You know Boo, you just cheered me up. The wife often uses the 'sniff' analogy with the lad, just to try and emphasize the importance of cleaning.

And I have to laugh when he comes down and asks me to smell his bottom, just to proove how clean it is And yes, when giving him a bath, you do have to go where you really don't want to, but you know someone's gotta do it.

But to answer other questions, I went to Roman Catholic Schools in both england & Ireland all my life, taught by both Sisters and Priests and contrary to popular belief of these organisation, I came out pretty much unscathed, and as for my friends, you know I could just be in denial.

This obviously raised a few eyebrows as I expect most people find that figure of 10% rather difficult to believe. I'm not saying it isn't true - just unexpected. Therefore, people start responding to see what kind of proportion we get here - doesn't seem to be 10%, more like the inverse based on people's responses on this thread (although of course that's not taking in to account the people who are in denial, and thus giving untrue answers, which would skew the figures somewhat).

So, I would surmise that no-one's responding directly to any questions, just chipping in and sharing their own experiences and observations.

Good Post

Why is the obverse 'straight' acceptable when the reverse 'bent' is considered objectionable? It's the same coin.

Gay implies light and happy, thus no dark side.

My observation of this centres around, 'bent' alludes to something not right, a little corrupted, not absolutely wrong, but you know, we will turn a blind eye.

'Straight', means well just that straight, upstanding, Righteous, something that is Right.

Gay, is a far better description in todays world, it doesn't have to describe the dark side, just as straight attempts to disguise it.

Why is the obverse 'straight' acceptable when the reverse 'bent' is considered objectionable? It's the same coin.

Gay implies light and happy, thus no dark side.

My observation of this centres around, 'bent' alludes to something not right, a little corrupted, not absolutely wrong, but you know, we will turn a blind eye.

'Straight', means well just that straight, upstanding, Righteous, something that is Right.

Gay, is a far better description in todays world, it doesn't have to describe the dark side, just as straight attempts to disguise it.

This, Moss, is exactly my point.

Something not right, a little corrupted, not absolutely wrong (?? see Leviticus), has now been turned into something where one does not have to describe the dark side.

Solely by the choice of words used in the media, a particular subject has been whitewashed. Would the same happen in a few years time to robbery, or murder? Political intrigue that leads to unjustified war? Corruption in the body politic? That already appears the case, as the furore a few months ago over MPs expenses has not (to my limited knowledge) led to any mass purge of politicians or changes in legislation. And in fact the same thing appears to be happening - only more so - in the European parliament.

By fiddling with words we are making this a far less innocent society than I recall as a boy. All manner of predators are allowed to function in this current society without let or hindrance, because we have found different ways of describing their actions.

Why is the obverse 'straight' acceptable when the reverse 'bent' is considered objectionable? It's the same coin.

Gay implies light and happy, thus no dark side.

My observation of this centres around, 'bent' alludes to something not right, a little corrupted, not absolutely wrong, but you know, we will turn a blind eye.

'Straight', means well just that straight, upstanding, Righteous, something that is Right.

Gay, is a far better description in todays world, it doesn't have to describe the dark side, just as straight attempts to disguise it.

This, Moss, is exactly my point.

Something not right, a little corrupted, not absolutely wrong (?? see Leviticus), has now been turned into something where one does not have to describe the dark side.

Solely by the choice of words used in the media, a particular subject has been whitewashed. Would the same happen in a few years time to robbery, or murder? Political intrigue that leads to unjustified war? Corruption in the body politic? That already appears the case, as the furore a few months ago over MPs expenses has not (to my limited knowledge) led to any mass purge of politicians or changes in legislation. And in fact the same thing appears to be happening - only more so - in the European parliament.

By fiddling with words we are making this a far less innocent society than I recall as a boy. All manner of predators are allowed to function in this current society without let or hindrance, because we have found different ways of describing their actions.

I realise I may be interpreting this incorrectly, so put me right if that is so...... you seem to be saying that gay (homosexual) is "Something not right, a little corrupted, not absolutely wrong (but somewhat wrong)"?

