Straight Guys

[Guest jizzdepapi]

RE: breeder cock!

 

>I've heard that said many times. I'm sure it's just what the people who attacked that escort in Vegas were thinking.

 

good point, reggie. so is "proportionality."

[Guest regulation]

RE: breeder cock!

 

>>I've heard that said many times. I'm sure it's just what the people who attacked that escort in Vegas were thinking.

>

>good point, reggie. so is "proportionality."

 

No, jizz, I'm pretty sure that "proportionality" was not on their minds at all. Like you, they probably thought of themselves as "rebels."

 

If you want the freedom to ignore any rules that get in the way of satisfying your personal appetites, you can't complain when others demand the same freedom. That is the price of anarchy.

[Guest jizzdepapi]

RE: breeder cock!

 

>No, jizz, I'm pretty sure that "proportionality" was not on their minds at all. Like you, they probably thought of themselves as "rebels..."

 

Actually, I don't have a clue what violent criminals think. When I referred to proportionality, I was referring to your comparison of consenting adults sometimes deviating from social conventions (one interpretation of what this thread is about) and committing a violent crime. I don't see how anyone can reasonably extrapolate conclusions from one about the other.

 

>If you want the freedom to ignore any rules that get in the way of satisfying your personal appetites, you can't complain when others demand the same freedom.

 

Are you referring to rules broken in assaulting an escort or fucking around between consenting adults in a way that might not be expected by everyone?

 

>That is the price of anarchy...

 

Sounds like a loaded statement to me. Any special meaning here? Something to do with your earlier comparison between criminals and "rebels" (like me)?

 

Best,

Jizz

[FrancoDiSantisxxx]

When words people say have no meaning ...

 

... senselessness ensues. Language is a virus. Language is a very poor way to communicate.

 

My point? The words "straight" and "gay" are labels. The reality is homosexuality and heterosexuality, which are a continuum of sexual acts and activity. A truly heterosexual person would not perform a homosexual act. What one desires is an expression of pansexuality and omnisexuality but this is not permitted. You must be labeled, you must be catalougued, and you must be categorized. There is no opportunity for anything in-between.

 

The pyschology of desire is far more complex that this discussion truly permits but there is also some truth to what Rod suggests: because homosexual are a sexual minority and a despised one at that, there is a degree of internalized homophobia, self doubt and poor self-image in each individual homosexual -- the question is to what extent and how does it manifest itself.

 

On the continuum of sexuality, Suntan's friend was more likely than not far less than totally heterosexual and was not only expressing feelings he held but was also exploring sexual acts and activity he might not receive from his wife. A great percentage of my clients who would never come to this site much less never review someone are the converse of those married men looking for those very young, totally smooth, complete bottoms to pound. They are married husbands or boyfriends with girlfriends who want someone to hold them down, to look them in the eyes as he fingers them and then press their knees to their chest as he goes inside them and makes them feel like no women ever has or ever will. Are these men "straight?"

 

Finally, I prefer a man who can suck cock well, has a nice tight responsive ass, kisses like he means it, can hold hands in public and wants to be with me -- how he identifies or how he is labeled is minor and inconsequential.

[FrancoDiSantisxxx]

Amen

 

Remarkably, that's all I have to add at this point....

[FrancoDiSantisxxx]

YOUR face MY fist / my FIST your FACE

 

>If you want the freedom to ignore any rules that get in the way of satisfying your personal appetites, you can't

>complain when others demand the same freedom. That is the price of anarchy.

 

A most excellent explanation and description of, at minimum, sexual anarchy. Of course, I prefer my old, original AOL screen names YRMTHMYCK and MYDCKURASS.

 

:9

[Guest regulation]

RE: breeder cock!

 

>Actually, I don't have a clue what violent criminals think.

 

They think very much the way you and deej and a lot of other people here do. That is to say, they don't generally think of themselves as bad people simply because they do things that most of their fellow citizens believe to be wrong. Instead, they come up with all sorts of rationalizations for what they do, just as you do. And they also take pains to differentiate themselves from those they consider the REALLY bad people. Just as you do. Did you ever read Miguel Pinero's play, 'Short Eyes'? I recommend it.

