Straight married men having gay sex?

[windtalkerways]

Bronxie...as I said...Lex brought
his personal life into this and he
must realize that then things are
open for discussion.

Though some people do try to
rewrite what can and can't be
mentioned.

All we are doing is giving our
opinion on the subject. If people
are not willing to listen to all sides,
they should keep personal matters
that way.

 

[Matthew]

Well, this has all been very instructive.

People feel real super comfortable projecting their own issues onto others, passing unsolicited and unnecessary judgment on others, and then act surprised or hurt when 'others' react with anger?

Please!

Express your opinion all you want. But when you step on somebody's toes, they're going to yell, and rightfully so. Deal with it.

 

[windtalkerways]

But then things escalate...when an 'anything
goes' mentality is acceptable on a board.

No one was rude. Opinions were given in a
decent manner but I suppose if it had been
a fairly anonymous poster and not Lex, their
response may have been construed as a tad
harsh.

 

[Lex]

I would have told you off as well, Vince, Windy, if it were my wife you folk were discussing. The fact is you both left the realm of discussing a specific relationship, and began discussing a specific person several posts back. I believe that is where Lex began to lose his shit, correct me if I'm wrong.

I don't think Lex was upset when you were judging him, but you began to judge Mrs. Lex and that's just not cool. She doesn't post here, so we can't do that. Reading between the lines of your posts, one would say that you called her a weak, inarticulate, needy enabler among other things. Them's fighting words.

I would have been far nastier if I was in love with her.

I'm ready to start falling in love with her, Lex, so do bring her along. She can have first crack at that bell.

Bronxy--You have said exactly what I was thinking and have really described where I was coming from.

EnglishGentleman--Thanks for your feedback. I will, from time to time disappoint based on expectations as I am not perfect.

Windtalker--if you can't see the difference between discussing a topic and discussion a person, then we need go no further.

Vinny--It's not about me liking or disliking what you said. Please see Bronxy's points above.

I regret losing my temper and at the same time, when it comes to my loved ones, the kids gloves come off.


Carry on.

 

[windtalkerways]

Pax, Lex.

 

[The Dark Venetian]

<Content Deleted by User>

 

[AlteredEgo]

Judgemental and ageist, Vince? I've learned from 5 year olds and schooled senior citizens. Age is a worthless number. When I can learn from you, I will. However, it won't be because you have 11 years on me. Ridiculous.

Windy and Vince, I'm not even saying you shouldn't have said the things you said. I'm just saying I understand why it upset Lex, and you should be able to as well. I'm not saying it's right to swear at you, or to say hurtful things. I'm just saying if your coments had been directed to me, we would have had words. (I don't always do the right thing when I'm angry.)

As I said before-

When you two initially commented on the nature of Lex's relationship no one batted an eye. Lex tried to explain to you how it was, but your persistence only came accross as a direct attack on him, and an indirect one on his poor, dejected wife, who's such a dumb punk that she can't even figure out what kind of marriage she wants, or how to get it. Sure, you guys had all the niceties in all the right places. But tell me this: What happens if I say, "I don't mean to offend you." but then I pee on your shoe, and follow that up with, "Excuse me." Are you still offended? I would be. The offense was not in the offering up of your opinions, but in the persisting that you just knew his wife was being treated unfairly, and was unhappy. Yes, guys. That's really obnoxious.

 

[D_alex8]

-The terms we use, Straight, Bi, Gay, Lesbian, Et Cetera... are confusing as hell, and again I blame the British, it was all so simple until the damn Victorians got hold of things...

I think your blame here is directed at the wrong target. In English-language and German-language sexology alike, the predominant discourse prior to the First World War was that of a "third sex" or "intermediate sex" that considered 'non-heterosexual' sexuality to be a separate articulation of 'fused' male and female gender. This category is used widely within specialist and general literature alike from the 1840s through to the 1910s (cf. Karl Heinrich Ulrichs, Krafft-Ebing, Magnus Hirschfeld, Xavier Mayne, Edward Carpenter, John Addington Symonds, Albert Moll, and numerous other British, German and American writers from this period). Although terms such as 'homosexuality' and 'bisexuality' were coined during this period, they had limited currency, and 'bisexuality' in particular was generally taken to mean 'possessing attributes of both genders', as per the construct of 'third/intermediate sex'.

