Monks Teach Maleness To Thai 'Ladyboys'

[Jingthing]

Gays are inherently different than straights.Homosexuality may, or may not be a mental disorder. However, this behavior appears to have genetic roots that are present in a small percentage of the population. In other words- a minority. The only reason that this is rarely mentioned is due to the influence of political correctness upon -not only the popular dialogue- but, perhaps the most troubling, the discourse among the professional community. In fact, a straight guy stating that the thought of homosexual activity repulses him, is commonly considered to be symptom of the"new" disorder, homophobia - a loaded term for anti-gay attitudes.Why is it permissible for gays to openly condemn straights for expressing such opinions, but even a hint of reciprocal rhetoric is met by even harsher criticism?

Thank you for coming out yet again with your homophobia. That is much more desirable than trying to be clever and acting like you are tolerant of gays, when you are not. Nobody needs "friends" like that.

Edited July 17, 2011 by Jingthing

[Nisa]

Where do you come up with this nonsense? I applaud your standing up for the gay community but it is just bizarre that you continue this nonsense withi statements that massive amounts of hetros liking gay sex, that many hetro men turn gay after experiencing a Man on Man orgasm or that gay sex is more prevalent than hetro sex. You really lose all credibility when you make such obviously incorrect statements and certainly are not helping anyone to be tolerant or understanding to any minority group.

You twist more than a stick of licorice, dude!

1. Yes, many hetero men have enjoyed gay sex. As heteros are 98 percent of the world, of course if a certain percentage of them have enjoyed gay sex in their lives, the number would indeed by MASSIVE. Lot of people in the world. Nobody knows the exact percentage, nor have I EVER said it was a MAJORITY of males.

2. You clearly didn't bother to get my point about YOUNG male prostitutes. SOME, not all, not the majority can change their sexual orientation from straight to gay through POSITIVE REINFORCEMENT. I don't expect everyone to understand psych theories, but quite simply if you do something several times a day, and you experience ORGASMS from that activity, ORGASMS being our greatest pleasure, and the activity is GAY SEX, some YOUNG (yes they must be young) men do OVER TIME change their orientation. This because over time the pleasure of orgasm becomes forever linked to MSM sex. It can't only be the money, because money wouldn't make straight guys LIKE gay sex. (Who doesn't love money?) They must be young men because male sexuality is set young and is not very fluid (compared to females). Also of course most male prostitutes are young anyway.

3. Show me where I ever said, gay sex is more common than straight sex? I can't believe I ever said such a thing, I accuse you of BLATANT LYING. To make this clear to more clear minded people, I don't believe there is more gay sex going on than straight sex.

To repeat again, MSM sex acts are not the same thing as gay sexual ORIENTATION. Some doing MSM (enjoying it or not) are gay, some aren't.

I kindly request that you desist from blatantly distorting my posts.

The following are all Exact quotes from you... and I only went back about 1/2 the pages

in male prostitution is most cultures, there is simply more MSM demand than hetero sex

MALE TO MALE SEX is in no way the same thing as gay orientation!

Psychological studies have shown that a decent percentage of total hetero male prostitutes "turn" to be actually gay over time due to the positive reinforcement of the pleasure ORGASMS being associated with MSM sex.

Having sex does not define your sexual orientation.

MSM is massively common by all kinds of men, and probably most of them are NOT gay men.

!There is nothing "abnormal" about hot steamy MAN TO MAN sex!

Straight men enjoying MSM BJs because their ladies won't do them, and gay men are often more skilled at that (and actually enjoy it) more than many women

In many cultures sex with trannies (intact or not) is widely enjoyed and not seen as gay in their culture

Many males have MSM all over the world and don't identify as gay.

In Mexican culture it is very common for "macho men" to top gay men (and get oral sex, etc.). Not talking about ladyboy trans types, men who look like men.

In their culture, not only do the straight tops not consider themselves gay, their society doesn't. These tops are having MSM but they are NOT gay!

Gay is not only the sex you have but how you think about yourself and your sexual orientation.

Are those two guys having homosexual sex? Well, yes they are, but only one of them is homosexual/gay.

In macho culture dominating a "weaker" male is considered extremely masculine and men who wouldn't do that would be seen as more feminine than a man who does.

Most of these things seem to have a common thread and it is your trying to tell people hetro males having sex with men is normal and common when in fact it is not. I don't believe you would like it if people started taking uncommon examples of what certain gay people do and then start saying it is a 'massive" thing done among "most" gays of if somebody said gay men actually prefer having sex with women when their partner is not around. Your statements serve no purpose what-so-ever except to distort and/or cause reaction.