 

 

>When I referred to proportionality, I was referring to your

>comparison of consenting adults sometimes deviating from

>social conventions (one interpretation of what this thread

>is about) and committing a violent crime. I don't see how

>anyone can reasonably extrapolate conclusions from one about

>the other.

 

I think you see very well, you just don't want to admit it.

 

>>If you want the freedom to ignore any rules that get in the way of satisfying your personal appetites, you can't complain when others demand the same freedom.

>

>Are you referring to rules broken in assaulting an escort or

>fucking around between consenting adults in a way that might

>not be expected by everyone?

 

"In a way that might not be expected by everyone"? What a way to refer to sexual practices that are considered revolting, immoral and even criminal by most of our fellow citizens! See what I mean by "rationalizations"?

 

>>That is the price of anarchy...

>

>Sounds like a loaded statement to me. Any special meaning

>here? Something to do with your earlier comparison between

>criminals and "rebels" (like me)?

 

You can't be that dense, but let's pretend you are. Do you really feel justified in blasting society for criminalizing the things that you happen to enjoy, while at the same time you sternly demand that people who do things YOU disapprove of will be treated as criminals?

[Guest jizzdepapi]

church ladies don't jump!

 

Jizz: Actually, I don't have a clue what violent criminals think...

 

Reggie: They think very much the way you and deej and a lot of other people here do. That is to say, they don't generally think of themselves as bad people simply because they do things that most of their fellow citizens believe to be wrong. Instead, they come up with all sorts of rationalizations for what they do, just as you do...

 

Sounds like you have inside knowledge of the criminal mind, which I do not—either that or, I think more likely, a very fanciful imagination, conjectured expertise and a propensity to speak out of turn. And what is up with this new proclivity for not understanding the terms in which a debate is cast?

 

To date, I have a few very old traffic violations and several acts of civil disobedience on my record. Still counting though...

 

Not for nothing, but are violent criminals convicted for breaking laws or for doing things that most of their fellow citizens believe to be wrong? Hell, not that I'm putting myself in his shoes, but wasn't Jesus strung up because of a pissed-off mob?

 

Jizz: When I referred to proportionality, I was referring to your comparison of consenting adults sometimes deviating from social conventions… and committing a violent crime. I don't see how anyone can reasonably extrapolate conclusions from one about the other.

 

Reggie: I think you see very well, you just don't want to admit it... If you want the freedom to ignore any rules that get in the way of satisfying your personal appetites, you can't complain when others demand the same freedom.

 

The freedom to ignore any rules that get in the way of satisfying your personal appetites, of course, does not extend to breaking the law re. consensual sex between adults. If the others[/] to whom you refer are contemplating committing a crime, of course they should be stopped. You do understand the difference, don’t you?

 

Jizz: Are you referring to rules broken in assaulting an escort or fucking around between consenting adults in a way that might not be expected by everyone?

 

Reggie: "In a way that might not be expected by everyone"? What a way to refer to sexual practices that are considered revolting, immoral and even criminal by most of our fellow citizens! See what I mean by "rationalizations"?

 

Hey, if church ladies don’t like ripe armpits, fearing that it might give them dyspepsia, it’s their loss. Of course, I’m not big on Resurrections or novenas either so maybe it’s a draw.

 

Reggie: That is the price of anarchy...

 

Jizz: Sounds like a loaded statement to me. Any special meaning here? Something to do with your earlier comparison between criminals and "rebels" (like me)?

 

Reggie: You can't be that dense, but let's pretend you are. Do you really feel justified in blasting society for criminalizing the things that you happen to enjoy, while at the same time you sternly demand that people who do things YOU disapprove of will be treated as criminals?

 

Back to proportionality, I guess. Violent criminals, whether assaulting an escort or at work in the Pentagon, should be held accountable and be punished.

 

The rest of your comments I’ll leave alone. They might have been reasonably addressed in any number of posts with insightful comments. This is just plain unpleasant and repetitive (oh, and incidentally, wrong!).

 

Viva la revolucion,

Jizz

 

P.S.: Thanks for assuming I can't be that dense, though I assume that may not apply in the future.