You also seem to say that the word "gay" is a euphamism that has evolved from unwhitewashed beginings, to cover up for a "dark side" (akin to robbery and murder).

You seem to be saying, in short, that "gay" is just a nice sounding word for a nasty thing.

Or have I got the wrong end of the stick?

Why is the obverse 'straight' acceptable when the reverse 'bent' is considered objectionable? It's the same coin.

Gay implies light and happy, thus no dark side.

My observation of this centres around, 'bent' alludes to something not right, a little corrupted, not absolutely wrong, but you know, we will turn a blind eye.

'Straight', means well just that straight, upstanding, Righteous, something that is Right.

Gay, is a far better description in todays world, it doesn't have to describe the dark side, just as straight attempts to disguise it.

This, Moss, is exactly my point.

Something not right, a little corrupted, not absolutely wrong (?? see Leviticus), has now been turned into something where one does not have to describe the dark side.

Solely by the choice of words used in the media, a particular subject has been whitewashed. Would the same happen in a few years time to robbery, or murder? Political intrigue that leads to unjustified war? Corruption in the body politic? That already appears the case, as the furore a few months ago over MPs expenses has not (to my limited knowledge) led to any mass purge of politicians or changes in legislation. And in fact the same thing appears to be happening - only more so - in the European parliament.

By fiddling with words we are making this a far less innocent society than I recall as a boy. All manner of predators are allowed to function in this current society without let or hindrance, because we have found different ways of describing their actions.

A far less innocent society?

You may be forgetting about Shanghai in the 1930’s. It is like Bangkok in the 1990’s only more so and more debauched.

Did you know there were lots of lady boys in the old wild west? Cowboys liked them.

Did you know about Storyville in New Orleans and how much a 12 year old virgin cost?

Did you know where jazz music came from?

Did you know about the largest whore house in Asia in Saigon? What year do you think?

Did you know how many opium dens were in Bangkok in the 1930’s?

Perhaps society was the same but a lot of people had their heads in the sand, like you.

During the American civil war more soldiers were put out of combat by STD’s than bullets, did you know that?

Do you know how many people the British Empire starved in India? Probably not. It didn’t get much press at the time.

Perhaps the media are only reporting now that they didn’t report before?

Perhaps Presidents are not getting a free ride like Kennedy did?

J Edgar Hoover wore dresses and Kennedy dated a Russian spy along with mob girls and so did his brother. Not much press at the time.

A far less innocent society? No. Just a far less informed society. Mom told me priests were not gay. I said, "mom the kids call him Father Mary for a reason." She slapped me and told me to keep my mouth shut.

A far less innocent society?

You may be forgetting about Shanghai in the 1930s. It is like Bangkok in the 1990s only more so and more debauched.

Sorry, wasn't in the region at that time.

Did you know there were lots of lady boys in the old wild west? Cowboys liked them.

I don't - not interested in the heifers, either.

Did you know about Storyville in New Orleans and how much a 12 year old virgin cost?

Nope, and wouldn't be interested either

Did you know where jazz music came from?

12" vinyl records

Did you know about the largest whore house in Asia in Saigon? What year do you think?

During the American War (1963-1975)

Did you know how many opium dens were in Bangkok in the 1930s?

Bangkok at that time was very much a third world country and of no interest (except to opium smokers)

Perhaps society was the same but a lot of people had their heads in the sand, like you.

Perhaps it wasn't? Certainly in my community.

During the American civil war more soldiers were put out of combat by STDs than bullets, did you know that?

Well, syphilis was unknown until Columbus brought it back from the New World.

Do you know how many people the British Empire starved in India? Probably not. It didnt get much press at the time.

Do you know how many people starved in India before the British ran it? Do you know how many people died in India at partition (when the British left)? Ghengis Khan and his successors had much more to do with keeping the Indian population in check than the Brits. Now it is growing at an uncontrollable rate.

Perhaps the media are only reporting now that they didnt report before?

