Gayness, Homosexuality and Anatomy

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
User avatar
Cory Duchesne
Posts: 2320
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Gayness, Homosexuality and Anatomy

Post by Cory Duchesne »

So there is this habit in Nova Scotia of calling everything "Gay."

Gay cars, gay clothes, gay pencils, gay doors, gay chairs, gay houses, gay everything. It's said with ridicule and contempt. This culture of ridicule and contempt is one of those things that's always been around. Macho culture is alive and well in Canada.

From what I've experienced, homosexual people are actually some of the most heterogenous people I know. They express themselves well, and don't have those dark, creepy compartments of the mind hiding their pathetic insecurities. They don't seem to mind much other than their own business. Sure, they like gossip... but who wouldn't when you spend your youth raked over the coals?
Interestingly, if you have a very large penis, studies show that you have a higher percent chance of being gay.

What's going on here guys? Time to man up?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10410197
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Gayness, Homosexuality and Anatomy

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Cory Duchesne wrote:So there is this habit in Nova Scotia of calling everything "Gay" ... cars, gay clothes, gay pencils, gay doors, gay chairs, gay houses, gay everything. It's said with ridicule and contempt. This culture of ridicule and contempt is one of those things that's always been around. Macho culture is alive and well in Canada.
Sometimes the different meanings of the word seem to become merged: everything that looks a bit bright, playful, progressive, feminine or entertaining is getting the label. Perhaps it's about the somewhat correct observation of the feminization of society. The powerless ridicule and contempt often contained in the phrasing is interesting nevertheless. Macho culture is a reactionairy culture, first and foremost.

Feminization has a lot to do with overproduction of sex and the wavering of cultural sex roles which controlled that production (of sexes and sexuality). With flamboyant gays the idea seems to be an exaggeration of some classical feminine and/or masculine properties. Not sure where the large penis would fit in :)

Anyway, know any good gay philosophers?
User avatar
Cory Duchesne
Posts: 2320
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Gayness, Homosexuality and Anatomy

Post by Cory Duchesne »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
Cory Duchesne wrote:So there is this habit in Nova Scotia of calling everything "Gay" ... cars, gay clothes, gay pencils, gay doors, gay chairs, gay houses, gay everything. It's said with ridicule and contempt. This culture of ridicule and contempt is one of those things that's always been around. Macho culture is alive and well in Canada.
Sometimes the different meanings of the word seem to become merged: everything that looks a bit bright, playful, progressive, feminine or entertaining is getting the label. Perhaps it's about the somewhat correct observation of the feminization of society. The powerless ridicule and contempt often contained in the phrasing is interesting nevertheless. Macho culture is a reactionairy culture, first and foremost.

Feminization has a lot to do with overproduction of sex and the wavering of cultural sex roles which controlled that production (of sexes and sexuality). With flamboyant gays the idea seems to be an exaggeration of some classical feminine and/or masculine properties. Not sure where the large penis would fit in :)

Anyway, know any good gay philosophers?

The large penis seems to be the fixation of the macho guys. Perhaps the fixation is uniform among males, but the macho ones are more willing to rely on the physical. Interestingly, these guys who seem very fixated on the penis (in a kind of proud way) are the same guys ridiculing everything for being gay. If they are not ridiculing gayness, they are usually obliterating their thoughts into alcohol and drugs, often adopting the very fashions that they might later call "gay".

Everything these guys do is based on criticism, but it's not informed - yet they hate formal critics, such as movie or literary criticism.

This is a psychology problem. We're talking about the science of becoming an individual.

There's a psychologist, Erich Neumann, who puts it like this:

"The unindividuated man identifies with those personal qualities that are symbolically masculine."


This makes sense when we analyze jocks, in particular with the way they regard the penis of each other. It becomes a reoccurring ritual to show the penis to the other males, and if you have a girlfriend, these friends will usually ask her about your penis as well. She becomes as confused and insecure as the jocks themselves. Who has the most?

It's almost like there is a need for transparency in the group to create an accurate structure for leadership, command and organization.

If you think of organizing warfare, it seems warefare is based not on love, but the right mix of terror, pride and admiration.