[Guest jizzdepapi]

RE: church ladies don't jump!

 

sorry, i meant to be bold but not that bold.

[FrancoDiSantisxxx]

Right to the left of me, Right to the right of me

 

So exactly how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Is that in the ancient archives?

 

I am sorry to point this out, but for the most part, in spite of his terseness and bluntness, I am with Rod on this as I attempted to state elsewhere with more delicacy. I did an informal email poll last night amongst the baby escorts and some non-escort friends and a phone conversation or four or five. Only one client who paged me last night and one escort in Atlanta I spoke to this morning desired a "straight guy to suck off" and the escort in Atlanta admitted it was because he wanted to "suck some of that straightness outta him."

 

Some of my best friends have been heterosexual but I would not want to marry one, much less go down on one NOR much less fuck him -- UNLESS he had recently visited his ATM machine and properly scheduled an appointment AS WELL during the time I would conduct a "screening" of him, he would sound like someone I could work with. This is why I do not make every appointment offered to me, personally.

 

On the other hand, so much of this discussion is shadings -- whether that angel fell off and should still be counted? a how long do they have to remain on the pin? and what if they are fluttering within some many centimeters of the top?

[Guest regulation]

RE: church ladies don't jump!

 

>Sounds like you have inside knowledge of the criminal mind,

>which I do not—either that or, I think more likely, a very

>fanciful imagination, conjectured expertise and a propensity

>to speak out of turn.

 

To put it bluntly, you're full of shit. I do volunteer work that involves dealing with people who have been convicted of serious crimes and are now on parole or have completed their sentences. So I get to hear quite a bit about how violent criminals think about themselves. And I can tell you that many of them employ rationalizations that are startlingly similar to the ones you use. They're "rebels" too. Just like you.

 

>And what is up with this new

>proclivity for not understanding the terms in which a debate

>is cast?

 

No one put you in charge of how this debate is cast. I'm free to raise any issues I consider relevant. If you don't like it, no one is forcing you to participate.

 

>Not for nothing, but are violent criminals convicted for

>breaking laws or for doing things that most of their

>fellow citizens believe to be wrong?

 

The correct answer is "both."

 

>Hell, not that I'm

>putting myself in his shoes, but wasn't Jesus strung up

>because of a pissed-off mob?

 

No. He was arrested at the instigation of the local authorities.

 

>The freedom to ignore any rules that get in the way of

>satisfying your personal appetites, of course, does not

>extend to breaking the law re. consensual sex between

>adults. If the others to whom you refer are

>contemplating committing a crime, of course they should be

>stopped. You do understand the difference, don’t you?

 

I think I understand it better than you do. Isn't it the case that everyone who reads the reviews on this website is doing so because he is contemplating committing a crime? Including you?

 

>Hey, if church ladies don’t like ripe armpits, fearing that

>it might give them dyspepsia, it’s their loss. Of course,

>I’m not big on Resurrections or novenas either so maybe it’s

>a draw.

 

And what if they don't like prostitutes or prostitution?

 

>Back to proportionality, I guess. Violent criminals, whether

>assaulting an escort or at work in the Pentagon, should be

>held accountable and be punished.

 

Whereas people who do things that are unlawful but that YOU approve of should NOT be held accountable and should NOT be punished, right?

 

>The rest of your comments I’ll leave alone. They might have

>been reasonably addressed in any number of posts with

>insightful comments. This is just plain unpleasant and

>repetitive (oh, and incidentally, wrong!).

 

I'm sorry you find it so unpleasant to have your assumptions and beliefs challenged. That's not the reaction I would have expected from someone who so frequently challenges the assumptions and beliefs of others -- in other words, a self-described revolutionary.

[+ Axiom2001]

>>I think I will become a "lurker" for a while and just read

>>other peoples comments. I seem to have created a monster

>>with this.

>

>Don't stop posting! Monsters are good and necessary. We

>can only learn by seeing opposing viewpoints. My eyes and

>those of many others here have been opened in the past by

>some of the argumentative threads on the message center.

>You done good and you should do it again.

 

 

DAMN, this has become a very popular thread! Although I do not wish to expend my thoughts on this topic as yet-- I mightily agree with you, Rick!!