It was particularly in the wake of World War One and the knowledge that this spread of male-male sexuality among troops on both the allied and axis sides that more discreet notions of homosexuality, bisexuality, transgenderism, etc. (which had hitherto been conflated within the discourse of 'sexual intermediacy') gained increased currency, as noted in such contemporary sources as The British Society for the Study of Sex Psychology: First Annual Report (7th July 1915) or in Magnus Hirschfeld's Sittengeschichte des Weltkrieges [in English as A History of Morals of the World War, publ. 1930].

 

[SurferGirlCA]

Back to our originally scheduled topic...

Human sexuality is obviously more fluid for some people... and even life situations can alter sexual behavior (sex in prisons, being just one example). For those people who tend to see things in black and white terms (because of THEIR sexual proclivities), it seems harder to accept the grey areas others may inhabit. Any group each of us is not a part of is automatically suspect, even if we all don't feel the need to cast aspersions on others because of those differences. This not only impacts issues of sexual orientation, but also gender, race, ethnicity, religious affiliation, etc. It doesn't really matter if that's good or bad, it's human nature.

Compounding that, human sexual behavior is frontloaded with even more baggage because of a) societal expectations and b) the fact that it's really the ONLY behavior we exhibit that is most directly connected to who we are as individuals. Almost everything else we do in life is based on how we were raised or what we were taught at school or what we learned in church or how we interacted in social settings, etc. Sex, at least, initially, is something that is more instinctive and less an instructed behavior. Any attack or even criticism of who you are sexually (by a partner or by greater society) can cut deeply, because it's a fundamental reflection of who you are in a way that a learned behavior is not.

In terms of the initial post, even though it's 2006, I am sure there are still married men who probably lean to the homosexual end of the Kinsey scale, but who are not willing/able to accept the societal judgements that would go along with living out that option. I'm sure there are also married men who are primarily hetero-oriented, but maybe experiment a bit, and it's just as myopic for gay guys to call them "closeted". And I am also sure there are married men whose own sexuality is less restrictive and who have a greater capacity for deeper relationships with both women and men. I think our need to label each other is the problem that people bump into constantly when things seem to get muddled. As long as the parties involved are adults and honest, these are things only they can work out - or not.

 

[novice_btm]

I think your blame here is directed at the wrong target. In English-language and German-language sexology alike, the predominant discourse prior to ...

Mmm... and he's smart too! Oh, I mean, excellent post, Alex. No, seriously, it really was a good post.

 

[AlteredEgo]

Back to our originally scheduled topic...

Human sexuality is obviously more fluid for some people... and even life situations can alter sexual behavior (sex in prisons, being just one example). For those people who tend to see things in black and white terms (because of THEIR sexual proclivities), it seems harder to accept the grey areas others may inhabit. Any group each of us is not a part of is automatically suspect, even if we all don't feel the need to cast aspersions on others because of those differences. This not only impacts issues of sexual orientation, but also gender, race, ethnicity, religious affiliation, etc. It doesn't really matter if that's good or bad, it's human nature.

Compounding that, human sexual behavior is frontloaded with even more baggage because of a) societal expectations and b) the fact that it's really the ONLY behavior we exhibit that is most directly connected to who we are as individuals. Almost everything else we do in life is based on how we were raised or what we were taught at school or what we learned in church or how we interacted in social settings, etc. Sex, at least, initially, is something that is more instinctive and less an instructed behavior. Any attack or even criticism of who you are sexually (by a partner or by greater society) can cut deeply, because it's a fundamental reflection of who you are in a way that a learned behavior is not.

In terms of the initial post, even though it's 2006, I am sure there are still married men who probably lean to the homosexual end of the Kinsey scale, but who are not willing/able to accept the societal judgements that would go along with living out that option. I'm sure there are also married men who are primarily hetero-oriented, but maybe experiment a bit, and it's just as myopic for gay guys to call them "closeted". And I am also sure there are married men whose own sexuality is less restrictive and who have a greater capacity for deeper relationships with both women and men. I think our need to label each other is the problem that people bump into constantly when things seem to get muddled. As long as the parties involved are adults and honest, these are things only they can work out - or not.

Yeeeah. What she said.

Hey, Alex, it doesn't surprise me that the german sexual terms and english ones are so closely linked. If I'm not mistaken, the English language was developed by displaced Germanic tribes which settled most of what is now called Great Britain and Ireland. I found your post fascinating.