As for your comments about Mexico, they are just ridiculous. I lived just north of the Mexican border in California for 20+ years and spend a great deal of time in Mexico and have and had countless Mexican friends.

Your posts reminds me of something a comedian friend said to me once while there was a lull in the conversation ...

"Anyway .. So, the other night I'm butt f@@king this guy and all of a sudden he reaches around and starts rubbing my n@ts and I think to myself, this guy must be gay."

Edited July 17, 2011 by Nisa

[Jingthing]

Wow, not sure how I missed this the first read through of the OP ...

Monks have had limited success in their project -- three of the six ladyboys to have graduated from the school are said to have embraced their masculinity, but the remaining three went on to have sex changes.

IF (and that is a big IF) true, then this is a 50% success rate in terms of conversion. Obviously still not a pleasant thing to go through if your leanings towards being effeminate are unchangeable but for the other half, I believe their life is going to be filled with less stress and more opportunity because of this change .... regardless if this is right or fair. My guess would be the 1/2 that converted were probably going through some phase out of rebellion or other environmental factor and may or may not have changed their ways on their own. The other three may have been more determined and/or actually born with some some difference that truly makes them relate more to female traits than most males.

But truth be told, not sure I believe the stats and even if true it is only representative of 6 people. So, the most telling thing about this stat is this temple obviously has not been doing this that long or there have been few ladyboy leaning boys who have ever attended ... but I guess they could have had many more who didn't graduate and I have to wonder how one graduates if they didn't change if the goal of the temple is to change.

I am surprised that you actually believe that ANY boy changed from the course there. Lectures by monks and rules against using makeup couldn't possibly change ANY boy who was going to be gay or a ladyboy. I am not saying boys can't change, at that age they can, but it comes from inside as they discover their sexuality, not from lectures. Any superficial change such as agreeing to play straight for awhile, doesn't prove a thing about what these boys really are. Some were not going to be gay or LB anyway, young people play different roles as they grow up, for some gay IS a phase, so this is also random.

[Nisa]

Wow, not sure how I missed this the first read through of the OP ...

Monks have had limited success in their project -- three of the six ladyboys to have graduated from the school are said to have embraced their masculinity, but the remaining three went on to have sex changes.

IF (and that is a big IF) true, then this is a 50% success rate in terms of conversion. Obviously still not a pleasant thing to go through if your leanings towards being effeminate are unchangeable but for the other half, I believe their life is going to be filled with less stress and more opportunity because of this change .... regardless if this is right or fair. My guess would be the 1/2 that converted were probably going through some phase out of rebellion or other environmental factor and may or may not have changed their ways on their own. The other three may have been more determined and/or actually born with some some difference that truly makes them relate more to female traits than most males.

But truth be told, not sure I believe the stats and even if true it is only representative of 6 people. So, the most telling thing about this stat is this temple obviously has not been doing this that long or there have been few ladyboy leaning boys who have ever attended ... but I guess they could have had many more who didn't graduate and I have to wonder how one graduates if they didn't change if the goal of the temple is to change.

I am surprised that you actually believe that ANY boy changed

I think I'm more surprised you think this based on what I wrote.

[Jingthing]

in male prostitution is most cultures, there is simply more MSM demand than hetero sex

Not going to waste any more time with you you're blatantly distorted trollish posts, but I will answer this one, but that's it, because you aren't worth my time any longer.

You take things of context, and twist twist twist. Others should realize that, and I reckon most intelligent people will.

The context of that quote was clearly MALE SEX WORKERS. When they sell to men, they are doing GAY SEX. When they sell to women, they are doing STRAIGHT SEX. I stand by the assertion that in most countries, there are more male customers for male sex workers than female customers. There may be exceptions like Haiti and homophobic Africa countries as in some of those countries, male sex workers for international women is openly marketed. So I guess in those countries there are probably more female clients for the male sex workers.

To repeat, in no country is there more demand for male sex workers than female ones. DUH!

(Note, although I fully expect many more total distortions of what I have posted from Nisa, this is the limit of my patience. I do request you take his posts with a stick of licorice.)

Edited July 17, 2011 by Jingthing

[Nisa]

Jing - If you don't like the totality of your exact words (as I have reposted) then you might want to reconsider the words you use rather than attack me for pointing out those words.

Edited July 17, 2011 by Nisa

[Nisa]

in male prostitution is most cultures, there is simply more MSM demand than hetero sex

Not going to waste any more time with you you're blatantly distorted trollish posts, but I will answer this one, but that's it, because you aren't worth my time any longer.

You take things of context, and twist twist twist. Others should realize that, and I reckon most intelligent people will.

