A 4 minute 42 second homosexual education...

riceme wrote:

Bob wrote:

riceme wrote:

I have never heard of that birth order dealio either, Bob, and I've taken gender and queer studies courses at university... Might be interesting to do a little research on it though.

I thought T was yanking our chains when he posted this video and that I was gonna hafta throw down my purse and throw up my dukes. Glad that wasn't the case.

Here's what wiki has on it, rice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraternal_birth_order_and_male_sexual_orientation

Thanks, Bob. Interesting, but I'm still not sold. I'm gonna have to read some of the references at the bottom of the article, all of which save one are dated after I graduated from university, likely explaining why I never heard of this phenomenon in my queer and gender studies courses.

You had a queer and gender studies course?

Do tell. Sounds very interesting.

The problem with this "birth order" dealibob is they're claiming it only works with male fetuses. So if it is valid, that would mean the causes for female homosexuality are not the same as the causes for male homosexuality.

Bob wrote:The problem with this "birth order" dealibob is they're claiming it only works with male fetuses. So if it is valid, that would mean the causes for female homosexuality are not the same as the causes for male homosexuality.

thats ok. I didnt need an excuse. I already know Im from another planet.

Rogue wrote:


You had a queer and gender studies course?

Do tell. Sounds very interesting.

Yup. One of the few perks of attending one an extremely liberal university (aside from the Forestry and Range Mgmt Dept, which was extremely conservative). They didn't count toward my major, but they were super interesting. Went to tons of seminars on the subject/s as well. I still have all of my course study materials on my bookshelf, so I'll have to take a look-see and refresh my recomemory so we can chat about it.

riceme wrote:

Rogue wrote:


You had a queer and gender studies course?

Do tell. Sounds very interesting.

Yup. One of the few perks of attending one an extremely liberal university (aside from the Forestry and Range Mgmt Dept, which was extremely conservative). They didn't count toward my major, but they were super interesting. Went to tons of seminars on the subject/s as well. I still have all of my course study materials on my bookshelf, so I'll have to take a look-see and refresh my recomemory so we can chat about it.

do that when you have time. Im fascinated by it. I would love to hear the main subject material. for or against? did they offer physcology reasoning? was there any sexual stuff?

Rogue wrote:

do that when you have time. Im fascinated by it. I would love to hear the main subject material. for or against? did they offer physcology reasoning? was there any sexual stuff?

I will certainly dig up that stuff for you, Chrissy. Everything was absolutely, most assuredly in support of the gay community. The course studies were referred to officially as "Queer Studies" because in that community, the word "queer" had been "reclaimed" so to speak and embraced by the queer community and had no negative connotation to it whatsoever.

We explored all variety of reasonings and basis (what's the plural of basis?? "Bases"?? Whatever.). And there was lots of sexual stuff. I actually used to teach a course to incoming Freshman to the university (although it was open to all) called "Just Say Yes," meaning, just say yes to safe sex. It was an all-inclusive class... LGBTQ and Straight, in which abstinence was also included as a preferred option for people who were not in a good or healthy place to be sexually active. I still have one of the booklets I made for it hanging around here somewhere... Likely stuck in with my Queer & Gender Studies stuff, I'd imagine.

riceme wrote:

Rogue wrote:

do that when you have time. Im fascinated by it. I would love to hear the main subject material. for or against? did they offer physcology reasoning? was there any sexual stuff?

I will certainly dig up that stuff for you, Chrissy. Everything was absolutely, most assuredly in support of the gay community. The course studies were referred to officially as "Queer Studies" because in that community, the word "queer" had been "reclaimed" so to speak and embraced by the queer community and had no negative connotation to it whatsoever.

We explored all variety of reasonings and basis (what's the plural of basis?? "Bases"?? Whatever.). And there was lots of sexual stuff. I actually used to teach a course to incoming Freshman to the university (although it was open to all) called "Just Say Yes," meaning, just say yes to safe sex. It was an all-inclusive class... LGBTQ and Straight, in which abstinence was also included as a preferred option for people who were not in a good or healthy place to be sexually active. I still have one of the booklets I made for it hanging around here somewhere... Likely stuck in with my Queer & Gender Studies stuff, I'd imagine.

ohh Im excited. I hope you find it soon... seriously. Im very excited to learn from this

Rogue wrote:

ohh Im excited. I hope you find it soon... seriously. Im very excited to learn from this

I am QUITE sure that you are, Chrissy! I'll take a look for it when I get a few minutes. Promise.

riceme wrote:

Rogue wrote:

do that when you have time. Im fascinated by it. I would love to hear the main subject material. for or against? did they offer physcology reasoning? was there any sexual stuff?

I will certainly dig up that stuff for you, Chrissy. Everything was absolutely, most assuredly in support of the gay community. The course studies were referred to officially as "Queer Studies" because in that community, the word "queer" had been "reclaimed" so to speak and embraced by the queer community and had no negative connotation to it whatsoever.