Perhaps the media are too lazy now to go out and get NEWS, so they keep publishing puff pieces that require little or no research.

Perhaps Presidents are not getting a free ride like Kennedy did?

Did you watch the pre-election coverage of Obama? No free ride? The entire media were kissing his butt and fighting to do so.

J Edgar Hoover wore dresses and Kennedy dated a Russian spy along with mob girls and so did his brother. Not much press at the time.

I thought it was just a teddy. But I am open to correction from anyone who is interested in such things.

A far less innocent society? No. Just a far less informed society. Mom told me priests were not gay. I said, "mom the kids call him Father Mary for a reason." She slapped me and told me to keep my mouth shut.

Sure it happened. But it was not printed in the newspapers to boost circulation, the way it is today. Then it was reported to the police and the guy went to jail.

Actually, if you read the papers, they did not go to jail HB. I think mark's point, which was aptly made by the way, is that the whole idea of a "more innocent time" is semi-myth that was probably only applicable to a very small portion the world, mainly white middle class and upper middle class people from western nations. But if it makes you feel better to think that the world was once a safer more gentler place then go for it. Nothing wrong with that, just don't expect everyone else to go along with your version of reality, cheers.

A far less innocent society?

You may be forgetting about Shanghai in the 1930’s. It is like Bangkok in the 1990’s only more so and more debauched.

Sorry, wasn't in the region at that time.

Did you know there were lots of lady boys in the old wild west? Cowboys liked them.

I don't - not interested in the heifers, either.

Did you know about Storyville in New Orleans and how much a 12 year old virgin cost?

Nope, and wouldn't be interested either

Did you know where jazz music came from?

12" vinyl records

Did you know about the largest whore house in Asia in Saigon? What year do you think?

During the American War (1963-1975)

Did you know how many opium dens were in Bangkok in the 1930’s?

Bangkok at that time was very much a third world country and of no interest (except to opium smokers)

Perhaps society was the same but a lot of people had their heads in the sand, like you.

Perhaps it wasn't? Certainly in my community.

During the American civil war more soldiers were put out of combat by STD’s than bullets, did you know that?

Well, syphilis was unknown until Columbus brought it back from the New World.

Do you know how many people the British Empire starved in India? Probably not. It didn’t get much press at the time.

Do you know how many people starved in India before the British ran it? Do you know how many people died in India at partition (when the British left)? Ghengis Khan and his successors had much more to do with keeping the Indian population in check than the Brits. Now it is growing at an uncontrollable rate.

Perhaps the media are only reporting now that they didn’t report before?

Perhaps the media are too lazy now to go out and get NEWS, so they keep publishing puff pieces that require little or no research.

Perhaps Presidents are not getting a free ride like Kennedy did?

Did you watch the pre-election coverage of Obama? No free ride? The entire media were kissing his butt and fighting to do so.

J Edgar Hoover wore dresses and Kennedy dated a Russian spy along with mob girls and so did his brother. Not much press at the time.

I thought it was just a teddy. But I am open to correction from anyone who is interested in such things.

A far less innocent society? No. Just a far less informed society. Mom told me priests were not gay. I said, "mom the kids call him Father Mary for a reason." She slapped me and told me to keep my mouth shut.

Sure it happened. But it was not printed in the newspapers to boost circulation, the way it is today. Then it was reported to the police and the guy went to jail.

Rarely has a post of mine been answered with so many non answers.

As SBK affirmed because you now nothing about history does not mean it did not happen.

Because you are not interested reminds me of an ostrich who are also not interested.

Because you were not in Shanghai or like cows is relatively meaningless to what happened in the American West or China.

Jazz was invented and popularized in houses of prostitution where any manner of illegal and immoral acts were readily available for a price.

Most of the early Jazz greats got their start playing for punters taking a break from sex.

The largest brothel in Saigon existed before the Americans were in Vietnam. The Hall of Mirrors Brothel is said to have employed 1200 ladies in the 1950’s.