The context of that quote was clearly MALE SEX WORKERS. When they sell to men, they are doing GAY SEX. When they sell to women, they are doing STRAIGHT SEX. I stand by the assertion that in most countries, there are more male customers for male sex workers than female customers. There may be exceptions like Haiti and homophobic Africa countries as in some of those countries, male sex workers for international women is openly marketed. So I guess in those countries there are probably more female clients for the male sex workers.

To repeat, in no country is there more demand for male sex workers than female ones. DUH!

(Note, although I fully expect many more total distortions of what I have posted from Nisa, this is the limit of my patience. I do request you take his posts with a stick of licorice.)

Well we can agree to scratch this one off the list of quotes from you that I reposted because I obviously misread your statement and believed you were saying gay prostitution was more prevalent than hetro prostitution as a whole. But I don't think removing this one though really has any impact on the point I was making.

Problem is you are once again focusing on one tiny thing or aberration and ignoring things as a whole. Ting differences don't define the norm, subject or group.

Edited July 17, 2011 by Nisa

[Jingthing]

I have no link. You'll need to buy a current Abnormal Psych textbook (where's it made clear being GAY is NOT abnormal).

Jingthing, I haven't read what you've read on this specific point, but textbooks say a lot things that hold water as well as a colander. I'd reference something else if I were you. Just Google what Gazan textbooks say if you don't already know. It's not even accurate to say textbooks are written by the winners. They're just written by people who believe in what they're writing. I'm not even saying I disagree with you here, but quoting textbooks is going into war without your bulletproof vest.

Fair enough. No big deal either way. This issue about possible conversions is based on scientific method study but that doesn't make it an absolute fact. It's a theory. In general I don't think conversions generally happen after sexuality is set. Yes, males have different kinds of sex in life but after a certain age their core orientation is basically set in stone. I also believe there is a range and that bisexuality DOES exist. But a straight man having gay sex doesn't necessarily make that man gay or bisexual anymore than me bedding a woman would mean I am now straight. I think if I did it would be more about like trying a food I haven't tried, such as monkey brain with chocolate sauce. Also keep in mind many, many gay men are gay for life and have never had sex with a man, and have only had sex with women. You really need to realize sex acts and sex orientation are by no means the SAME thing.

MOST men are CAPABLE of having sex contrary to their orientation. In my case, I think I may not be capable, but that doesn't exactly bother me.

Edited July 17, 2011 by Jingthing

[Nisa]

Gays are inherently different than straights.Homosexuality may, or may not be a mental disorder. However, this behavior appears to have genetic roots that are present in a small percentage of the population. In other words- a minority. The only reason that this is rarely mentioned is due to the influence of political correctness upon -not only the popular dialogue- but, perhaps the most troubling, the discourse among the professional community. In fact, a straight guy stating that the thought of homosexual activity repulses him, is commonly considered to be symptom of the"new" disorder, homophobia - a loaded term for anti-gay attitudes.Why is it permissible for gays to openly condemn straights for expressing such opinions, but even a hint of reciprocal rhetoric is met by even harsher criticism?

I think I agree with your point in terms of whats good for the goose is good for the gander but the term mental disorder is not correct these days. Although not long ago, homosexuality was considered a mental disorder, most all professionalism now don't consider it one. I believe much of this change had to do with the fact that homosexuals are not harming themselves or others and by actually treating it as a disorder probably caused more instances of harm. However, I believe many Ladyboys are still classified as having a disorder (gender identity disorder) but often it is a physical disorder that is treated with hormone therapy.

[Nisa]

MOST men are CAPABLE of having sex contrary to their orientation. In my case, I think I may not be capable, but that doesn't exactly bother me.

What exactly are you trying to sell???????!

You as a gay man don't think you are capable of having sex with a women but you keep spouting off this nonsense of it not being gay/bi for heterosexual men to want and/or have gay sex. It really is getting old. Yes, certainly males (especially when young) may have experimented and we all know this - no reason to make it seem like the norm. Yes there are male prostitutes (as well as female) that service a sexes they are not attracted to but again this is common knowledge and not the norm as is every other example you give.

I mean what point are you trying to make about using the word CAPABLE now??? A hetro man (most men) can get off with another guy but somehow your gayness would prevent you from getting off with a women?!?!? Please stop this nonsense ... hetro men are just as repulsed at the idea of sex with a man as you and other gays may be about sex with a women.

And your example of eating Monkey Brain ... yes, you may try it once but if you like it and keep going back, guess what .. you like to eat monkey brain. This is no different than a man who enjoys sex with other men ... they are not straight.