Still, I think the book recomended by The Dark Venetian sounds like a good read for beach season.

 

[SurferGirlCA]

Yeeeah. What she said.

Hey, Alex, it doesn't surprise me that the german sexual terms and english ones are so closely linked. If I'm not mistaken, the English language was developed by displaced Germanic tribes which settled most of what is now called Great Britain and Ireland. I found your post fascinating.

Still, I think the book recomended by The Dark Venetian sounds like a good read for beach season.

Thanks, Bronx! I share your headspace a lot of the time, too. :smile:

As for alex8, aren't most of his posts fascinating? On one level or another. :wink:

 

[Lex]

@ The Dark Venetian-- Thanks for sharing this book. I agree with Bronxy that is would be a good beach book for this summer.

 

[The Dark Venetian]

<Content Deleted by User>

 

[D_alex8]

Hmmm... I guess the Thebian Band was in the Closet???!!!

This is all interesting, but I guess what I am saying is, Victorianism, is the rediscovery by a few, that felt they had some secret knowledge, of what everyone else already just knew from way back...

What I term the Dark Age of Classification...

Yes, bless those boys from Thebes. :tongue: Of course, I don't disagree that there was homosexuality before WW1, merely that the way it was conceptualized has differed greatly between periods... which is crucial to comprehending the 'experience' of sexuality in its contemporary context, e.g. whether one conflates male-male sexuality with a broad spectrum of other perceived 'non-heterosexual' behaviors; whether one sees it as a distinct category in its own right; or whether one subdivides the category further, recognizing that a single label will never suffice.

...but I likewise agree wholeheartedly that it was that particular Victorian urge to classify, taxonomize and order that gives rise to the desire to categorize and thus pigeonhole different articulations of sexuality within modern Western culture and philosophy. :smile:

 

[SurferGirlCA]

...but I likewise agree wholeheartedly that it was that particular Victorian urge to classify, taxonomize and order that gives rise to the desire to categorize and thus pigeonhole different articulations of sexuality within modern Western culture and philosophy. :smile:

Well, if history class is in session, I just want to add that this is how f*cked-up societal views of homosexuals AND women were back then: supposedly, when Queen Victoria was presented with an antihomosexual bill to sign into law, she was so completely disgusted by the idea that lesbianism even existed, she had all references to women stricken from it. Thus, male homosexuality was made illegal, lesbianism was legal.

 

[D_alex8]

supposedly, when Queen Victoria was presented with an antihomosexual bill to sign into law, she was so completely disgusted by the idea that lesbianism even existed, she had all references to women stricken from it. Thus, male homosexuality was made illegal, lesbianism was legal.

It's uncertain whether the Queen Victoria story is apocryphal or not (although you could scarcely hope for a better example of shared Anglo-German history than QV)... but the details surrounding the attempt to outlaw lesbianism in Germany in 1910 are very well documented, as it was discussed by the German High Court... who decided not to ban it on the grounds that it would give credence to the notion of 'female sexuality'.

Some of the matters discussed by the German High Court during the Imperial era make for fascinating reading, though, with one of my favorite debates from the late 1890s bearing a title along the lines of "Should placing a male member in the mouth of another man in the same bed while the latter is asleep be considered an act of unnatural copulation?"... one can only imagine how the stuffy legal patriarchs might have conducted themselves during that (and several similar) debates.

 

[AlteredEgo]

Thanks, Bronx! I share your headspace a lot of the time, too. :smile:

As for alex8, aren't most of his posts fascinating? On one level or another. :wink:

Not that it's ever happened or anything, but if he ever posted somethig boring I'd just look at his avatar. He's often in the chatroom early in the morninng EST. Alex's wit is a difficult thing with which to keep up. (Notice I cleaned up the dangling participles in that last sentence. It was just for you, Alex8.)

 

[D_alex8]

Not that it's ever happened or anything, but if he ever posted somethig boring I'd just look at his avatar. ... (Notice I cleaned up the dangling participles in that last sentence. It was just for you, Alex8.)

Not that it's ever happened or anything, but if I ever get bored looking at dangling participles, I'd just look at what's dangling (well, more 'residing pertly' actually ) in your avatar instead... :tongue:

 

[D_Elijah_MorganWood]

I go out for rubbers and look what happens...

...all I can offer at this point is this:
"Don't judge me until you've walked a mile in my shoes"