Are you claiming that most men are not obsessed with sex? If so, you are doing a pretty good job of pointing out just how dishonest you folks are being here.

I have issues with just about your entire post UG...but I think you are trying to provoke this type of reaction and you have succeeded. I know that you aren't this dumb, even if you were a Marine.

To be honest, I was not trying to provoke anyone. I was having an honest conversation about something that I know a lot about and am interested in.

I'll tell you one thing, if you actually believe all this silly propoganda, this is one Marine with a lot higher I.Q. than you have.

Great, now we have two ex-combat types, in an argument about sex, arguing "My IQ is bigger than yours!"

Not all gay men and not all straight men are obsessed with sex. If you are sure you are obsessed with it, there are various 12-stap programs for sex addiction. You never hear much from nearly-asexual straights or nearly-asexual gays because they never think much about sex. I know of a straight guy with four earned degrees who used to whack off twice daily when he was in his late forties, but he had never married. He was not obsessed, either.

It is difficult to get an acceptable adjective. Even abnormal has been linguistically perverted, in regard to sex, and used as a club against gays and lesbians. Atypical might be less pejorative.

Percentage of gays - who knows? We all lie about sex. If you include adolescence and bisexuality, ten percent is too low. If you mean adults who only have sex with their own gender, five percent might be close. But no other area of human behavior is so vague. I know I am a white male, but it took over 40 years to realize how gay I had always been.

I do not usually post ijn this sub forum, but it is an interesting discussion among many of my friends, including Ulysses G. Take care, please, not to insult any of my eleven straight grandchildren.

The last UK census had questions about same-sex relationships. Using the statistics gathered a government department (either the Department of Work and Pensions or the Office of National Statistics - can't remember which) estimated that the percentage of homosexuals in the UK population is about 6%. Having said that I don't see that it matters what percentage of the population we are.

I'd imagine the figures matter, to be able to predict the future population and thus how many workers will be out there to support the economy in the future.

The last UK census had questions about same-sex relationships. Using the statistics gathered a government department (either the Department of Work and Pensions or the Office of National Statistics - can't remember which) estimated that the percentage of homosexuals in the UK population is about 6%. Having said that I don't see that it matters what percentage of the population we are.

I'd imagine the figures matter, to be able to predict the future population and thus how many workers will be out there to support the economy in the future.

mrbojangles - may I call you Mr. BJ? - it does not matter for that reason. We gay posters here have had babies, and so did Oscar Wilde, but not Alexander the Great. The population of the future depends upon the fecunding of straight people, who are fecunding far less often than our grandparents did (but my sister and I each had six). If population dwindles and you do not get your pension, blame the unfecunding straights.

As another hint, UG, the use of 'you folks' and 'you people' (presumably referring to those of us posting who are gay- or are you also speaking of Crow Boy?) is a common linguistic pattern in- wait for it- certain Caucasian American persons attempting to tell African Americans how they (the African Americans) 'really' are. It tends to show that the speaker is not addressing you directly as a person and in fact may be unable to regard you as a person. It's a telling indicator that usually points to prejudiced or bigoted thought patterns- not to mention protesting that you 'have nothing against gay people.' I imagine next you'll be saying that 'some of my best friends are gay.'

However, as FP says, you're normally smarter than this- I agree with him that you're just trying to wind us up and get attention. Btw, I've deleted your attempt to justify the material which I've already been too tolerant about; please don't bring it up again.

"S"

Everybody take two objective steps back and see how this has gone................Sad Is't it.

The last UK census had questions about same-sex relationships. Using the statistics gathered a government department (either the Department of Work and Pensions or the Office of National Statistics - can't remember which) estimated that the percentage of homosexuals in the UK population is about 6%. Having said that I don't see that it matters what percentage of the population we are.

I'd imagine the figures matter, to be able to predict the future population and thus how many workers will be out there to support the economy in the future.

mrbojangles - may I call you Mr. BJ? - it does not matter for that reason. We gay posters here have had babies, and so did Oscar Wilde, but not Alexander the Great. The population of the future depends upon the fecunding of straight people, who are fecunding far less often than our grandparents did (but my sister and I each had six). If population dwindles and you do not get your pension, blame the unfecunding straights.