I don't think anyone here is going to argue with you that men (and women) have had many different types of sexual encounters (including with objects) and certainly that doesn't define them. So, lets stop pretending these one off acts define or don't define people because there is nobody in this world thinking logically who is going to agree that a man who enjoys gay sex is straight.

Edited July 17, 2011 by Nisa

[softgeorge]

I have no link. You'll need to buy a current Abnormal Psych textbook (where's it made clear being GAY is NOT abnormal).

Jingthing, I haven't read what you've read on this specific point, but textbooks say a lot things that hold water as well as a colander. I'd reference something else if I were you. Just Google what Gazan textbooks say if you don't already know. It's not even accurate to say textbooks are written by the winners. They're just written by people who believe in what they're writing. I'm not even saying I disagree with you here, but quoting textbooks is going into war without your bulletproof vest.

Fair enough. No big deal either way. This issue about possible conversions is based on scientific method study but that doesn't make it an absolute fact. It's a theory. In general I don't think conversions generally happen after sexuality is set. Yes, males have different kinds of sex in life but after a certain age their core orientation is basically set in stone. I also believe there is a range and that bisexuality DOES exist. But a straight man having gay sex doesn't necessarily make that man gay or bisexual anymore than me bedding a woman would mean I am now straight. I think if I did it would be more about like trying a food I haven't tried, such as monkey brain with chocolate sauce. Also keep in mind many, many gay men are gay for life and have never had sex with a man, and have only had sex with women. You really need to realize sex acts and sex orientation are by no means the SAME thing.

MOST men are CAPABLE of having sex contrary to their orientation. In my case, I think I may not be capable, but that doesn't exactly bother me.

Why is it that gay men insist that straight men have fantasies of other men or he could possibably bed another man. As a straight man I can tell straight from the source that a straight man does not. It is simply a fantasy of the gay community. Personally I find the very thought repulsive and it makes my skin crawl. I have nothing against gays personally as people but thier sexual activities are something I would never find the urge to do.

[Jingthing]

Why is it that gay men insist that straight men have fantasies of other men or he could possibably bed another man. As a straight man I can tell straight from the source that a straight man does not. It is simply a fantasy of the gay community. Personally I find the very thought repulsive and it makes my skin crawl. I have nothing against gays personally as people but thier sexual activities are something I would never find the urge to do.

Your personal disgust is irrelevant. You are ONE man. You don't speak for straight men just like I don't speak for gay men. (BTW, most gay men I have met are NOT virgins with women.) Some, many, straight men indeed DO have MSM sex, whether you like it or not. Nobody is saying all or most. It is a FACT that many do though. Also keep in mind that most men who bed transsexuals identify as straight men as they are pursuing female sex objects, so that's a different thing as well. When a gay man sleeps with a TS, he is going contrary to his orientation, as mainstream gay men don't chase females, real or fake. They're gay. Get it?

I think you are confused as to what I think as well. I don't think all or most men are gay or have gay sex fantasies. Sounds like you've been listening to you know who, who seems quite skilled at totally distorting my posts. I accept the KINSEY scale. Some men are totally straight, some totally gay, and MOST not 100 percent either. That doesn't mean most people are bisexual either. I have never said and have never believed that most men fantasize about MSM sex. I do think a lot of MSM sex that does occur with more hetero men is situational, such as accepting offers of BJs when horny. The straight man isn't thinking about the other man then, he is thinking about the good feeling and likely to be fantasizing that it's a woman doing it (or watching straight porn), or getting paid. Yes gay for pay is indeed MSM but doesn't make the straight participant gay.

You bring up a repeating topic here -- the politics of disgust. So repeating this link as it may be helpful for some to put this DISGUST, which is of course very real for many people, into some kind of context.

Personally I don't care if you're disgusted, that's your business, I believe you, that's your personal issue really. It becomes other people's business when people are hurtful to others because of their personal disgust. I love durian but am disgusted by blood based soups. It's my business. I wouldn't think to deny civil rights or insult people who enjoy those soups.

http://www.slate.com/id/2246892/

In From Disgust to Humanity, Nussbaum, a prominent professor of law and philosophy at the University of Chicago, explains that much of the political rhetoric around denying equal rights to gay Americans is rooted in the language of disgust. Their activities are depicted as "vile and revolting," threatening to "contaminate and defile" the rest of us. Looked at starkly, she argues, much of the anti-gay argument is bound up in feces and saliva, germs, contagion and blood.

he philosophical question for Nussbaum is whether disgust of this sort is a "reliable guide to lawmaking." She cites Leon Kass, head of the President's Council on Bioethics in the George W. Bush administration, who has argued that it is; that visceral public disgust contains a "wisdom" that lies beneath rational argument. Then she proceeds to annihilate that argument by offering example after example of discarded disgust-based policies, from India's denigration of its "untouchables" to the Nazi view of Jews, to a legally sanctioned regime of separate swimming pools and water fountains in the Jim Crow South. Time and again, Nussbaum argues, societies have been able to move beyond their own politics of disgust to what she calls "the politics of humanity," once they have finally managed to see others as fully human, with human aspirations and desires.