We explored all variety of reasonings and basis (what's the plural of basis?? "Bases"?? Whatever.). And there was lots of sexual stuff. I actually used to teach a course to incoming Freshman to the university (although it was open to all) called "Just Say Yes," meaning, just say yes to safe sex. It was an all-inclusive class... LGBTQ and Straight, in which abstinence was also included as a preferred option for people who were not in a good or healthy place to be sexually active. I still have one of the booklets I made for it hanging around here somewhere... Likely stuck in with my Queer & Gender Studies stuff, I'd imagine.

Actually queer is a better word to describe homosexuals than gay is since many homosexuals are not totally happy,many are depressed because they feel misunderstood.

Yella wrote:

Actually queer is a better word to describe homosexuals than gay is since many homosexuals are not totally happy,many are depressed because they feel misunderstood.

You so funny, Yeller.

On a more serious note, I prefer to not use the word "gay" because it is typically associated with men, and as such is not necessarily all-inclusive. "Queer" fits my all-inclusive purposes just fine,... depending on my company, perhaps.

I actually think the whole gay queer homo thing would have worked out better if they just didn't have a label....Just call them guy gal man woman he she or their name. The whole idea of defining someone by their sexual preference is boneheaded in my opinion. I certainly wouldn't wanted to be called A woman on top with candles all around sexual...

Wotwcaasexual

TEOTWAWKI wrote:I actually think the whole gay queer homo thing would have worked out better if they just didn't have a label....Just call them guy gal man woman he she or their name. The whole idea of defining someone by their sexual preference is boneheaded in my opinion. I certainly wouldn't wanted to be called A woman on top with candles all around sexual...

Wotwcaasexual

That's a valid point for sure, but wouldn't you agree that society demands definition of sexuality at this point in our evolution?

riceme wrote:

TEOTWAWKI wrote:I actually think the whole gay queer homo thing would have worked out better if they just didn't have a label....Just call them guy gal man woman he she or their name. The whole idea of defining someone by their sexual preference is boneheaded in my opinion. I certainly wouldn't wanted to be called A woman on top with candles all around sexual...

Wotwcaasexual

That's a valid point for sure, but wouldn't you agree that society demands definition of sexuality at this point in our evolution?

WHY ? the problem as I see it is those that have a sexual difference want more than equal protection under the law. They want to unite and change laws to favor their positions. That's why they chose to have a label.....I think I want a discount for my candles and better titties to watch....I want a law and NOW ! Government should pay for my on top pardner to have better jugs...

TEOTWAWKI wrote:
WHY ? the problem as I see it is those that have a sexual difference want more than equal protection under the law. They want to unite and change laws to favor their positions. That's why they chose to have a label.....I think I want a discount for my candles and better titties to watch....I want a law and NOW ! Government should pay for my on top pardner to have better jugs...

Do we not ALL have a sexual preference (saving for the asexuals)?? And, you would have trouble convincing me that "they" "chose" a label.

riceme wrote:

TEOTWAWKI wrote:
WHY ? the problem as I see it is those that have a sexual difference want more than equal protection under the law. They want to unite and change laws to favor their positions. That's why they chose to have a label.....I think I want a discount for my candles and better titties to watch....I want a law and NOW ! Government should pay for my on top pardner to have better jugs...

Do we not ALL have a sexual preference (saving for the asexuals)?? And, you would have trouble convincing me that "they" "chose" a label.

Sure they did and they are proud of them...It's like a flag to rally under and fight their enemies...straight people.....maybe we straight people need a better label....normalsexuals, ? regularsexuals ?, penisvaginasexuals....I'll work on it....

riceme wrote:

TEOTWAWKI wrote:I actually think the whole gay queer homo thing would have worked out better if they just didn't have a label....Just call them guy gal man woman he she or their name. The whole idea of defining someone by their sexual preference is boneheaded in my opinion. I certainly wouldn't wanted to be called A woman on top with candles all around sexual...

Wotwcaasexual

That's a valid point for sure, but wouldn't you agree that society demands definition of sexuality at this point in our evolution?

Most people on this forum don't wish to discuss the definition of sexuality without letting thier own prejudice and discrimination towards the alternate sexual preferences that abound in our society.

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQzUCO7rG0M

riceme wrote:

TEOTWAWKI wrote:
WHY ? the problem as I see it is those that have a sexual difference want more than equal protection under the law. They want to unite and change laws to favor their positions. That's why they chose to have a label.....I think I want a discount for my candles and better titties to watch....I want a law and NOW ! Government should pay for my on top pardner to have better jugs...

Do we not ALL have a sexual preference (saving for the asexuals)?? And, you would have trouble convincing me that "they" "chose" a label.

In what way is asexualism not a sexual preference?

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQzUCO7rG0M

Damaged Eagle wrote:

riceme wrote:

TEOTWAWKI wrote:I actually think the whole gay queer homo thing would have worked out better if they just didn't have a label....Just call them guy gal man woman he she or their name. The whole idea of defining someone by their sexual preference is boneheaded in my opinion. I certainly wouldn't wanted to be called A woman on top with candles all around sexual...