I had one friend tell me that after hockey games, if they won the game, they would be willing to look at each others penises naked. But if they lost the game, they would conceal their penises from eachother, almost as if they were preserving their small amount of power.

The more macho males seem really focused on physical qualities, and they group up into larger numbers. They also show more severe expressions of contempt for errors, contempt for silly weaknesses, and react more severely to fear related to concepts.

I'm sure there are many virtues that these more physical males possess. Perhaps as Schopenhauer put it, there are cases of men who have a stronger heart for stable action - the coordination of their ideas with their body. Adventurers.
Anyway, know any good gay philosophers?
The only guy who comes to mind is Alan Turing, but I don't know his work well enough to say if he's really a philosopher. I think everybody is a philosopher to some small degree.
Last edited by Cory Duchesne on Sun Jan 05, 2014 7:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Kunga
Posts: 2333
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am
Contact:

Re: Gayness, Homosexuality and Anatomy

Post by Kunga »

Weren't most of the ancient Greek philosophers gay ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual ... ent_Greece
User avatar
uncledote
Posts: 159
Joined: Tue May 12, 2009 7:14 am
Location: UK

Re: Gayness, Homosexuality and Anatomy

Post by uncledote »

Anyway, know any good gay philosophers?
Wittgenstein? Weininger?
User avatar
Cory Duchesne
Posts: 2320
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Gayness, Homosexuality and Anatomy

Post by Cory Duchesne »

When men deliberately create a seductive, feminine appearance of themselves, the women recognize their own beauty. Women who fall in love with a man who appears feminine are essentially falling in love with themselves, with their own love of charm, grace, sensitivity to detail. Romance is narcissism.

Deliberate coquettishness awakens the females masculine energy, which makes her feel more whole and alive. A man who wins a woman in this manner is in danger of losing all control. If he is not grounded in clear masculine energy of his own, his feminine appearance will become fused with her own weak masculine instincts. The two will gradually become deformed and disfigured in a confused entanglement.

Masculinity, in romance, is essentially an ability to deliberately make choices with a clear idea on how the choice will create a positive return. This is what it means to be heterosexual - to deliberately float back and forth between the two poles of masculine and feminine. Why do some men have a harder time doing this than others?

"I am a woman. Every artist is a woman and should have a taste for other women. Artists who are homosexual cannot be true artists because they prefer men. A male artist who prefers men is reverting back to normality." - Pablo Picasso

It seems Picasso needs to rely on women to flip into a feminine polarity. Almost as if he requires their assistance. Otherwise, his capacity to be woman lies dormant.

An interesting anecdote on Picasso:

"Picasso (and others like him) had a sadistic streak, an ability to inflict mental torture. If their victims had known in advance what they were getting themselves into, they would have run for the hills. In truth, most seducers lure their targets into their webs by appearing to be paragons of sweetness and affection." (Robert Greene)

The ability to "pullback" or pullout from feminine energy must be an indication of masculinity. The sadism (signs of frustration and dissapointment) must be the result of not having sufficient masculinity. Sadism is the result of deficiency of understanding, not preparing enough, not seeing through the illusion.
Elizabeth Isabelle
Posts: 3771
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Re: Gayness, Homosexuality and Anatomy

Post by Elizabeth Isabelle »

Calling things "gay" and meaning "stupid" or something like it is an unfortunate trend here in the states, too. I don't understand why they would use that on things like clothes, because gay guys are known for having a great fashion sense. Anyway, it's just an expression of prejudice, and it is ugly for that.
User avatar
Cory Duchesne
Posts: 2320
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Gayness, Homosexuality and Anatomy

Post by Cory Duchesne »

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Calling things "gay" and meaning "stupid" or something like it is an unfortunate trend here in the states, too. I don't understand why they would use that on things like clothes, because gay guys are known for having a great fashion sense. Anyway, it's just an expression of prejudice, and it is ugly for that.
Prejudice seems to be a protective mechanism, a way of warding off fear and dispatching threats. The sadism of insults is basically a way of dealing with fear. Lashing out with ridicule and contempt toward what is "gay" would appear to be rather ironic, in that it indicates a character who is fragile, vulnerable and overly sensitive. Not that there's anything wrong with those qualities. The error lies in the denial of what one actually is whilst dumping shame on another for having the same traits. The most significant difference between people is in their self awareness. A man who is not aware that he has what another man has is generally an amoral and highly combustible creature.
User avatar
Cory Duchesne
Posts: 2320
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Gayness, Homosexuality and Anatomy

