
posted by , at
8/27/2006 7:01 PM
"Your rambling posts suggest that you are an uneducated individual with an axe to grind. Did you graduate from high school?"
Yes. With academic honors, and a college scholarship. Did you?
posted by DC HAMPTON JACOBS, at
8/28/2006 8:56 AM
Is calling him insecure an insult? He really needs to talk to someone.
posted by , at
8/28/2006 11:32 AM
You know by the same token of do unto others - that sort of negates this whole blog. Don't chya' think?
posted by , at
8/28/2006 12:22 PM
Could it be everyone has covered the topic to his or her satisfaction, and it's time to move on? I rather think so. There's nothing quite so pathetic as trading useless insults.
posted by DC HAMPTON JACOBS, at
8/28/2006 2:17 PM
so you admit to insulting people. hmmm? just saying.
posted by , at
8/28/2006 2:54 PM
Stuffed Animal,
You are so easy to fuck with. I can play you like a violin.
posted by , at
8/28/2006 7:03 PM
Actually, I don't think Do unto others negates this blog, because the "others" did first. My father is a literal, turn the other cheek man. I believe that a person has a right to defend himself and a responsiblilty to educate when necessary. I respect your views, but I don't agree with them. Wayne is doing what needs to be done. Activism isn't pretty, but it is necessary.
posted by jekelhyde, at
8/28/2006 10:02 PM
justify it however you want.
posted by , at
8/28/2006 11:02 PM
It's not a justification, simply an opinion. Just like your opinion and no less valid. Neither statement was based in fact, just a belief to which we are both entitled. It's all good.
posted by jekelhyde, at
8/29/2006 7:33 PM
df gds
Looking for a better, cheaper and smarter software to convert DVD to iphone Have a
free trial of this DVD to iPhone. To satisfy the needs of iPhone users who want to convert DVD to iPhone for enjoyment, we
developed this DVD to iPhone Converter which makes sharing DVD videos on iPhone to be a simple program.
iphone to PC Transfer is an free and easy-to-use utility for iPhone user.
posted by Unknown, at
5/06/2010 11:57 PM
<< Home