Factually your post was almost completely unresponsive to mine. It read like the silly thoughts of a 12 year old on drugs.

Please don’t bother. It doesn’t further the discussion and only makes you look foolish.

But I also must apologize I had not realized the extent of your lack of knowledge of what most would consider basic world history. I would not have responded if I had realized you would be so challenged.

Actually, if you read the papers, they did not go to jail HB. I think mark's point, which was aptly made by the way, is that the whole idea of a "more innocent time" is semi-myth that was probably only applicable to a very small portion the world, mainly white middle class and upper middle class people from western nations. But if it makes you feel better to think that the world was once a safer more gentler place then go for it. Nothing wrong with that, just don't expect everyone else to go along with your version of reality, cheers.

Of course you are correct about not going to jail. That is the whole point of the row today.

It seems hard to believe today that such atrocities could have happened and been ignored by the Church, State and most of the population.

I attended Catholic schools for 12 years. The nuns were OK a bit stern perhaps and some undereducated or old fashioned but nothing very out of the ordinary. But the great majority priests I knew were either psychotic, alcoholic or perverted in some way or another.

Since I was an alter boy almost daily for over 8 years I would mention to my parents the unusual behavior of the priests and always was met with the same stern disbelief and negative response.

My father also attended the same schools and I can’t believe I told him anything new but perhaps he was more like HB and just kept his head in the sand.

I have often wondered how atrocity takes place. How the Germans didn’t know. How the British public didn’t know about the unnecessary famines in many of the colonies. My mother and grandmother who would not believe me about the priests knew all about the potato famine.

When I was in Vietnam and saw things I knew were not right I reported them. When nothing was done I went up another level and reported them again.

I left a promising career in the Army because of the lack of transparency and outright stupidity of the institution. I think it is important to have a grasp on history. I think history is important in education. It is important in the west and it is important in Thailand. HB’s post is a good example of how a person can be well intentioned but totally in error and if there are many people like him great wrongs can be done and done over and over again with no one the wiser.

I will go along with Mark and sbk regarding the illusion of it being a much safer place 'then' than now, it is just mass reported now, or more thouroughly investigated today.

We have different recollections of the schools Mark, although the Nuns is pretty spot on, I do not recollect any adverse actions by the preisthood, although I am not in denial of certain actions within the Church, however I am an ugly bugger, if you'll excuse the term.

People do know about the atrocities, German Bricklayers, Carpenters and Ground workers do not build large gas ovens to exterminate Bovine TB, surrounding it with wire and gun posts.

The Times led articles regarding the ships that left Ireland laden with corn, barley and live stock whilst the indigenous population either emigrated or died, leaving it with a zero population growth since the 19C, the only other country or state with a similar statistic is the Vatican City, allegedly.

And yes I know that was the point you were making.

I liked your previous post too, worth a thread of its own, more soldiers sidelined because of std's than bullets, I never knew that.

Not everyone gets corrupted in their youth.

Yes, so true. No matter how hard one tries, not every one is successful.

Not everyone gets corrupted in their youth.

Yes, so true. No matter how hard one tries, not every one is successful.

Where's that green rep button when you need it...!

I will go along with Mark and sbk regarding the illusion of it being a much safer place 'then' than now, it is just mass reported now, or more thouroughly investigated today.

We have different recollections of the schools Mark, although the Nuns is pretty spot on, I do not recollect any adverse actions by the preisthood, although I am not in denial of certain actions within the Church, however I am an ugly bugger, if you'll excuse the term.

People do know about the atrocities, German Bricklayers, Carpenters and Ground workers do not build large gas ovens to exterminate Bovine TB, surrounding it with wire and gun posts.

The Times led articles regarding the ships that left Ireland laden with corn, barley and live stock whilst the indigenous population either emigrated or died, leaving it with a zero population growth since the 19C, the only other country or state with a similar statistic is the Vatican City, allegedly.

And yes I know that was the point you were making.

I liked your previous post too, worth a thread of its own, more soldiers sidelined because of std's than bullets, I never knew that.