Post by Cory Duchesne »

I stumbled across something interesting in Weininger's "Sex and Character"

He starts by implying that the psychology of the Male is generally more Modest:

"Strong evidence of the want of modesty in woman is to be derived from the fact that
women dress and undress in the presence of one another with the greatest freedom,
whilst men try to avoid similar circumstances. Moreover, when women are alone
together, they are very ready to discuss their physical qualities, especially with regard
to their attractiveness for men; whilst men, practically without exception, avoid all
notice of one another's sexual characters."


I can only go by my first hand experience of being male.

I was raised in a rural town and my first 14 years involved hanging out probably with more males than females. Mostly it was my male cousins. Those who I considered my "male companions" were always interested in more abstract subjects such as Legos, Mad Magazine, Monty Python, Videogames, and technology magazines. For me, math was only interesting insofar as I could reflect on statistics related to videogames, and I was never too great at math. I would borrow my grandfathers scientific american magazines just for fodder for my imagination. I never had any interest in the naked body of my male companions, I was not even curious. The naked body of women? Sure, we wanted all the peaks we could get.

However, the atmosphere of "masculine modesty" all changed when I hit puberty. I found that guys who were considered "cool" to be very sexual precocious males, largely they were the hockey players, and they were extremely liberal about getting naked and their penis was certainly regarded as a kind of prize or trophy. High levels of alcohol consumption seemed to be paired with the psychological tendency of being very phallic, very focused on the physical body and how it was valued by women.

Does size matter to women? If you are her first boyfriend, she's not going to care that much (maybe not at all), in the same way you might not care that she was too skinny. The longer you court her (without sex) and treat her well, the more attached she becomes to your personality, and she ends up developing a strong personality of her own. Your motherly nature allows her to develop her more masculine aspects, which in turn supports her capacity to be motherly. Being masculine and being motherly seem to develop side by side, as one ascends, so does the other.

Size matters to the degree that you make sex the focal point of existence. If that's all you care about, then the woman will be created in your own petty image. She will reflect what you believe about yourself and about life. If you're small down stairs, I can't think of a more bitingly satirical scenario than being rejected by woman on account of the fact that you made a big deal over something you never even had.
Last edited by Cory Duchesne on Wed Oct 02, 2013 12:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Gayness, Homosexuality and Anatomy

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Cory Duchesne wrote:However, the atmosphere of "masculine modesty" all changed when I hit puberty. I found that guys who were considered "cool" to be very sexual precocious males, largely they were the hockey players, and they were extremely liberal about getting naked and their penis was certainly regarded as a kind of prize or trophy. High levels of alcohol consumption seemed to be paired with the psychological tendency of being very phallic, very focused on the physical body and how it was valued by women.
This type of phallic centered, liberal "masculinity" hardly existed in Weiniger's time and place. It's psychologically not just a body and women centered expression of masculinity but possibly foremost mother and maternal validation centered. In Weiniger's time validation for boys was likely more paternally oriented and therefore as well shame infused.
User avatar
Cory Duchesne
Posts: 2320
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Gayness, Homosexuality and Anatomy

Post by Cory Duchesne »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote: It's psychologically not just a body and women centered expression of masculinity but possibly foremost mother and maternal validation centered.
When you say mother-centered, I wonder if you're taking into account the prostitute-mother dichotomy?

I find that when the male peacocks himself physically (becoming overly literal about his phallus) it has a corrupting influence on the women. Rather than the spiritual needs of the Woman tended to, these body-centered men focus on her solely in physical terms. She becomes, in Donald Trumps words, "a piece of ass". The courtship escalates into coitus much quicker, and so the quality of the relationship often remains at a very mundane and uninspired level.

Weininger would refer to body-centered pairing as a combination of Firebrand(male) Prostitute(female). This couple tends to leave a wake of destruction behind them, or a halo of evil rippling outward as they fall into waste. In an unlikely twist, they mature into Genius(male) Mother(female).