Nussbaum is a clear, essential thinker and writer, and to anyone who cares about the debate over gay rights, she offers here an elegant—even dispassionate—defense. She systematically chips away at most of the policy arguments against gay rights in America until it's clear they are either wholly unsupported by the data or rooted in disgust, fear, or a misreading of religious and historical texts.

http://www.slate.com/id/2246892/

To repeat again, MSM sex is NOT the same as gay sexual orientation. In others words you don't have to be gay to do gay sex just as you don't have to be straight to do straight sex. I find it quite bizarre that some people here are having such a big problem with this obvious truth.

Men who have sex with men

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Men who have sex with men (abbreviated as MSM, also known as males who have sex with males) are male persons who engage in sexual activity with members of the same sex, regardless of how they identify themselves; many men choose not to (or cannot for other reasons) accept sexual identities of homosexual or bisexual.[1][2][3][4][5] The term was created in the 1990s by epidemiologists in order to study the spread of disease among men who have sex with men, regardless of identity.[2]

MSM is often used in medical literature and social research to describe such men as a group for research studies without considering issues of self-identification.

Edited July 18, 2011 by Jingthing

[Nisa]

Let it go man ... there is no point to trying to convince people that a small percentage of straight men have had gay sex. We already know this to be the case but it is irrelevant and not the norm. Should we start talking going on and on about what small percentages of gay people do???? What would be the point? Why are you so obsessed with trying to push this idea of man on man sex within the straight community? You have gone from "massive', to "many" to 'capable" regarding man on man sex among straights when the fact is, contrary to your desires, STRAIGHT MEN ARE NOT ATTRACTED TO HAVING SEX OR A RELATIONSHIP WITH OTHER MEN and if they do, they are not straight and are either bi or gay. And there is nothing wrong with being any of these things. The same is true for Gay men who want to have sex with women. Again, I don't know why you cannot accept this as a general rule and not feel the need to obsess on statistically insignificant abnormalities within any group.

Please, what is your agenda with your non stopping of pushing this idea???

Edited July 18, 2011 by Nisa

[Scott]

I am not sure what the agenda is, but it seems that this thread is starting to stray quite far off-topic.

[Nisa]

Why is it that gay men insist that straight men have fantasies of other men or he could possibably bed another man. As a straight man I can tell straight from the source that a straight man does not. It is simply a fantasy of the gay community. Personally I find the very thought repulsive and it makes my skin crawl. I have nothing against gays personally as people but thier sexual activities are something I would never find the urge to do.

I don't think it is all gay men. I have actually never run across somebody so determined to push this idea on any level they can until now.

[softgeorge]

Why is it that gay men insist that straight men have fantasies of other men or he could possibably bed another man. As a straight man I can tell straight from the source that a straight man does not. It is simply a fantasy of the gay community. Personally I find the very thought repulsive and it makes my skin crawl. I have nothing against gays personally as people but thier sexual activities are something I would never find the urge to do.

Your personal disgust is irrelevant. You are ONE man. You don't speak for straight men just like I don't speak for gay men. (BTW, most gay men I have met are NOT virgins with women.) Some, many, straight men indeed DO have MSM sex, whether you like it or not. Nobody is saying all or most. It is a FACT that many do though. Also keep in mind that most men who bed transsexuals identify as straight men as they are pursuing female sex objects, so that's a different thing as well. When a gay man sleeps with a TS, he is going contrary to his orientation, as mainstream gay men don't chase females, real or fake. They're gay. Get it?

I think you are confused as to what I think as well. I don't think all or most men are gay or have gay sex fantasies. Sounds like you've been listening to you know who, who seems quite skilled at totally distorting my posts. I accept the KINSEY scale. Some men are totally straight, some totally gay, and MOST not 100 percent either. That doesn't mean most people are bisexual either. I have never said and have never believed that most men fantasize about MSM sex. I do think a lot of MSM sex that does occur with more hetero men is situational, such as accepting offers of BJs when horny. The straight man isn't thinking about the other man then, he is thinking about the good feeling and likely to be fantasizing that it's a woman doing it (or watching straight porn), or getting paid. Yes gay for pay is indeed MSM but doesn't make the straight participant gay.

You bring up a repeating topic here -- the politics of disgust. So repeating this link as it may be helpful for some to put this DISGUST, which is of course very real for many people, into some kind of context.

