todays reviews

[bigjake8]

RE: Taylor Hit By Horse?

 

>did it ever occur to you that you are a dipshit?

 

And suddenly, the fact that you are only 23 years old becomes clear.

[Guest zipperzone]

RE: Taylor Hit By Horse?

 

>>did it ever occur to you that you are a dipshit?

>

>And suddenly, the fact that you are only 23 years old becomes

>clear.

 

It's body may be "only 23" but it's mind is a good ten years younger.

[Guest zipperzone]

RE: Taylor Hit By Horse?

 

>

> Did it ever occur to you

>>that you are not always right?

>

>

>did it ever occur to you that you are a dipshit?

 

Frankly - no, it never did. However it has often occured to me that you are a fucking idiot.

[woodlawn]

RE: Leading with the gut or the head?

 

>>Yes: that the emotional relationship between siblings is

>>radically altered if they come to view each other as sex

>>objects.

 

>Says who?

 

I don't think you can find any reputable psychiatrist who will disagree with the statement I made. Try it.

 

>Abu wasn't a case of consenting adults. Adult incest is.

 

You clearly didn't understand what I wrote. I referred to a specific Times article that details the sexual relationships among three of the soldiers involved in abusing prisoners. One is Graner, the ringleader, who is now serving a long prison term. The other two are England, who recently gave birth to a child fathered by Graner, and Ambuhl, who recently married Graner and who is awaiting a military trial for her own role in the abuse scandal.

 

England disobeyed both regulations and direct orders in carrying on a sexual relationship with Graner, as did Ambuhl. The article strongly implies that she and Ambuhl would not have involved themselves in the acts of abuse suggested by Graner if not for the sexual relationship that each had with him. In other words, by ignoring the rules against such relationships the two women became involved in exactly the sort of problems that the rules were intended to prevent. They'll have plenty of time to ponder the matter in prison.

 

>>So it is okay if a brother and sister have sex so long as

>they

>>take precautions to avoid pregnancy?

 

>Biologically, yes; and in this instance, that's enough.

 

Why do you limit your answer by saying that such an incestuous relationship is okay "biologically"? Is there any sense in which it is NOT okay? If not, why not simply say such a relationship is fine?

[taylorky]

>My first sexual experience was giving my older brother a blow

>job. He was 14; I was ten. I doubt if that experience was

>highly unusual. He is straight; we never talk about it.

 

 

 

well now isn't that a for the books family memory!!

 

maybe you should have taken a picture of it,i'm sure your mom & dad would be proud to have it displayed among all the other photos of "candid family moments".

[Rod Hagen]

RE: Leading with the gut or the head?

 

>I don't think you can find any reputable psychiatrist who will

>disagree with the statement I made. Try it.

 

Psychiatry is a pseudoscience. My reference to it was sarcastic.

 

>Why do you limit your answer by saying that such an incestuous

>relationship is okay "biologically"? Is there any sense in

>which it is NOT okay? If not, why not simply say such a

>relationship is fine?

 

Our outlawing of incest, our cultural fear of it, arose out of a protective biological instinct: even rats have enough hard-wired sense, generally, to not fuck their sisters. Remove the risk of birth-defected kids, and the most significant rational behind the fear and revulsion is religious morality, which I neither respect nor often consider.

 

http://www.RodHagen.com

310.360.9890

-Hagen

[joel304]

Ummmm ... Yeah, that is NOT normal. A lot of you guys are scaring me.

[woodlawn]

RE: Leading with the gut or the head?

 

>Psychiatry is a pseudoscience. My reference to it was

>sarcastic.

 

I'm sure the world's psychiatrists would be deeply chagrined to learn that a hooker doesn't think highly of their profession.

 

>Remove the risk of birth-defected kids, and the most

>significant rational behind the fear and revulsion is

>religious morality, which I neither respect nor often

>consider.

 

So it's fine with you if brothers and sisters fuck so long as they use protection? Thanks for clearing that up.

[Rod Hagen]

RE: Leading with the gut or the head?

 

>I'm sure the world's psychiatrists would be deeply chagrined

>to learn that a hooker doesn't think highly of their

>profession.