[Guest jizzdepapi]

church lady spittle

 

Been trying to think how to retort to Reggie's nonsense without getting as downright nasty, dishonest and pretentious as he. Forgot about it and then ran across this pretty cool quote about other American "rebels." From an article about Madison, WI right-wingers who failed to recall school board, which would not force unwilling students to recite Pledge of Allegiance. Reggie won't get it but I'm just throwing it out there.

 

“Madisonians know what this is about. My favorite line was from an e-mail. It reads: 'What message are you sending to our children? The right to dissent is more important than the fundamental principle of freedom?'

http://www.counterpunch.org/leonmadison.html

 

http://www.counterpunch.org

[chrismac]

>>>Prostitutes and johns are people who have cast aside the moral traditions in which they were raised. That makes it rather difficult for them to criticize anyone for anything.

>>

>>That makes it rather difficult to criticize anyone for

>>prostitution.

>

>Only if you're a prostitute or john.

 

Duh - yeah - that's what I said.

 

>Should people who commit crimes in order to indulge their

>personal desires advocate criminal punishment for others? I

>notice you don't even try. A wise decision on your part.

 

If I could make sense out of that statement I'd attempt a thorough response.

:-)

[DaninWA]

RE: church ladies don't jump!

 

>I think I understand it better than you do. Isn't it the

>case that everyone who reads the reviews on this website is

>doing so because he is contemplating committing a crime?

 

 

No. Some of us just get a voyeuristic kick out of reading the reviews.

 

Dan

[DaninWA]

RE: church lady spittle

 

>“Madisonians know what this is about. My favorite line was

>from an e-mail. It reads: 'What message are you sending

>to our children? The right to dissent is more important than

>the fundamental principle of freedom?'

 

And here I thought the right to dissent was one of the fundamentals of freedom. Silly me.

 

Dan

[DaninWA]

I

>think that what rings my "internalized homophobia" bell

>about this is that even though the married guy enjoys having

>sex with men regularly, some gay men find him "more

>desirable" if they think of the guy as "straight" versus

>bisexual or gay. What is it, exactly, that makes "straight"

>men more desirable? Could it be that because our culture

>repeatedly demeans gay men that some of us have incorporated

>that into our sexuality such that self-identified gay men

>are lower on the heirarchy than self-identified (or

>object-perceived) straight men?

>

 

Or, perhaps, it's because some gay men have different turn-ons than others. Why does "internalized homophobia" have to be the reason?

 

Dan

[DaninWA]

>As to why another gay guy would want sex with a straight

>guy? Probably not internalized homophobia (although I don't

>rule it out). My guess is that it's wanting to convert the

>straight guy: see how fantastic gay sex can be? Come on over

>to our side.

 

 

Hello? Christian Fundamentalists R Us? Soccerstud just confirmed your theory.

 

Dan

[guyinsf]

Wait a second. Are you implying that because many of us here have either paid for or been been for sex that we can have no sense of morality or moral judgement? I am not entitled to think that killing someone is wrong? I am not entitled to believe that one shouldn't abuse one's children? Etc, etc. All because I have hired a few escorts?

 

Given that nearly everyone has probably transgressed some social norm at some point, I suppose that no one should be allowed to have any moral judgements. Maybe we should all live in anarchy.

 

Back to straight men: I enjoy watching them on video but I don't want one in bed with me.

[Guest regulation]

>>>That makes it rather difficult to criticize anyone for

>>>prostitution.

>>

>>Only if you're a prostitute or john.

>

>Duh - yeah - that's what I said.

 

 

No, that isn't what you said. What you said is quoted above.

 

>

>>Should people who commit crimes in order to indulge their

>>personal desires advocate criminal punishment for others? I

>>notice you don't even try. A wise decision on your part.

>

>If I could make sense out of that statement I'd attempt a

>thorough response.

 

Which word are you having trouble with?

[Guest regulation]

RE: church lady spittle

 

>Been trying to think how to retort to Reggie's nonsense

>without getting as downright nasty, dishonest and

>pretentious as he.

 

Why can you not discuss these issues without engaging in the kind of juvenile namecalling that you do above? What is the matter with you?