IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Nah.
Wasn't really suggesting that "you are confused about your own sexuality," although I was aware that it could be taken that way. I'm sure your hetero credentials are impeccable, but I also carry away the impression that you are seriously queasy—or, if you prefer, old enough and Southern enough—on the subject of same-sex couples and coupling. With your formative influences I might feel the same way; after working in San Francisco for a third of a century your attitudes seem merely droll.

When you say that you "do not care about anyone's sexual proclivities, and...believe that's it's no one's business and should not be openly discussed, let alone displayed," am I to understand that you find all public romantic displays—kissing, hand-holding, embracing— or discussions of such attachments offensive? You must not get asked to many weddings. But stay! Perhaps you are not scandalized at boys and girls together and would prefer merely that boy-boy or girl-girl couples keep their goddamn hands off one another so that decent people don't have to look at them? In which case, there certainly appears to be a "protected class" here, and it ain't the fags.

cordially,
New In general, I do find public displays inappropriate.
Not all of them, certainly not holding hands, hugging, etc. but slobbering all over each other tongue-down-the-throat whilst engaged in heavy petting or more, yes, that is inappropriate in public. Even when I was younger ("Get a room" I often muttered). And that attitude was and is definitely NOT restricted to homosexuals, whom I might add, in my limited experience, are far LESS likely to grope one another in public than are heteros.

In simpler words, "Why is one's sexuality such a big goddamned deal?" I seriously don't get it. But I will admit that I am of the strong opinion that anyone claiming the need for "special consideration" on account of it is a loon.
     "Like any other normal couple"? - (mmoffitt) - (68)
         Yeah, why not? -NT - (drook) - (53)
             Normal Couple? - (mmoffitt) - (52)
                 Re: Normal Couple? - (pwhysall) - (49)
                     "Normal" couple != "Normal couple". - (mmoffitt) - (48)
                         Gay is perfectly natural. - (pwhysall) - (21)
                             Being Black or White is not behavior. - (mmoffitt) - (20)
                                 Two things - (drook) - (13)
                                     That's an argument I'm not making. - (mmoffitt) - (10)
                                         So, mmoffitt... - (rcareaga) - (5)
                                             Assuming your facts. - (mmoffitt) - (4)
                                                 and yet, there seems something else at work here - (rcareaga) - (3)
                                                     There may be something else, I'll grant. - (mmoffitt) - (2)
                                                         Nah. - (rcareaga) - (1)
                                                             In general, I do find public displays inappropriate. - (mmoffitt)
                                         you have to get to 50% to be normal. - (boxley) - (3)
                                             Not what I said. And you know it. -NT - (mmoffitt) - (1)
                                                 No, that's *exactly* what you said -NT - (drook)
                                             You deviate you -NT - (crazy)
                                     It used to be - (scoenye) - (1)
                                         Yup, my mother went to Catholic school - (drook)
                                 No, it's an insult when claimed something isn't normal - (crazy) - (2)
                                     Re: No, it's an insult when claimed something isn't normal - (beepster) - (1)
                                         Time and demographics - (crazy)
                                 So... - (folkert)
                                 re: It's an abuse of the word normal - (altmann) - (1)
                                     :0) -NT - (mmoffitt)
                         gasp - (beepster)
                         Are American Indians "deviant"? - (drook) - (22)
                             It's called English. And I know how to use it. -NT - (mmoffitt) - (21)
                                 Yup. Inflammatorily - (crazy) - (20)
                                     Um, no. - (mmoffitt) - (13)
                                         Re: Um, no. - (beepster) - (1)
                                             Forgive for being "textbook correct". :0) - (mmoffitt)
                                         Yes, there is a dispute - (drook) - (10)
                                             So, your conjecture is... - (mmoffitt) - (9)
                                                 Enjoy - (crazy)
                                                 DING! - (drook) - (7)
                                                     Consequence of the argument you made. - (mmoffitt) - (6)
                                                         Here, a quiz for you - (crazy)
                                                         Still framing it as "behavior" ... still wrong -NT - (drook) - (4)
                                                             The existence of the species tells me I'm right. -NT - (mmoffitt) - (3)
                                                                 Go read my book quote - (crazy) - (2)
                                                                     Re: Go read my book quote - (beepster) - (1)
                                                                         Easy googleable targets get knocked down -NT - (crazy)
                                     Re: Yup. Inflammatorily - (beepster) - (5)
                                         B.S. - (mmoffitt) - (4)
                                             see my other post. -NT - (beepster)
                                             "accepted" - (drook) - (2)
                                                 The species. HTH. -NT - (mmoffitt) - (1)
                                                     You asked it? -NT - (drook)
                         You're applying statistical definitions... - (static)
                         yes normal - (boxley)
                 Human sexuality is powerful and erratic. - (Andrew Grygus) - (1)
                     There's a reason they call it "vanilla". - (static)
         It really depends on how you read that, doesn't it? - (Another Scott) - (2)
             It's much more fun to use technically accurate, loaded words - (mmoffitt) - (1)
                 Project much? -NT - (drook)
         Took a day, but I figured out the problem - (drook) - (10)
             no boggle zone? cmon, mikey can boggle and we can educate - (boxley) - (1)
                 Hmmmmm. -NT - (mmoffitt)
             I thought it was just a boring problem of definition. -NT - (static)
             wrong on one count - (beepster) - (2)
                 Which SW has already admitted to being wrong about - (crazy) - (1)
                     right, wrong dont matter - (beepster)
             I took a few days, too. - (mmoffitt) - (3)
                 This is why scientists can't do politics - (drook) - (2)
                     Right - that's the real problem. - (mmoffitt)
                     Re: This is why scientists can't do politics - (pwhysall)

I see shrieking neurons - certain they will Never be given any Work! Contemplating seppuku.
70 ms