I didn’t mean to imply all the priests I knew were gay. The great majority were alcoholics (alter boys see them early in the morning). Maybe 5% to 10% gay and 10% with severe mental or emotional problems.

Nuns seemed almost 100% not psychotic but a few were a bit nutty in odd ways more than harmful ways.

The nuns seemed to really believe.

We had a smoking lounge in High School, Juniors (15 years old) and above. That seems really odd now.

So, anyway, priests, nuns and smoking rooms, seems this thread has taken a bedlam turn. Here I thought it was about sexual experimentation!

So, anyway, priests, nuns and smoking rooms, seems this thread has taken a bedlam turn. Here I thought it was about sexual experimentation!

Aahhh...sexual experimentation.

So we should be discussing the US government's secret activities in Guatamala !

Are we back on topic now ?

So, anyway, priests, nuns and smoking rooms, seems this thread has taken a bedlam turn. Here I thought it was about sexual experimentation!

Aahhh...sexual experimentation.

So we should be discussing the US government's secret activities in Guatamala !

Are we back on topic now ?

No, no, no.....sexual experimentation, not sexual disease experimentation.

But one must lead inevitably to the other.....like smoking dope leads to being a heroin junkie....and masturbation leads to blindness. All inevitable because smarter people than me say so.

So, sexual experimentation leads to being gay. There you have it.

But one must lead inevitably to the other.....like smoking dope leads to being a heroin junkie....and masturbation leads to blindness. All inevitable because smarter people than me say so.

So, sexual experimentation leads to being gay. There you have it.

Brilliant.

Do smarter people than you actually exist?

But one must lead inevitably to the other.....like smoking dope leads to being a heroin junkie....and masturbation leads to blindness.

How many years do you have to masturbate before you actually go blind?

But one must lead inevitably to the other.....like smoking dope leads to being a heroin junkie....and masturbation leads to blindness.

How many years do you have to masturbate before you actually go blind?

Experimentation shows that it must be a mi8nimum of 75, come back to me in a few years and I may be able to give a definite figure.

But one must lead inevitably to the other.....like smoking dope leads to being a heroin junkie....and masturbation leads to blindness.

How many years do you have to masturbate before you actually go blind?

Experimentation shows that it must be a mi8nimum of 75, come back to me in a few years and I may be able to give a definite figure.

They say it kills you eventually.

But one must lead inevitably to the other.....like smoking dope leads to being a heroin junkie....and masturbation leads to blindness.

How many years do you have to masturbate before you actually go blind?

Experimentation shows that it must be a mi8nimum of 75, come back to me in a few years and I may be able to give a definite figure.

They say it kills you eventually.

I'll let you know about that, as well.

Experimentation shows that it must be a mi8nimum of 75, come back to me in a few years and I may be able to give a definite figure.

They say it kills you eventually.

I'll let you know about that, as well.

No hurry though Humph

I knew I wasn't gay when I realized how much I hated anal examinations by the male doctor and yet didn't mind physical examinations by female doctors.

http://www.nationalsexstudy.indiana.edu/

While about 7% of adult women and 8% of men identify as gay, lesbian or bisexual, the proportion of individuals in the U.S. who have had same-gender sexual interactions at some point in their lives is higher.

http://www.nationals...dy.indiana.edu/

While about 7% of adult women and 8% of men identify as gay, lesbian or bisexual, the proportion of individuals in the U.S. who have had same-gender sexual interactions at some point in their lives is higher.

Would be more useful if it said exactly how much higher...! Still, I'd hazard that it's far less than the 90% estimate in the other report that IJWT quoted a while back.

I think most would agree that the amount of people who have had same-gender sexual experiences "at some point in their lives" will obviously be higher than the amount of people who identify as gay.

http://www.nationalsexstudy.indiana.edu/

While about 7% of adult women and 8% of men identify as gay, lesbian or bisexual, the proportion of individuals in the U.S. who have had same-gender sexual interactions at some point in their lives is higher.