 

Gee, that's clever. You might argue that the hooker in me could probably use their help. It's the academic me that doesn't think much of the field, not compared to say Nephrology or Civil Engineering.

 

>So it's fine with you if brothers and sisters fuck so long as

>they use protection? Thanks for clearing that up.

 

There are too many coss-cultural stigmas associated with incest to make it largely OK or doable now. I'm interested in the evolutionary reasons behind this particular taboo, and I've stated them, and why it continues. Someday, long after you and I are dead, we may no longer look to religion for our morals (although, admittedly, this began as a biological safeguard and THEN entered religion, where it prospers). I'm not going to criticize those playing ahead of the curve. I, the hooker AND the academic, also have a moral code, it just doesn't come from the same place of fear and ignorance as yours.

[Doug69]

>Ummmm ... Yeah, that is NOT normal. A lot of you guys are

>scaring me.

 

If - as appears to be the case - you believe that immediate family members should be discouraged from fucking each other, then you need to know that lots of people here are going to start telling you that you're a repressed closet case who is just too uptight about sex, and that you're no different than Jerry Falwell.

 

That's because - haven't you heard? - if you're gay, then you have no right to exercise independent judgment or to believe that human beings ought to have any limits at all on their sexual drives. If you're gay, you are compelled to believe that the more places someone sticks their cock and the more things that can go up their hole, the better - no matter who it is (even if it's your own brother) or where it is (even if it's in a public place that's reserved for non-sexual purposes with lots of people there who don't want to see you licking your brother's asshole).

 

Basically, these people believe that every gay person MUST have the same view of sex as rats, rabbits and dogs do - whenever you have the slightest urge to do so, you should indulge every single sexual desire you have - never restraining yourself or prioritizing anything above base sexual drives.

 

That's becasue a lot of the people here - I'd say especially lots of older gay men (meaning over 40) - have internalized what they were told about homosexuals: that they are deranged, sexually crazed perverts who seek sex in dark dirty alleys and have no limits to the things they will do to get their dicks off. For them, being "gay"m means being defined primarily by sex, which is, by definition, unrestrained, sleazy, and without any limits at all.

 

How ironic that so many gay men here have adopted this view of gay men as their own and now sound just like the Religious Right when describing how gay people are and should be.

[bigjake8]

Do you guys honestly beleive that straight people are not engaging or at least turned on by shit like this? I have NEVER seen a gay beastiality site for example, but trust me, there are plenty out there for straight people, and I get their spam all the time. There are also PLENTY of female twins out there doing lesbo porn for straiht guys to beat off to.

 

 

I for one don't care what straight people think of me. I don't need or desire approval from them (or any of you for that matter). I feel my attitude is the right one for me. If my right to marry, or whatever else is held up because some asshole politician thinks I'm a pervert, then we have a fight on our hands.

[woodlawn]

RE: Leading with the gut or the head?

 

>>I'm sure the world's psychiatrists would be deeply

>chagrined

>>to learn that a hooker doesn't think highly of their

>>profession.

 

>Gee, that's clever.

 

Well, if you're going to disparage other people's occupations then you shouldn't object when I or others do the same thing.

 

> It's the academic me that

>doesn't think much of the field, not compared to say

>Nephrology or Civil Engineering.

 

Using the scientific method to study mental illness has been going on for how long -- less than a hundred years? That's a fraction of the time mankind has devoted to sciences like physics or astronomy. So why would you expect psychiatry to be as advanced as other sciences? It is, historically speaking, still in its infancy.

 

 

> I,

>the hooker AND the academic, also have a moral code, it just

>doesn't come from the same place of fear and ignorance as

>yours.

 

I'm not that interested in your moral code. The point of my posts in this thread is a rather narrow one. Absent any biological danger from incest between siblings, is there any reason to discourage it? Yes -- adding sex can radically alter the emotional relationship.

 

As you know, the prostitution business is based on the assumption that two people can have sex without engendering powerful or longlasting emotions between them -- because if such emotions are engendered it can become a serious problem for one or both. As you also know as a regular reader of this board, there are people for whom that assumption is valid and plenty of others for whom it is not.