MrBoJ will be ok PB

OK, i see you have twisted it round to be the straight persons fault if the population twindles. Yes, i know that some gay people have had babies. I don't know your personal reasons for having a wife and children and then realising your true path. Maybe in your youth, it was definately a "No, no" to be gay. It is without doubt though, much more common nowadays for gays to realise it and admit to it at a younger age and so don't have to go on and live a "lie".

Whatever way you want to look at it, the amount of gays in a population does affect the future population. The more gays, the more "fecunding" the straights have to be.

These figures are just part of the big picture and many more are thrown into the mix i.e. Divorce. In general, the higher the divorce rate, the higher the demand for more housing.

But then that shouldn't be surprising because the original premise of the opening thread was quite denegrating.

I think you are the only one to have commented on my OP in that regard and it most certainly was not the intention.

I have decided to edit my next comment, I guess it is lucky it is early morning and not after a few single malts.

Good Luck

Moss

The last UK census had questions about same-sex relationships. Using the statistics gathered a government department (either the Department of Work and Pensions or the Office of National Statistics - can't remember which) estimated that the percentage of homosexuals in the UK population is about 6%. Having said that I don't see that it matters what percentage of the population we are.

I'd imagine the figures matter, to be able to predict the future population and thus how many workers will be out there to support the economy in the future.

mrbojangles - may I call you Mr. BJ? - it does not matter for that reason. We gay posters here have had babies, and so did Oscar Wilde, but not Alexander the Great. The population of the future depends upon the fecunding of straight people, who are fecunding far less often than our grandparents did (but my sister and I each had six). If population dwindles and you do not get your pension, blame the unfecunding straights.

MrBoJ will be ok PB

OK, i see you have twisted it round to be the straight persons fault if the population twindles. Yes, i know that some gay people have had babies. I don't know your personal reasons for having a wife and children and then realising your true path. Maybe in your youth, it was definately a "No, no" to be gay. It is without doubt though, much more common nowadays for gays to realise it and admit to it at a younger age and so don't have to go on and live a "lie".

Whatever way you want to look at it, the amount of gays in a population does affect the future population. The more gays, the more "fecunding" the straights have to be.

These figures are just part of the big picture and many more are thrown into the mix i.e. Divorce. In general, the higher the divorce rate, the higher the demand for more housing.

I don't think this is part of the original topic, but if it's not the responsibility of straight folks to reproduce, whose is it? I mean, really. The heterosexual population has the numbers (over 90% by any figures), the political power, the means, and the motivation. Furthermore, world population itself is still rising. If a country has a population problem, how is it (by any light) because of gays? I'd suggest it's because of economic disparity (children are too expensive), education (birth control), and a certain inability of the straight married-with-children life plan to deliver on the whole 'marital bliss' thing, the way society is currently set up- resulting in younger people wanting to avoid the lives they see their parents leading- but that really does take us far off-topic.

I'm already taking care of some of the education part of the cycle (if you're suggesting that gays don't contribute to producing and raising the next generation).

The last UK census had questions about same-sex relationships. Using the statistics gathered a government department (either the Department of Work and Pensions or the Office of National Statistics - can't remember which) estimated that the percentage of homosexuals in the UK population is about 6%. Having said that I don't see that it matters what percentage of the population we are.

I'd imagine the figures matter, to be able to predict the future population and thus how many workers will be out there to support the economy in the future.

mrbojangles - may I call you Mr. BJ? - it does not matter for that reason. We gay posters here have had babies, and so did Oscar Wilde, but not Alexander the Great. The population of the future depends upon the fecunding of straight people, who are fecunding far less often than our grandparents did (but my sister and I each had six). If population dwindles and you do not get your pension, blame the unfecunding straights.

MrBoJ will be ok PB

OK, i see you have twisted it round to be the straight persons fault if the population twindles. Yes, i know that some gay people have had babies. I don't know your personal reasons for having a wife and children and then realising your true path. Maybe in your youth, it was definately a "No, no" to be gay. It is without doubt though, much more common nowadays for gays to realise it and admit to it at a younger age and so don't have to go on and live a "lie".