In addition, major historical shifts can occur in reports of the prevalence of homosexuality. For example, the Hamburg Institute for Sexual Research conducted a survey over the sexual behavior of young people in 1970, and repeated it in 1990. Whereas in 1970 18% of the boys aged 16 and 17 reported to have had same-sex sexual experiences, the number had dropped to 2% by 1990

2003: The largest and most thorough survey in Australia to date was conducted by telephone interview with 19,307 respondents between the ages of 16 and 59 in 2001/2002. The study found that 97.4% of men identified as heterosexual, 1.6% as gay.

2003: A survey of 135,000 Canadians found that 1.0% of the respondents identified themselves as homosexual and 0.7% identified themselves as bisexual. About 1.3% of men considered themselves homosexual, almost twice the proportion of 0.7% among women. However, 0.9% of women reported being bisexual, slightly higher than the proportion of 0.6% among men. 2.0% of those in the 18–35 age bracket considered themselves to be either homosexual or bisexual, but the number decreased to 1.9% among 35–44 year olds, and further still to 1.2% in the population aged 45–59. Quebec and British Columbia had higher percentages than the national average at 2.3% and 1.9%, respectively

2010: A representative survey of 238,206 Britons found 1% were gay or lesbian and .5% were bisexual. A further .5% self-identified as "other"

2008: CNN exit polling showed self-identified gay, lesbian, and bisexual voters at 4% of the voting population in the United States presidential election, 2008.

My conclusion, if you take away the bisexual males is that about 1% of the population is gay and is decreasing every year.

My personal observations would exclude Thailand from these numbers. Thailand is the gayest place I have ever lived and I have lived in San Francisco.

Thailand reminds me a bit of San Francisco before the HIV thing. I lived there in the early 1970's and again in the late 1980's. Like night and day. Still a lot of gays in the 80's but nothing like the flower children and their aftermath in the late 60's and early 70's.

If the gay vote was at only 4% a couple of years ago and declines further the whole issue will become a non starter.

Even if you take SBK's information and deduct 5% for bisexuals that only leaves 3% of the population gay. Given that Buddhism has increased 170% in the US from 1990 to 2000 it will only be a few years before there are more Buddhists than gays in America.

In case you wondered why Ian is not in this thread it is because there are more people who speak Punjabi in Canada than gays.

In case you wondered why Ian is not in this thread it is because there are more people who speak Punjabi in Canada than gays.

:lol:

I'm not sure how the Punjabi comment relates to gays in Canada.

The reason why I'm not in this thread is because I'm not interested in the gay life style. I have friends who had both gay and straight sons, so I have a "little" understanding about the subject. Because I'm in the arts field I know many gay men, but all we talk about is art... not relationships. I don't and won't make comments on people's choice of sexuality... other than in a general way.

I believe that most gays are born with that predisposition, but a few might be border line. I also believe that some lesbians were originally heterosexual, but turned gay due to poor experiences with men and better experiences with women.

And, like that old joke...

"I didn't realize that I was a lesbian until this butch lesbian told me all she thought about was attractive, naked females.... same as me."

In case you wondered why Ian is not in this thread it is because there are more people who speak Punjabi in Canada than gays.

:lol:

I'm not sure how the Punjabi comment relates to gays in Canada.

The reason why I'm not in this thread is because I'm not interested in the gay life style. I have friends who had both gay and straight sons, so I have a "little" understanding about the subject. Because I'm in the arts field I know many gay men, but all we talk about is art... not relationships. I don't and won't make comments on people's choice of sexuality... other than in a general way.

I believe that most gays are born with that predisposition, but a few might be border line. I also believe that some lesbians were originally heterosexual, but turned gay due to poor experiences with men and better experiences with women.

And, like that old joke...

"I didn't realize that I was a lesbian until this butch lesbian told me all she thought about was attractive, naked females.... same as me."

Because, if stats are to be believed there aren't many gay people in Canada. The same reason you are not concerned about Punjabi speakers there simply are not that many in Canada. There are more Punjabi speakers in Canada than gay people.