 

That's the problem with sex -- for some people, it has the effect of engendering powerful emotions that can alter or disrupt the relationship between them and the sexual partner. That can be a problem whether we are talking about the relationship between a superior and a subordinate in the military or the relationship between a student and teacher or the relationship between siblings. So yes, there is a problem other than the reproductive one. And it has nothing to do with religion.

[dannyrossmoore]

RE: Leading with the gut or the head?

 

Oh My, this "discussion" between the philosopher and the prostitute is becoming interesting.

[Guest arbee]

RE: Leading with the gut or the head?

 

Biologically, the reason that heterosexual intercourse between first-degree relations is "frowned upon" is that it leads to inbreeding. Just think about "puppy mills" where such activities are not uncommon. Inbred dogs have a higher incidence of, say, hip dysplasia, eye problems, erratic behavior. In people, the incidence of inherited diseases increases. The inbreeding of the royal families in Europe resulted in the last Tsar's son Alexei's suffering from hemophilia A... and that changed the course of history. And then there's the Hapsburg chin... and surely I don't have to elaborate on what a total doof bonnie Prince Charlie is.

 

Obviously, same-sex relations with relatives is a whole different matter since offspring are not an issue (sorry for the pun). *Personally* -- i.e., for me -- it's a matter of "taste" (for lack of a better expression). It's not for me, but then I'm an only child anyway.

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

RE: Leading with the gut or the head?

 

>As you know, the prostitution business is based on the

>assumption that two people can have sex without engendering

>powerful or longlasting emotions between them -- because if

>such emotions are engendered it can become a serious problem

>for one or both. As you also know as a regular reader of this

>board, there are people for whom that assumption is valid and

>plenty of others for whom it is not.

>

 

Agreed.

 

 

>That's the problem with sex -- for some people, it has the

>effect of engendering powerful emotions that can alter or

>disrupt the relationship between them and the sexual partner.

 

More agreement here. However, as you point out above this does not necessarily hold true for all or even many. All of these concerns, and they are valid concerns, also hold for sex between unmarried heteros and formed part of the basis for the taboo of unmarried sexual relations. Society by and large has set that taboo aside in practice and while there has been some negative consequence as a result, society survived the transition and many even flourish in some sense under it. I base that in part on the fact that there is no overwhelming movement to go back to the old taboo.

 

My issue is the causus belli of some for labeling consensual sex between adult siblings as the universal abomination. Clearly the effect of that relationship depends on whether the individuals can handle it just as is the case of sex between consenting unrelated adults. From my perspective if there is a group that might have greater coping success than others, it would be gay brothers. This based primarily on the observed male perspective of a greater emotionally detached sexuality in general. That does not mean that all brothers are suited or even a majority. Just a higher percentage than sisters or sister/brother combos.

[Guest zipperzone]

>My first sexual experience was giving my older brother a blow

>job. He was 14; I was ten. I doubt if that experience was

>highly unusual. He is straight; we never talk about it.

 

A gay friend of mine that I went through university with had a similar experience with his straight (supposedly) 2 year older brother.

 

His brother was a real hottie and loved to be blown. He knew the younger brother was gay and liked to suck cock. The older "allowed" the younger to suck him off for $$$. I think he charged him about $20 each time it happened and it happened regularly about once a week for years.

 

Haven't seen either of them for years - wonder what became of them.

[Guest RandyRon]

>

>His brother was a real hottie and loved to be blown. He knew

>the younger brother was gay and liked to suck cock. The older

>"allowed" the younger to suck him off for $$$. I think he

>charged him about $20 each time it happened and it happened

>regularly about once a week for years.

>

>Haven't seen either of them for years - wonder what became of

>them.

>

 

 

One became a client and posts regularly on the MC and the other advertises on Rentboy? :+

[woodlawn]

RE: Leading with the gut or the head?

 

> However, as you point out above this

>does not necessarily hold true for all or even many.