Personally I don't care if you're disgusted, that's your business, I believe you, that's your personal issue really. It becomes other people's business when people are hurtful to others because of their personal disgust. I love durian but am disgusted by blood based soups. It's my business. I wouldn't think to deny civil rights or insult people who enjoy those soups.

http://www.slate.com/id/2246892/

In From Disgust to Humanity, Nussbaum, a prominent professor of law and philosophy at the University of Chicago, explains that much of the political rhetoric around denying equal rights to gay Americans is rooted in the language of disgust. Their activities are depicted as "vile and revolting," threatening to "contaminate and defile" the rest of us. Looked at starkly, she argues, much of the anti-gay argument is bound up in feces and saliva, germs, contagion and blood.

he philosophical question for Nussbaum is whether disgust of this sort is a "reliable guide to lawmaking." She cites Leon Kass, head of the President's Council on Bioethics in the George W. Bush administration, who has argued that it is; that visceral public disgust contains a "wisdom" that lies beneath rational argument. Then she proceeds to annihilate that argument by offering example after example of discarded disgust-based policies, from India's denigration of its "untouchables" to the Nazi view of Jews, to a legally sanctioned regime of separate swimming pools and water fountains in the Jim Crow South. Time and again, Nussbaum argues, societies have been able to move beyond their own politics of disgust to what she calls "the politics of humanity," once they have finally managed to see others as fully human, with human aspirations and desires.

Nussbaum is a clear, essential thinker and writer, and to anyone who cares about the debate over gay rights, she offers here an elegant—even dispassionate—defense. She systematically chips away at most of the policy arguments against gay rights in America until it's clear they are either wholly unsupported by the data or rooted in disgust, fear, or a misreading of religious and historical texts.

http://www.slate.com/id/2246892/

To repeat again, MSM sex is NOT the same as gay sexual orientation. In others words you don't have to be to do gay sex.

Men who have sex with men

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Men who have sex with men (abbreviated as MSM, also known as males who have sex with males) are male persons who engage in sexual activity with members of the same sex, regardless of how they identify themselves; many men choose not to (or cannot for other reasons) accept sexual identities of homosexual or bisexual.[1][2][3][4][5] The term was created in the 1990s by epidemiologists in order to study the spread of disease among men who have sex with men, regardless of identity.[2]

MSM is often used in medical literature and social research to describe such men as a group for research studies without considering issues of self-identification.

I maybe only one person as you say, however you are one man also. You are speaking for the straight hetrosexual men of the world and you think your point is more valid than mine. I do not know what your sexual orientation is and that does not matter. I am not homophobic and have a brother who is gay as well as friends. Straight men do not have sexual fantasies of other men or bed other men. We straight people love women and women alone. What you speak of is like a single rain drop falling in the ocean.

[softgeorge]

Why is it that gay men insist that straight men have fantasies of other men or he could possibably bed another man. As a straight man I can tell straight from the source that a straight man does not. It is simply a fantasy of the gay community. Personally I find the very thought repulsive and it makes my skin crawl. I have nothing against gays personally as people but thier sexual activities are something I would never find the urge to do.

Your personal disgust is irrelevant. You are ONE man. You don't speak for straight men just like I don't speak for gay men. (BTW, most gay men I have met are NOT virgins with women.) Some, many, straight men indeed DO have MSM sex, whether you like it or not. Nobody is saying all or most. It is a FACT that many do though. Also keep in mind that most men who bed transsexuals identify as straight men as they are pursuing female sex objects, so that's a different thing as well. When a gay man sleeps with a TS, he is going contrary to his orientation, as mainstream gay men don't chase females, real or fake. They're gay. Get it?

I think you are confused as to what I think as well. I don't think all or most men are gay or have gay sex fantasies. Sounds like you've been listening to you know who, who seems quite skilled at totally distorting my posts. I accept the KINSEY scale. Some men are totally straight, some totally gay, and MOST not 100 percent either. That doesn't mean most people are bisexual either. I have never said and have never believed that most men fantasize about MSM sex. I do think a lot of MSM sex that does occur with more hetero men is situational, such as accepting offers of BJs when horny. The straight man isn't thinking about the other man then, he is thinking about the good feeling and likely to be fantasizing that it's a woman doing it (or watching straight porn), or getting paid. Yes gay for pay is indeed MSM but doesn't make the straight participant gay.

You bring up a repeating topic here -- the politics of disgust. So repeating this link as it may be helpful for some to put this DISGUST, which is of course very real for many people, into some kind of context.