Whatever way you want to look at it, the amount of gays in a population does affect the future population. The more gays, the more "fecunding" the straights have to be.

These figures are just part of the big picture and many more are thrown into the mix i.e. Divorce. In general, the higher the divorce rate, the higher the demand for more housing.

I don't think this is part of the original topic, but if it's not the responsibility of straight folks to reproduce, whose is it? I mean, really. The heterosexual population has the numbers (over 90% by any figures), the political power, the means, and the motivation. Furthermore, world population itself is still rising. If a country has a population problem, how is it (by any light) because of gays? I'd suggest it's because of economic disparity (children are too expensive), education (birth control), and a certain inability of the straight married-with-children life plan to deliver on the whole 'marital bliss' thing, the way society is currently set up- resulting in younger people wanting to avoid the lives they see their parents leading- but that really does take us far off-topic.

Jeezus. Look at my original reply. All i was saying was the Government look at the figures, as one of many methods, to predict the future population. If you don't think that is the reason, then say why you think they are doing it.

I'm already taking care of some of the education part of the cycle (if you're suggesting that gays don't contribute to producing and raising the next generation).

I haven't said that at all. I said i realise that some gays have produced babies. But what percentage of gays do produce? Why did you produce? Was it because you was not gay at the time?

Mr Bo, pardon me if I read too much between the lines. I do think that part of the anti-gay conspiracy theory is that we gay men and women are not doing "our part" to continue the species. I do not think the very gay Greek and Roman cultures ever thought of that one. Even if it made sense whilst Oscar W. and I were doing far more than our fair share, the fact remains that straight folks in modern countries have negative birth rates now, and are proud of using condoms and pills. Gays and lesbians contribute in many ways - check who the designer of your clothing is. Okay, off topic.

Mr Bo, pardon me if I read too much between the lines. I do think that part of the anti-gay conspiracy theory is that we gay men and women are not doing "our part" to continue the species.

No worries PB. And i am in no way, anything to do with anti-gays. I have many a dear and close friend who are gay.

check who the designer of your clothing is. Okay, off topic.

Now i've had a baby, i think she'll be in designer labels and my labels will be Matalan and Primark

Curiouser and curiouser, personally I know so many gay men who married and raised families and found their true sexuality later in life.

Never once though, have I heard of a long term gay man giving it all away, marrying a woman and having children.

Could there be more pressure placed on potential "switchers" in gay society than in the straight?

So why are so many gays still afraid?

I realise that there are a number of places that they would be ill advised to go, but there are places that I don't go either because I am afraid of physical assault for racial reasons, or even because people of my own race don't like outsiders.

Ask Matthew Shepard, Jody Dobrowski or the drinkers in the Admiral Duncan. Those are three that spring to mind immediately.

I am not sure that is a compelling argument, other nationalites and groups outside what is considered 'normal', are attacked, including recently a young girl beaten to death because she was dressed as a Goth!!

When someone I know very well, 'came out' and he has a child too, he was rather scared of the outcome being born into a Roman Catholic Irish family, but all is well and accepted by everyone within it.

I still find it hard to understand why people have to use subterfuge, that can be in difficult or dangerous circumstances, unless of course they are running a second life and are hiding it for obvious reasons, or if they are in an obvious homophobic centred area, parts of N.Ireland come to mind.

Who can forget the scenes outside the registry office of the first civil ceremony there, it would be funny if it was not so tragic.

Good Luck

Moss

Perhaps I could address both of the previous posts by explaining that from what I know and have heard, as a Westerner in the past, it was extremely difficult to come out of the closet. Nobody does it as a joke, and then goes back to straight, AFAIK. They go gay because they desperately want to, after having tasted both forbidden fruits. If I were to go back to straight, after almost a quarter century of acting gay, nobody would condemn me or kill me for it,.