 

I didn't say that. On the contrary, one of the most consistent themes expressed by people who post here is the problems they have had because they behaved as if prostitutes were their lovers rather than merely paid service providers. There have been countless posts on this board by clients who came to grief in one way or another when they lost sight of the boundary between a business relationship with a prostitute and a personal relationship.

 

>All of

>these concerns, and they are valid concerns, also hold for sex

>between unmarried heteros and formed part of the basis for the

>taboo of unmarried sexual relations. Society by and large has

>set that taboo aside in practice and while there has been

>some negative consequence as a result, society survived the

>transition and many even flourish in some sense under it. I

>base that in part on the fact that there is no overwhelming

>movement to go back to the old taboo.

 

There is in fact a widespread movement to strengthen marriage and discourage sex outside marriage. I have the impression that you don't spend much time around the sort of people who would be part of such a movement, so you aren't aware of it.

 

As for your suggestion that gay brothers have a better chance of coping with the emotional effects of sex than other siblings, based on the posts I have seen here I have no reason to think that gay men are any less likely to allow their sexual desires to make fools of them than anyone else is. If anything, the posts here seem to show the contrary.

[Rod Hagen]

RE: Leading with the gut or the head?

 

>Using the scientific method to study mental illness has been

>going on for how long -- less than a hundred years? That's a

>fraction of the time mankind has devoted to sciences like

>physics or astronomy. So why would you expect psychiatry to

>be as advanced as other sciences? It is, historically

>speaking, still in its infancy.

 

I don't think psychology adheres enough to the tenents of scientific research. You think they just need time. I think they've had enough. We won't agree.

 

 

>I'm not that interested in your moral code. The point of my

>posts in this thread is a rather narrow one. Absent any

>biological danger from incest between siblings, is there any

>reason to discourage it? Yes -- adding sex can radically

>alter the emotional relationship.

 

Their emotional breakdown, if it occurs, results from disgrace, largely religious. The disgrace results from societal taboos. The taboos are there because of the risk of birth diffects. Gay sibling and protected hetero sibling breeding removes the risk. If the taboos then fall, so will the disgrace and then so might the emotional trauma. Not now, I said, but maybe someday.

[BuckyXTC]

RE: Leading with the gut or the head?

 

Gay sibling and protected hetero sibling

>breeding removes the risk. If the taboos then fall, so will

>the disgrace and then so might the emotional trauma. Not now,

>I said, but maybe someday.

 

Rod:

 

In the case of "protected hetero sibling breeding", I"ll quibble with you. Protection may diminish the risk, but it doesn't fully remove it, hence I can understand the continuing taboo.

 

As for gay sibling relations, obviously there is no risk of "inbreeding".

 

I suspect I am less skeptical of psychology and psychiatry than you are, but I do agree with much of what you've said.

 

Bottom line is that sexual relations between ANY two persons has potential emotional consequences, good or bad. As humans, we are who we are.

 

Ås for sex between two same sex siblings, it doesn't automatically raise any big flags for me.

[guptasa1]

Okay, I'll go out on a limb here and say I personally find the idea of brothers being together very hot from an outside standpoint. I do feel it could be complicated emotionally for siblings, but I really don't understand the relationship between brothers to comment on that much since I'm an only child. I don't know what it would be like to be in a situation where something could happen with my brother if I had one. I might go for it, or I might not. I think it's one of those things where I'd have to be in that situation to fully understand what I'd do.

 

Would I be with people who were brothers given the chance assuming they were already intimate each other and everybody was okay with it? Probably would, yes. (And I'm just sharing my thoughts on the subject; not looking for any judgments; I understand there are people on both sides of this argument.).

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

RE: Leading with the gut or the head?

 

>> Society by and large has

>>set that taboo aside in practice and while there has been

>>some negative consequence as a result, society survived the

>>transition and many even flourish in some sense under it. I

>>base that in part on the fact that there is no overwhelming

>>movement to go back to the old taboo.

>

>There is in fact a widespread movement to strengthen marriage

>and discourage sex outside marriage.