Personally I don't care if you're disgusted, that's your business, I believe you, that's your personal issue really. It becomes other people's business when people are hurtful to others because of their personal disgust. I love durian but am disgusted by blood based soups. It's my business. I wouldn't think to deny civil rights or insult people who enjoy those soups.

http://www.slate.com/id/2246892/

In From Disgust to Humanity, Nussbaum, a prominent professor of law and philosophy at the University of Chicago, explains that much of the political rhetoric around denying equal rights to gay Americans is rooted in the language of disgust. Their activities are depicted as "vile and revolting," threatening to "contaminate and defile" the rest of us. Looked at starkly, she argues, much of the anti-gay argument is bound up in feces and saliva, germs, contagion and blood.

he philosophical question for Nussbaum is whether disgust of this sort is a "reliable guide to lawmaking." She cites Leon Kass, head of the President's Council on Bioethics in the George W. Bush administration, who has argued that it is; that visceral public disgust contains a "wisdom" that lies beneath rational argument. Then she proceeds to annihilate that argument by offering example after example of discarded disgust-based policies, from India's denigration of its "untouchables" to the Nazi view of Jews, to a legally sanctioned regime of separate swimming pools and water fountains in the Jim Crow South. Time and again, Nussbaum argues, societies have been able to move beyond their own politics of disgust to what she calls "the politics of humanity," once they have finally managed to see others as fully human, with human aspirations and desires.

Nussbaum is a clear, essential thinker and writer, and to anyone who cares about the debate over gay rights, she offers here an elegant—even dispassionate—defense. She systematically chips away at most of the policy arguments against gay rights in America until it's clear they are either wholly unsupported by the data or rooted in disgust, fear, or a misreading of religious and historical texts.

http://www.slate.com/id/2246892/

To repeat again, MSM sex is NOT the same as gay sexual orientation. In others words you don't have to be to do gay sex.

Men who have sex with men

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Men who have sex with men (abbreviated as MSM, also known as males who have sex with males) are male persons who engage in sexual activity with members of the same sex, regardless of how they identify themselves; many men choose not to (or cannot for other reasons) accept sexual identities of homosexual or bisexual.[1][2][3][4][5] The term was created in the 1990s by epidemiologists in order to study the spread of disease among men who have sex with men, regardless of identity.[2]

MSM is often used in medical literature and social research to describe such men as a group for research studies without considering issues of self-identification.

I maybe only one person as you say, however you are one man also. You are speaking for the straight hetrosexual men of the world and you think your point is more valid than mine. I do not know what your sexual orientation is and that does not matter. I am not homophobic and have a brother who is gay as well as friends. Straight men do not have sexual fantasies of other men or bed other men. We straight people love women and women alone. What you speak of is like a single rain drop falling in the ocean.

[Nisa]

LOL, no doubt this thread has strayed way off topic but it has been interesting ... though not very enlightening it would seem to either side of the non-topic debate.

As for the actual topic ... what more can be said beyond recapping that some red neck temple out in the boonies is harassing effeminate boys who choose or get sent their by their guardians. It sucks for the kids but I don't care how PC the world becomes or how tolerant a religion is, you will always have extreme groups as well as parents who think they are doing the right thing but actually cause more problems with their kids. Regretfully, few people's childhoods are trauma free but at least we get older and can make choices as to what groups we join and how much we let out parents into our lives.

[endure]

I think that words like 'rednecks' and 'boonies' aren't really appropriate half way round the world no matter how much they may sing your song...

Edited July 18, 2011 by endure

[Nisa]

I think that words like 'rednecks' and 'boonies' aren't really appropriate half way round the world no matter half much they may sing your song...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redneck

Redneck

In recent decades, the term expanded its meaning to mean bigoted, loutish, and opposed to modern ways

http://dictionary.re.../browse/redneck

a

bigot

or

reactionary,

especially

from

the

rural

working

class.

http://dictionary.re.../browse/boonies

boon·ies

Informal

boondocks.

http://dictionary.re...rowse/boondocks

a

remote

rural

area

(usually

preceded

by

the

):

The

company

moved

to

a

small

town

out

in

the

boondocks.

Although I was using the words in a semi-comical way to point out some facts about the story ... not sure how these definitions don't fit.

But I apologize if you took offense even though it is an American term and is now actually a term embarrassed by rednecks in the US.

Edited July 18, 2011 by Nisa

[SteeleJoe]

I think that words like 'rednecks' and 'boonies' aren't really appropriate half way round the world no matter half much they may sing your song...

"Redneck" (along with the more offensive, to me, "white trash") is among the last of the bigoted slurs based on race and socio-economic status, that is socially acceptable (and widely used by my fellow liberals - who are supposed to be tolerant and egalitarian and such) --not surprised to see it but...

