From: owner-eda-thoughts-digest@smoe.org (eda-thoughts-digest) To: eda-thoughts-digest@smoe.org Subject: eda-thoughts-digest V3 #141 Reply-To: eda-thoughts@smoe.org Sender: owner-eda-thoughts-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-eda-thoughts-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk eda-thoughts-digest Wednesday, April 19 2000 Volume 03 : Number 141 * If you ever wish to unsubscribe, send an email to * eda-thoughts-digest-request@smoe.org with ONLY * the word unsubscribe in the body of the email * . * PLEASE :) when you reply to this digest to send a post TO the list, * change the subject to reflect what your post is about. A subject * of Re: eda-thoughts-digest V3 #xxx or the like gives readers no clue * as to what your message is about. Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: [ET: lets talk about sex baby....heehee] [zerocool@sunlink.net (Niki)] Re: [ET: lets talk about sex baby....heehee] [kara garbe ] Re: [ET: lets talk about sex baby....heehee] [JonBoy911@aol.com] ET: sex [courtney gordon ] ET: sorry, just one more post! [kara garbe ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 20:05:36 -0500 From: zerocool@sunlink.net (Niki) Subject: Re: [ET: lets talk about sex baby....heehee] > > this way, i like what ani says...to look beyond race > > and sex. if i fall in love with someone, it's for the > > person not for their penis or vagina. does that make > > any sense? i understand how people could only think of > > people of the opposite sex, but i think it's important > > to ask why. is it bc you have been brought up to only > > have feelings for the opposite? i just think it's > > ridiculous to repress sexuality. > >just wanted to say i totally agree. you do almost have to wonder if we're >just conditioned to like only those of the opposite sex. me, i've had >tendencies towards girls (there, joe, happy?). mostly just physical >attractions, but also a few intellectual interests. i still love guys (er, >yeah) all the same though. that makes complete sense, kat. i think people >should be more open in that sense, in that they oughta be able to be open >enough to be able to fall in love with someone... no matter the packaging... >if that's what they feel. ya know, ya know, ya know? :) > >lovlies, >nai Not saying i agree or disagree with what anyone has said so far about this topic but I'm going to throw in something connecting this topic and the religion topic. In the Bible, God punished a town full of homosexuals. Some people seem to think this is where aids came from...like an early version of it... Just wondering what everyone thinks of that... Nothing against homo/heterosexuals... :) I've got a gay uncle ralph... kewl guy. And I would be interested in hearing some male opinion on this topic... later! :) Nik ****************************************************************************** Check out my Website at: >http://www.refmaker.com/members/legomoney.shtml ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 20:24:20 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) From: kara garbe Subject: Re: [ET: lets talk about sex baby....heehee] another note on the bisexual topic... i forget where this was pointed out to me just last week or so (could even have been on this list), but someone said that women are much more conditioned than men are to enjoying each other's bodies, because (culturally and socially) women look at more fashion magazines and ooh and ahh over each other. this might make women more prone to bisexuality. (do you guys think that they are?) also, think about how our culture allows girls to huge, hold hands, etc. whereas guys cannot be this physical with each other without being perceived as "gay" and therefore (by the general society) as "bad." i was at a concert last week by an all-male a capella group at my school, and in the middle of the concert they did a comedy skit. a large bulk of the humor in the skit came from the guys acting as though they were gay. i thought this was interesting when i thought about it. women acting like lesbians isn't generally perceived to be anywhere near as funny as guys acting gay. but (here i'm bringing my anthropology education to bear) that's probably because, as i said above, male homosexuality is a lot more taboo than female is, therefore it's also more funny in a "safe" environment like a skit, where everyone knows that everyone is only acting. any thoughts? kara ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 20:47:08 EDT From: RedWoodenBeads@aol.com Subject: ET: sex Look, I am in no way anti-gay, I think that if someone wants to be gay, or bi, hey, go for it, I would never be for stopping that. I've had many gay friends and I have been around gay people. But the fact is, the hetero way is superior, the prime reason being because the love between a man and a woman brings forth new life, and the gift of life is beyond all gifts. To be quite honest, I know people act like there are different "degrees" of sexuality, but that's just rediculous. You're either straight, or you go for an alternate thing. Perhaps I feel this way because I have never had same sex attractions, but still, I don't believe that a mother or father of children is simply "tended" towards men. no longer cradled in