 

Hmmm... yes there is a movement. Widesperad? More pockets I think. Overwhelming? I think not. I suspect that the foot print of that 'movement' is not too dissimilar with the 'movement' to overturn Roe v. Wade. That movement is not insignificant and certainly vociferous but according to polling data nowhere near a majorty.

 

 

> I have the impression

>that you don't spend much time around the sort of people who

>would be part of such a movement,,,

 

I don't. But I do keep an eye on them from down the street. It's hard not to notice with the goings on of Schaivo et al, Baptist preachers 'excommunicating' Democrats, the Christian Right broadly denouncing the Judiciary as anti-religious, and the City of Topeka Kansas seriously considering the mandating of Intelligent Design in the school cirrculum. Yes, definitely pockets and definitely passionate and strident. We'll rue the day should they become widespread and worse, overwhelming. Well, I will definitely.

>

 

>based on the posts I have seen here I have no reason

>to think that gay men are any less likely to allow their

>sexual desires to make fools of them than anyone else is. If

>anything, the posts here seem to show the contrary.

>based on the posts I have seen here I have no reason

>to think that gay men are any less likely to allow their

>sexual desires to make fools of them than anyone else is. If

>anything, the posts here seem to show the contrary.

>

 

So you base your conclusions about the ability of the wider gay world to manage their sex lives on our microcosm community selected because of our interest in hiring escorts as a significant component of our sex lives? Based on my observations of the gay community at large I think we 'escort fanciers' with our views are a small minority.

[woodlawn]

RE: Leading with the gut or the head?

 

>'movement' to overturn Roe v. Wade. That movement is not

>insignificant and certainly vociferous but according to

>polling data nowhere near a majorty.

 

From what I can see, they seem to be winning. More and more states are passing laws restricting abortion rights in various ways, and the Supreme Court is now within one vote of overruling Roe.

 

 

>>based on the posts I have seen here I have no reason

>>to think that gay men are any less likely to allow their

>>sexual desires to make fools of them than anyone else is.

>If

>>anything, the posts here seem to show the contrary.

 

 

>So you base your conclusions about the ability of the wider

>gay world to manage their sex lives on our microcosm community

>selected because of our interest in hiring escorts as a

>significant component of our sex lives?

 

Two things. First, as you can see from the quote from my earlier post shown above, that isn't what I said. I merely said the posts here give me no reason to think that gay men are any more immune to the effects of sex on the emotions than anyone else. If you have any reason to think they are more immune, you certainly haven't explained what it is. Second, a "significant component of our sex lives"? What are the other components?

 

>Based on my

>observations of the gay community at large I think we 'escort

>fanciers' with our views are a small minority.

 

A small minority distinguished from the majority by its willingness to be involved in prostitution, certainly. But what reason do you have to think we are distinguished by anything else?

[woodlawn]

RE: Leading with the gut or the head?

 

>I don't think psychology adheres enough to the tenents of

>scientific research.

 

Based on what? You can find plenty of rigorous scientific research on the efficacy of, for example, cognitive therapy versus other types of therapy. If the methods used by therapists are being vetted by rigorous scientific studies, then in what sense does their field not "adhere enough" to the scientific method? What is it you want them to do that they are not doing?

 

>You think they just need time. I think

>they've had enough. We won't agree.

 

That is a ridiculous statement. Why don't we simply tell all HIV researchers to stop what they're doing because it's been more than twenty years since the disease became epidemic in this country and they still haven't found a cure? Haven't they had enough time? If you have some reasonable criterion for deciding what is "enough time" for science to find a cure for any given illness, please do share it with us.

 

>Their emotional breakdown, if it occurs, results from

>disgrace, largely religious.

 

Who said anything about a breakdown or disgrace? What I'm saying is that sex inevitably alters the emotional relationship. In the normal sibling relationship, for example, there is no sexual jealousy. But if they become sexual partners, will their relationship not change to include some of the usual emotions one finds in a sexual relationship, including possessiveness and jealousy? Are those desirable qualities in a relationship between siblings? If one sibling wants them to remain together so that the sexual activity can continue and the other wants to have other sexual partners, what then?

[Guest LG320126]

Brothers hell! I want twins! }(