Wotwcaasexual

That's a valid point for sure, but wouldn't you agree that society demands definition of sexuality at this point in our evolution?

Most people on this forum don't wish to discuss the definition of sexuality without letting thier own prejudice and discrimination towards the alternate sexual preferences that abound in our society.

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQzUCO7rG0M

I am sorry DE I didn't know you were a deviant...I had my suspicions but hey you drive a tractor....one of those broke back tractor things.....sorry man......

CURIOUS SMILE....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMLBFA7wuh4

TEOTWAWKI wrote:
Sure they did and they are proud of them...It's like a flag to rally under and fight their enemies...straight people.....maybe we straight people need a better label....normalsexuals, ? regularsexuals ?, penisvaginasexuals....I'll work on it....

No, no and NO. Clearly, there is so very much that you do not understand. And, you have already "worked on it" plenty for my taste. Thanks. But no thanks.

Damaged Eagle wrote:

Most people on this forum don't wish to discuss the definition of sexuality without letting thier own prejudice and discrimination towards the alternate sexual preferences that abound in our society.

I believe that I'd agree with that.

Damaged Eagle wrote:



In what way is asexualism not a sexual preference?

Good point. I said that sort of offhandedly, which I should not have done. I meant it in the sense that they choose to not choose a sexual preference, meaning they choose not to have sex with a man or a woman, et al, but I acknowledge your point and will be more careful with my wording on the subject in the future.

TEOTWAWKI wrote:

I am sorry DE I didn't know you were a deviant...I had my suspicions but hey you drive a tractor....one of those broke back tractor things.....sorry man......

CURIOUS SMILE....

youtube

What the hell is that supposed to mean?

So clear this up for me, T. You refer to me (and treat me) as a friend in private, but clearly by your above post you must regard ME as well, as a "deviant."

Am I clear on this point?

Not only that but much more importantly, just because someone is more enlightened and educated than you are on issues regarding sexuality does not by ANY stretch mean that they're queer, or... I'm sorry, a "deviant."

TEOTWAWKI wrote:I actually think the whole gay queer homo thing would have worked out better if they just didn't have a label....Just call them guy gal man woman he she or their name. The whole idea of defining someone by their sexual preference is boneheaded in my opinion. I certainly wouldn't wanted to be called A woman on top with candles all around sexual...

Wotwcaasexual

I agree

I think labels are a form of division.

its perceptions about whether people should be concerned with what 2 consenting ADULTS do. people are nosey and make hasty judgement. Not without reason. I dont have time to go into detail now, but I will if needed.

Your thread here to me is a sign that your old perception is being chalenged. I feel that is a good thing.

I often joke about sexy this and that, but the truth of the matter is, im not permiscious. I was when I was a teenager, whole other story. this is one of the mis guided perceptions about homosexuals. I dont call myself queer, i dont like it either. I dont use gay, cause it seems for men, I dont like lesbian either but it is what it is. I am just Me. no lable, just a person trying to get through this world and love someone and be loved so I like your idea of no labels.

riceme wrote:

TEOTWAWKI wrote:

I am sorry DE I didn't know you were a deviant...I had my suspicions but hey you drive a tractor....one of those broke back tractor things.....sorry man......

CURIOUS SMILE....

youtube

What the hell is that supposed to mean?

So clear this up for me, T. You refer to me (and treat me) as a friend in private, but clearly by your above post you must regard ME as well, as a "deviant."

Am I clear on this point?

Not only that but much more importantly, just because someone is more enlightened and educated than you are on issues regarding sexuality does not by ANY stretch mean that they're queer, or... I'm sorry, a "deviant."

Oh I see this is where because of your chosen label you get to get all self righteous and attack me for using what is a scientific word to describe someone that is outside the normal range on a bell curve. A deviation from the norm is a deviant. See Queer means deviant silly. You need to lighten up or ignore me.

riceme wrote:
What the hell is that supposed to mean?

So clear this up for me, T. You refer to me (and treat me) as a friend in private, but clearly by your above post you must regard ME as well, as a "deviant."

I have some good friends who know I'm bisexual and they still want to be friends with me. But they have in no way stopped hating queerism. While they really are friends in every sense of the word (we go all the way back to elementary school), they now look at me as being a deviant too.
I have other longtime friends who don't know my sexual orientation. That's because if they knew they would not even be able to handle it and that might end our friendship. It will sound strange to some but I value all my friendships regardless if it's with those who despise queerism.

Most people have been so engrained with the need to despise queers that they can never lose that feeling, rice. It's not like prejudice against race or muslims or women or anything else. Sexuality is the most personal human emotion of all. And when someone does not fit into the accepted view of it, that creates the most fear and hatred of all.
Teo is trying to learn to understand it. But he's never going to be able to accept it because of that. And there are millions and millions just like him.