Kids who dress Goth are different, strange, atypical, abnormal - and they do it in public, by choice. Me, I never had been a minority before. Unlike the Black, Hispanic, Jewish, Aboridginal, etc., peoples, I did not grow up learning how it felt to be discriminated against. Unlike some of them, I am not aware of any affirmative action to give me promotions or settlements, and I still receive and transmit mixed signals about perceived reactions to gayness. I like Thailand because I can be gay without being killed for it.

Yeah, I've had my hand held in the past, completely innocently, by both gay and straight men (the straight in my wannabe hippy days) but I'm too full of middle class repressions and hang ups to tolerate it for long.

Would you hold hands with a women who you did not like in a romantic way or were not attracted to? That would bother me almost as much as holding hands with a man. I'm not sure that it's all about middle class repressions and hang ups.

Added this quote above from an earlier post for reference

Some of us are able to separate friendship fom sexual desire.

I have said this before but in my experience we hate in others what we fear in ourself.

That is nice, but, I think that most of us are easily able to separate friendship fom sexual desire. I know that it is not any problem for me.

Your quote above is that you cannot understand why a man would hold hands with a women to whom he is not attracted. You also stated that "it would bother you almost as much as holding hands with a man". I repeat my point that it is you who has the problem not me and not others.

If you are implying that I hate gay people or am afraid of being gay, you are completely off the mark and I don't really need to defend myself. However, these are the kinds of politically correct platitudes that are always used to keep people from discussing homosexuality realistically - If you don't paint us as saints, then you hate us and probably are in the closet as well.

In the closet? Well I must admit that I have got over my days of whoring and am very happy in a monogamous relationship with a woman. In fact this is my wa - serial monogamous in meaningful relationships. Apparently this surprises you and you assume I am gay because unlike you I don't think being gay is abnormal or some how degenerate. If this pleases you then feel free to consider me so.

Gay people are not saints. They are just regular people with somewhat abnormal sexual needs.

There is nothing wrong with homosexuality, but it is different from heterosexuality and lots of people want to know why. If you are so confident that being gay is OK, what are you folks so afraid of?

Then feel free to consider me gay. In my experience of the gays I know they are smarter, more articulate, and certainly more interesting than the majority of straights.

CB

Good post CB. All my gay friends are 'super-cool', intelligent and articulate, great fun to be with and trustworthy friends.

Ulysses, I agree that a non-homophobic person does not need to be perfectly PC in order to state a truth. But can an American citizen like rasseru, you or I make a statement against the operation of the govt. of the USA and still be patriots? Can we state factual reports of violent brutality of Israeli soldiers against unarmed Palestinians without being anti-Semitic? Can my friends have dinner with the president of Iran without being holocaust deniers? I think the answer to all these questions is yes...but it surely insults some gays, Americans and Jews.

If people want to be offended - they will be!

Mossfinn, how many gay people do you know who live or have lived for a long time in places that are not big cities, in very religiously Christian areas or otherwise homophobic cultures (not Thailand, to be sure)? I mean, know really, really well? Have you asked *them* why there might be some reason to be afraid of being open? Heck, I know *Norwegians* and *Dutch* who are afraid to be out in their home countries.

It doesn't mean you have to be afraid of being beaten up (though there are many places where you do). You might not get the same opportunities of promotion, of friendship, of socialization. There are all kinds of reasons gays have to be careful. There are countries (and states within countries) where the actual sex (if not the orientation) is illegal. There are laws against attacking or slandering gays (hate crime laws) in some places, but they are not always enforced enthusiastically. Many gay people have a history of harassment and torment as children, when they have no real recourse to help from their 'loving' straight parents who might also reject them, which leads them to be very distrusting of the good nature of straight persons. How many persons in this conversation have made anti-gay remarks- or 'jokes'- publicly, either under pressure to show your straight credentials or because you really have a problem with homophobia?

We can't read the minds of straight people, and it only takes one stupid, bigoted homophobe to give us a really bad day. I prefer not to give most potential homophobes the benefit of the doubt, or the opportunity to do any damage. Since you don't seem to be aware of the things I've just posted- because otherwise you would know why some discretion is still advised- it makes me suspect you don't have many close gay friends (or they are not as close as you think they are).

"S"

Curiouser and curiouser, personally I know so many gay men who married and raised families and found their true sexuality later in life.