I know one guy from high school who is still with the same girl. He's been through cocaine and alcohol addictions, was very abusive to her at times, but they both seem to have matured quite a bit, I think partly from my influence on them. I was friends (or better, complicit) with a lot of the body-types in highschool, despite I didn't quite fit the mold. (bit of a black sheep).
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
In Weiniger's time validation for boys was likely more paternally oriented and therefore as well shame infused.
I suppose the shame is something "locked away" quite young, related to relatively base concerns. This allows the young male to immediately immerse himself in abstract, less social concerns.

If that shame is not infused early, it seems the teenage phase is one of extroversion, body centered, sensually excessive, non-diligent, ending in dissipation.... and finally, the male might have something to be ashamed of, in hindsight. What shames him is a lack of value, or a lack of phallus in the abstract. (a lack of will: will is the narrowing of consciousness, phallic in the abstract).

The body centered type reluctantly finds himself reduced to waste.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Gayness, Homosexuality and Anatomy

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Cory Duchesne wrote:
Diebert van Rhijn wrote: It's psychologically not just a body and women centered expression of masculinity but possibly foremost mother and maternal validation centered.
When you say mother-centered, I wonder if you're taking into account the prostitute-mother dichotomy?
Yes, the mother appears as oldest trade simply because she's already occupied by "the world". Her attention needs to be "earned". Some mothers are quite easily bought back though.
I suppose the shame is something "locked away" quite young, related to relatively base concerns. This allows the young male to immediately immerse himself in abstract, less social concerns.

If that shame is not infused early, it seems the teenage phase is one of extroversion, body centered, sensually excessive, non-diligent, ending in dissipation.... and finally, the male might have something to be ashamed of, in hindsight. What shames him is a lack of value, or a lack of phallus in the abstract. (a lack of will: will is the narrowing of consciousness, phallic in the abstract).
It's interesting to think about the Garden of Eden myth here where shame is the first behavior appearing after having eaten from the "knowledge of good and evil". While it's a fall from grace, it's also the "break away" consciousness effect. And yes, we do live in an increasingly shameless society which wouldn't be a problem if people wouldn't be equally witless with it. Shame as civilizing inhibitor. What would replace it? Taste?
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: Gayness, Homosexuality and Anatomy

Post by Leyla Shen »

Yes, the mother appears as oldest trade simply because she's already occupied by "the world". Her attention needs to be "earned". Some mothers are quite easily bought back though.
Mother isn't occupied by the world. Unless by "the world" you mean by the father, which would of course be synonymous in the Oedipal psyche. So junior, envious of Daddy's place in Mother, has to excel. He has to be more than father to "earn" Her attention. Hence, the symbolic phallus--unattainable for many reasons!
Between Suicides
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Gayness, Homosexuality and Anatomy

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Leyla Shen wrote:
Diebert wrote:Yes, the mother appears as oldest trade simply because she's already occupied by "the world". Her attention needs to be "earned". Some mothers are quite easily bought back though.
Mother isn't occupied by the world. Unless by "the world" you mean by the father, which would of course be synonymous in the Oedipal psyche. So junior, envious of Daddy's place in Mother, has to excel. He has to be more than father to "earn" Her attention. Hence, the symbolic phallus--unattainable for many reasons!
There's only her world and neither son or father could be ever part of that again: hence the unattainable! The oedipal conflict is more about "mother as resource", one of those games nature lets us practice in advance. The fantasies then and later merely a clever device get things moving and fuel the imagination of psycho-analysts. But what remains are the realities of resources: nourishment and offspring.
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: Gayness, Homosexuality and Anatomy

Post by Leyla Shen »

There's only her world and neither son or father could be ever part of that again: hence the unattainable!
Well, I wouldn't want to deny you your first hand experience, so I'm sure that describes your relationship with your mother well enough and hers with your father.