gravity's memory still in and spinning in spiral drifts of endlessness spinning in torment into the garden of light - -Pale Saints "A Thousand Stars Burst Open" http://www.chickpages.com/musicmania/joepages ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 21:12:40 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) From: kara garbe Subject: ET: response to joe's post this is in response to joe's post, which i deleted before i realized that i wanted to reply to it, so i can't quote him... but i just wanted to say that although heterosexuality might be more desirable for the continuation of a species, that doesn't mean that heterosexuality is "better" or however joe worded it... i think there are enough straight people out there in the world that the gay population isn't threatening to cause the extinction of the human race. plus, gay couples often have the same drive to procreate that straight ones do, so they frequently adopt kids or, in the case of lesbian couples, have natural children simply by looking outside the relationship for a father. yet i doubt that these couples feel any less that they are bringing life into the world than do straight couples, and i don't think that the fact they have to look outside the relationship to produce children means anything bad. does a barren heterosexual couple who must adopt children lose any worth because of their inability to *naturally* have children? i would say no. and a gay couple is the same thing. making blanket statements about the worth of various groups is simple fodder for prejudice and hatred. and joe probably didn't mean that in a really prejudiced way, but it could have been interpreted in such a light, so i couldn't help responding. kara ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 21:12:00 EDT From: JonBoy911@aol.com Subject: Re: [ET: lets talk about sex baby....heehee] Well, Nik wanted a male opinion. The best way I have seen ,and I agree with, sexuality explained is on a line. One side is gay, and one side is straight. And at different times in our lives we are at different parts of this line. No one is really 100% straigt, or 100% gay. You actually shift up and down the line depending. At times a male will be attracted to another male, etc. You may not do anything about it, but you were attracted. That is a male opinion. Namaste, Jon ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 21:47:32 -0400 (EDT) From: courtney gordon Subject: ET: sex Dear Angels, whoo, I like this conversation! :) I am bisexual because I believe that when you fall in love witha person, there's nothing that says you are falling in love with specifically their gender. If you are straight or gay, that's cool and all, because a lot of people find themselves attracted to qualities that only one gender has. But when you fall into true love you aren't in love with one specific thing. You aren't in love with her breasts, his penis, her eyes, etc... You fall in love with them as a whole, and often times true love is based on personality more than anything else. Love has to have trust, companionship, compatibility, etc... and none of that comes with a certain gender. Because of that, I don't believe in love at first sight. I believe that you can get certain vibes from a person that give you strong feelings for them, but you can't see a guy or girl and say "Wow... look at the trustworthiness on that guy..." or "Hello... look at that girl. Her morals are sooooo amazing..." because in order to get to someone's trust and morals you have to talk to them, not just look. If i go any further, i'll just be babbling. love and such Court ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 23:41:33 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) From: kara garbe Subject: ET: sorry, just one more post! really, this is my last comment for the evening. but i'm doing research for a paper and i came across something so relative... an anthropology book ("between jesus and the market"... haha guys, another relevant title don't you think? all about religious right-wing america and capitalist society) quoting a guy named george gilder who wrote a book called "men and marriage" : "In actuality, any man can be homosexual, but no man has to be....Indeed, in some ways, homosexuality is more in accord with masculine nature than is heterosxual courtship. The sex drive of the young male is not only promiscuous, it also tends to merge with the male impulse to affiliate upward to worhsip power. Since male sexual power is embodied in physical endowment and prowess, young men with sexual confusions and anxieties, fears of inadequacy primed by rejection from women, can react passionately - and in a homosexual environment addictively - to the naked bodies of aroused and powerful men. Homosexuality can therefore feel more natural to many men than their comparitively laborious, expensive, and frustrating pursuit of young women." of course, this guy also thinks that women drive men to alcohol, drugs, and crime, and that the female desire to leave their roles as homemakers is basically responsible for the downfall of modern american society... but still, something to consider. ~k ------------------------------ End of eda-thoughts-digest V3 #141 **********************************