Never once though, have I heard of a long term gay man giving it all away, marrying a woman and having children.

Could there be more pressure placed on potential "switchers" in gay society than in the straight?

Not quite sure what you mean there sc but the reason that many 'straight' men turn gay later in life (and this isn't true of all of them) is that they know they're gay inside but feel pressured by society to be 'normal' and thus go down the wife and two kids path. After a number of years the internal dishonesty implicit in pretending to be something they aren't becomes too much and they have the option of coming out or cracking up. I had a boyfriend whose Dad came out to us. He told us that watching us being gay and happy made him realise just how much of his life he'd spent hiding himself away. Strangely enough his wife took it all in her stride. We all used to go to the local gay club together on a Saturday night.

So why are so many gays still afraid?

I realise that there are a number of places that they would be ill advised to go, but there are places that I don't go either because I am afraid of physical assault for racial reasons, or even because people of my own race don't like outsiders.

Ask Matthew Shepard, Jody Dobrowski or the drinkers in the Admiral Duncan. Those are three that spring to mind immediately.

I am not sure that is a compelling argument, other nationalites and groups outside what is considered 'normal', are attacked, including recently a young girl beaten to death because she was dressed as a Goth!!

When someone I know very well, 'came out' and he has a child too, he was rather scared of the outcome being born into a Roman Catholic Irish family, but all is well and accepted by everyone within it.

I still find it hard to understand why people have to use subterfuge, that can be in difficult or dangerous circumstances, unless of course they are running a second life and are hiding it for obvious reasons, or if they are in an obvious homophobic centred area, parts of N.Ireland come to mind.

Who can forget the scenes outside the registry office of the first civil ceremony there, it would be funny if it was not so tragic.

Good Luck

Moss

I've been beaten up 4 times simply for being gay. The worst beating was when I walked out of a gay club on my own at 1am in the morning. Two gorillas set on me with an iron bar. I finished up in hospital. All I did was to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I had the shit kicked out of me by a gang of 5 - once again they'd seen me leaving a a gay club early in the morning. They beat me up and then ran away. When the police arrived and found out I was gay they said it must have been my own fault and left.

That's why we're cautious and that's why Thailand is Gay Heaven. Not because of the zillions of good looking blokes (although that does help ) but because if you asked a Thai to help you do a bit of queer bashing he'd think you were insane.

Mossfinn, how many gay people do you know who live or have lived for a long time in places that are not big cities, in very religiously Christian areas or otherwise homophobic cultures

Because you have responded to me by name and I assume it is because of my post and no other reason, I will respond, but it needs time, you have included some relevant points that I will not answer quickly or flippantly and I may not have time tonight.

Moss

I've been beaten up 4 times simply for being gay. The worst beating was when I walked out of a gay club on my own at 1am in the morning. Two gorillas set on me with an iron bar. I finished up in hospital. All I did was to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I had the shit kicked out of me by a gang of 5 - once again they'd seen me leaving a a gay club early in the morning. They beat me up and then ran away. When the police arrived and found out I was gay they said it must have been my own fault and left.

That's why we're cautious and that's why Thailand is Gay Heaven. Not because of the zillions of good looking blokes (although that does help ) but because if you asked a Thai to help you do a bit of queer bashing he'd think you were insane.

Endure, I can hardly comprehend what you have gone through, but people who use iron bars to prove their worth against those who they feel are alien to their culture are extraordinarily weak, but I guess that does not help you.

As for the group of five, where I used to drink and now work, if anyone boasted of odds of 5/1 they would be laughed out of town, no matter their reasoning, so I would suggest cowards looking for an easy target.

However, I also understand that this sounds like I am burying my head in the sand and not fully understanding the situation, or the position you guys feel you have been left in, I will also state that there is obvious homophobic groups out there, but it may be just the people I choose to group with that there is no evidence of it ( within my circle ) and I feel there is much more understanding in today's age. When you come from a background as I, where it is staunchly Irish and Catholic and no one battered an eyelid when someone 'came out', when you drink in a tough pub and Gays can mingle with no agitation, at work, which is a fairly rudimentary and working class environment, and reputably the second oldest profession in the world, the only Gay (allegedly ) in the village, is treated with respect.