As for me, I have two sons, am still their mother, and they are still part of my life; they've grown up and changed though. I guess it must be unusual for most mothers and sons to realise they don't need nappies and dummies to have a relationship anymore!
The oedipal conflict is more about "mother as resource", one of those games nature lets us practice in advance. The fantasies then and later merely a clever device get things moving and fuel the imagination of psycho-analysts. But what remains are the realities of resources: nourishment and offspring.
What?
Between Suicides
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Gayness, Homosexuality and Anatomy

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Leyla Shen wrote: As for me, I have two sons, am still their mother, and they are still part of my life
I wasn't talking at all about "having relationships" with ones adult children or parents. This was about subconscious psychological drivers and surely it's too soon to tell with your kids. They're probably busy connecting back into some woman's world as we speak (note: this is meant abstractly). But at least it keeps them busy and motivated! Nappies and dummies do not stop existing because you make them disappear. Only babies fall for that one!
User avatar
Cory Duchesne
Posts: 2320
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Gayness, Homosexuality and Anatomy

Post by Cory Duchesne »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
Cory Duchesne wrote:
Diebert van Rhijn wrote: It's psychologically not just a body and women centered expression of masculinity but possibly foremost mother and maternal validation centered.
When you say mother-centered, I wonder if you're taking into account the prostitute-mother dichotomy?
Yes, the mother appears as oldest trade simply because she's already occupied by "the world". Her attention needs to be "earned".
I suppose it's true that with a young girl who has strong prostitute-instincts, her psychology always seems very pessimistic about ever being able to control, manage or maintain the relationship. Even when she puts her heart and soul into it, there's a certain craziness about her perceptions. This type of woman tends to have much worse self confidence, a cowardice taken to an abnormal extreme, highly fantasy prone, suspicious, a tendency towards poetry and magical thinking, and is often unhappy or troubled. She can also be very happy and motherly, but it's in a strange context that seems somehow removed from objective reality; she's a more magical creature, and hence, a more disastrous force. Therefore she gravitates to men who allow her to enter into unrealistic fantasies, hence, the prostitute mothers a man's grandiosity. A long term relationship with a prostitute-type produces a man with a grandiose way of seeing himself in relation to her and to the world. He might, later in life, try to blame her for filling his head with insane ideas about himself.

On the other hand, a young girl with motherly-instincts is seeing things far more pragmatically, focusing on more practical realities. Hence, the girl with motherly instincts ends up settling down with a stable family life.

It's interesting to think about the Garden of Eden myth here where shame is the first behavior appearing after having eaten from the "knowledge of good and evil". While it's a fall from grace, it's also the "break away" consciousness effect. And yes, we do live in an increasingly shameless society which wouldn't be a problem if people wouldn't be equally witless with it. Shame as civilizing inhibitor. What would replace it? Taste?
Shame tends to maintain conventional class structure and also a fear of losing status and a greed to maintain it. So there is a merit in shamelessness.

As you say, those who are shameless tend to become shameless for the wrong reasons, often it's because they've been so demoralized by defeat that they lose all self worth, becoming dog-like.

On the other hand, shamelessness can be approached deliberately. A man might overcome his shame simply because he doesn't want to be a slave to it, he refuses to go through life afraid. The result would seem to be a good philosopher, scientist or artist. The philosopher organizes the general principles that allow the event to occur. The scientist notices the essential details (as it is the devil who is in the details). An artist has to create "taste" as his job is to be a chef. He serves the meal.
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: Gayness, Homosexuality and Anatomy

Post by Leyla Shen »

This was about subconscious psychological drivers ...
Which is why your following statements are contradictory:
There's only her world and neither son or father could be ever part of that again: hence the unattainable!
They're probably busy connecting back into some woman's world as we speak (note: this is meant abstractly). But at least it keeps them busy and motivated! Nappies and dummies do not stop existing because you make them disappear. Only babies fall for that one!
...and surely it's too soon to tell with your kids.
No more or less than it is with any adult.
Between Suicides
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: Gayness, Homosexuality and Anatomy

Post by Leyla Shen »

PS: I intuit that it should be pointed out that the above is exactly what it means to say the phallus itself is symbolic and unattainable.
Between Suicides
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Gayness, Homosexuality and Anatomy

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Yes, two different things here. You interpreted the idea of competing for attention of woman-as-resource as some dependency or diaper situation ("your old world?"). But it was meant as a projection that naturally moves on to other things when growing up. When I said "its too soon to tell" I meant just whatever you thought to claim about them in that regard.

Naturally this development works for any adult. The point was to differentiate between maternal projection and paternal validation. The phallus is never unattainable since it's defined by me here as the process of attainment itself or the means toward it. Your mileage might vary :)
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: Gayness, Homosexuality and Anatomy

Post by Leyla Shen »

Yes. Some people have no idea they're burning a lot of fuel runnung around in circles, getting nowhere. (:
Between Suicides
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Gayness, Homosexuality and Anatomy

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »


It seems that's what people are about! It's even facilitated by giving them a lot of fuel and circles to lap, calling it progress or "lap of luxury".

It doesn't matter really as long as wisdom keeps getting born in shitty stables. What else to hope for? Reform?
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: Gayness, Homosexuality and Anatomy

Post by Leyla Shen »

What an exquisitely bourgeois distortion of the Christian birth of wisdom myth.

Like a Judas desperately turning over every inch of the stables long after Jesus's death to see if he can find Christ again.
Between Suicides
User avatar
Tomas
Posts: 4328
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 2:15 am
Location: North Dakota

Re: Gayness, Homosexuality and Anatomy

Post by Tomas »

Cory Duchesne wrote:So there is this habit in Nova Scotia of calling everything "Gay."

Gay cars, gay clothes, gay pencils, gay doors, gay chairs, gay houses, gay everything. It's said with ridicule and contempt. This culture of ridicule and contempt is one of those things that's always been around. Macho culture is alive and well in Canada.

From what I've experienced, homosexual people are actually some of the most heterogenous people I know. They express themselves well, and don't have those dark, creepy compartments of the mind hiding their pathetic insecurities. They don't seem to mind much other than their own business. Sure, they like gossip... but who wouldn't when you spend your youth raked over the coals?
Interestingly, if you have a very large penis, studies show that you have a higher percent chance of being gay.

What's going on here guys? Time to man up?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10410197
Calling everything "gay" it seems started in the late 1980s around here in Minot, North Dakota.

I used to babysit this boy named Charles (and his three littler sisters) back in the late 1970s. As with kids they take in everything modern whether good, bad or downright ugly from all sources (tv, cinema, newspapers, parents, fellow playmates, etc.) Zoom forward to the late 1980s and he attached the word "gay" to most everything (by this time he was 14-15 years old) and as confused as the next boy is at that age. I was "gay" in that I played the banjo left-handed .. but played the steel guitar right handed! Or that I said "threads" (referring to my clothes) instead of just saying clothes!

His younger sister's doings were gay, how they played with dolls instead of trucks and marbles etc. It's the culture at that time to turn everything on its head as I did back in the early to mid 1960s :-)

As far as the big dicks go, yes, Charles was hung like a Shetland pony. He seemed to have some homosexual leanings with his playmates and later into his mid-teens but always like girls but he had somewhat "thick" eyeglasses so it was glasses all the time. Contact lenses came later as his mom and stepdad were druggies and alcoholics, but another story. One of his close friends like to hop on top of him and dry hump him and Scott was hung too!

I've three 1st cousins on my mother's side who leaned "gay" growing up, one still is a fudgepacker actively out for the ass, another is still bi-sexual and the third cousin turned straight when an old friend of mine (now dead by murder in 1988 by her drugged-up boyfriend) turned him on to vaginal sex whereas before it was blow-job sex but no anal cavity sex.

Me? Never turned me on growing up other than the boys shower activities in phy-ed class checking out whether Joe or Steve had any pubic hairs coming out in the 7th or 8th grade. :-)

Same with the neighborhood boys engaging in "circle jerks" -- not my cup of tea.

Using the term "gay" to describe anything was a big "no" as I was already a seasoned adult and all the passing fancies of my younger years were water over the bridge by that time.
Don't run to your death
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Gayness, Homosexuality and Anatomy

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Leyla Shen wrote:What an exquisitely bourgeois distortion of the Christian birth of wisdom myth.

Like a Judas desperately turning over every inch of the stables long after Jesus's death to see if he can find Christ again.
Distortion? That word implies so much faith. And there's even no stable to be found in the Christian story -- it's Isis her dwelling :)

Everyone who speaks truth is Christ as far as I'm concerned. Judas was the Miss Moneypenny of the story ultimately....
Locked