I do not profess to know your community well, certainly not as knowledgeable as UGG, but I see a fairly good cross section of people and overtly I see no problem, certainly not at a level that you would put yourself in danger of the more problematic areas for stranger danger.

What I was also trying to allude to is there are all sorts of groups looking to assert their superiority and the use of menace, force and abuse is prevalent amongst many groups to enforce it, this includes snide remarks about being, 'Embarrassed to be Irish because of indiscriminate bombs killing innocent people'. We all encounter prejudice in some form, perhaps we do not all have to encounter violence to go with it, although on occasion it has been known.

Thanks for being open about your experience, it has gone a long way to answering my OP.

Good Luck

Moss

No problem, Moss. I understand what you're saying. Most folks are ok but as IJWT says, if you meet one of the others it can really spoil your day. The problem is that you can never tell which are which until after the event.

As another hint, UG, the use of 'you folks' and 'you people' (presumably referring to those of us posting who are gay- or are you also speaking of Crow Boy?) is a common linguistic pattern in- wait for it- certain Caucasian American persons attempting to tell African Americans how they (the African Americans) 'really' are. It tends to show that the speaker is not addressing you directly as a person and in fact may be unable to regard you as a person. It's a telling indicator that usually points to prejudiced or bigoted thought patterns- not to mention protesting that you 'have nothing against gay people.' I imagine next you'll be saying that 'some of my best friends are gay.'

'Ijustwannateach', I'm coming back to look at this thread after reading some of your comments on the political correctness thread and I find it most telling. I am straight, you are gay and so are most of the folks that disagree with my comments on this thread which is discussing homosexuality. What am I supposed to call you?

I normally vote as a Democrat. If I was addressing a bunch of Republicans in a political debate, I would not refer to them as "us". If I was talking to guys on another sports team during a game, I might call them, "you folks". If I was discusing relegion with a Lutheran (I am Catholic), I would call them, "you people". Everything you said above is political correctness run amuck and just make any sense in context of this conversation.

Your quote above is that you cannot understand why a man would hold hands with a women to whom he is not attracted. You also stated that "it would bother you almost as much as holding hands with a man". I repeat my point that it is you who has the problem not me and not others.

In the closet? Well I must admit that I have got over my days of whoring and am very happy in a monogamous relationship with a woman. In fact this is my wa - serial monogamous in meaningful relationships. Apparently this surprises you and you assume I am gay because unlike you I don't think being gay is abnormal or some how degenerate. If this pleases you then feel free to consider me so.

Crowboy, to be honest, I have no clue what gives you the idea that I think you are gay, but I have never thought so in any way. I just don't see why you would lie about it in this day and age and I don't see anything that I have written that would lead you to think otherwise.

I do think that you tow the politically correct line way too often and even go to the point of misrepresenting your true feelings to fit your round self into a square peg, but there are plenty of people like that.

I like lots of gay people and feel that some are more clever or funnier than other people, but lots of straight foks are special in their own way too. A good person is a good person and race, religion and sexual orientation don't have much to do with it.

Everything you said above is political correctness run amuck and just make any sense in context of this conversation.

That should read,..."just doesn't make any sense"...

I had not read the article cited in the OP until just now. It really was not much of an article; I think she was coming up to a deadline and just dashed down about five unrelated comments without thinking them through. Anyway, when I was straight and single, there were no girls in the men's toilet, so no opportunity for hanky-panky. I never had sex in a men''s toilet until I was...I don't know, well over 55, after I had been actively gay more than ten years....maybe not until the changing room at the pool in Thailand, with a Thai man whose children were still in the pool, this year! Yeah, Thai men with wives and kids still need to hide it.

I wonder how much of anti-gay feeling by heterosexual males is caused by envy?

Running into perfect strangers and instantly having sex in a semi-public place is pretty much a pipe dream for most. Sure it does happen but it's that rare we generally brag about it for years.

Of course it occurs under certain circumstances that generally involve buying a few drinks and an exchange of money.