In this context it goes beyond being elitist and ugly to being virtually nonsensical.

"Boonies" on the other hand originated in this part of the world. It's base is a Tagalog colloquialism.

Edited July 18, 2011 by SteeleJoe

[Nisa]

I think that words like 'rednecks' and 'boonies' aren't really appropriate half way round the world no matter half much they may sing your song...

"Redneck" (along with the more offensive, to me, "white trash") is among the last of the bigoted slurs based on race and socio-economic status, that is socially acceptable (and widely used by my fellow liberals - who are supposed to be tolerant and egalitarian and such) --not surprised to see it but...

In this context it goes beyond being elitist and ugly to being virtually nonsensical.

"Boonies" on the other hand originated in this part of the world. It's base is a Tagalog colloquialism.

Both "the boonies" (boondocks) and 'Redneck" are originated in America.

The word boondocks was in reference to the Tagalog bundok mountain (out in the middle of nowhere / off the beaten path). There is not a sensible person in the US who would take this word to be elitist or derogatory. It simply refers to a place off the beaten path and when using the word it is usually used to add a little lightness to a statement.

Redneck 'was" once a derogatory term for poor 'white people" from the southern United States. As I have linked to in the above post, its meaning has changed and if somebody believes that I was using the old term to describe non-white and non-Americans then I apologize but they should also consult a modern dictionary. But then again, I certainly didn't mean it as a term of endearment for those at this temple harassing these kids with their bigoted ways.

[Scott]

I think we are getting close to a flame-fest here, so let's slow down, re-focus and stick to the topic.

First: The words posters chose, as long as they don't violate rules, are permissible. I know they aren't understandable or used by everyone, but that's the problem with an international audience.

Second: How many men have sex with other men is not the issue. Some do, most don't. Some, if you get them drunk enough, will.

Finally: Lady-boys have a difficult life. They are pretty much the bottom rung of the social latter in most places. I don't care for lady boys myself and most I don't trust, but life is not kind to them.

Do the boys sent to the temple, have to stay? What happens if they leave?

[SteeleJoe]

Although I was using the words in a semi-comical way to point out some facts about the story ... not sure how these definitions don't fit.

But I apologize if you took offense even though it is an American term and is now actually a term embarrassed by rednecks in the US.

Hadn't seen this post when I made mine.

Presumably Nisa meant "embraced" (Freudian? ) but I doubt many who embrace the word would agree with people referring to them as bigoted, loutish, and opposed to modern ways.

And I'm less sure that we have reason to label the monks in question as such.

(And personally, much like the way I feel about "n*^_er", I don't care who embraces it it remains offensive to me for historical reasons -- though far less so than the N word)

EDIT to ADD:

Didn't see you added a post.

Both "the boonies" (boondocks) and 'Redneck" are originated in America.

The word boondocks was in reference to the Tagalog bundok mountain (out in the middle of nowhere / off the beaten path). There is not a sensible person in the US who would take this word to be elitist or derogatory.

I'm aware of where "boonies' comes from (but to be technical the US usage originated abroad with GIs). As I said it's BASED on a Tagalog word.

And it's a colloquialism (sometimes disdainful) in the Philippines, for backwards and rural.

I never said it was elitist or derogatory in the US.

Read again. (You do indeed have a tendency to twist which I've come across many a time).

EDIT to add: "in the US".

Edited July 18, 2011 by SteeleJoe

[SteeleJoe]

I think we are getting close to a flame-fest here, so let's slow down, re-focus and stick to the topic.

First: The words posters chose, as long as they don't violate rules, are permissible. I know they aren't understandable or used by everyone, but that's the problem with an international audience.

Indeed.

Wasn't really flaming. Language is interesting to me as is the phenomena of the way some words or phrases are used in unthinking ways or acceptable in surprising contexts/among surprising groups.

(Slowing down. Re-focussing....abandoning the thread?)

[Nisa]

Although I was using the words in a semi-comical way to point out some facts about the story ... not sure how these definitions don't fit.

But I apologize if you took offense even though it is an American term and is now actually a term embarrassed by rednecks in the US.

Hadn't seen this post when I made mine.

Presumably Nisa meant "embraced" (Freudian? ) but I doubt many who embrace the word would agree with people referring to them as bigoted, loutish, and opposed to modern ways.

And I'm less sure that we have reason to label the monks in question as such.

(And personally, much like the way I feel about "n*^_er", I don't care who embraces it it remains offensive to me for historical reasons -- though far less so than the N word)

EDIT to ADD:

Didn't see you added a post.

Both "the boonies" (boondocks) and 'Redneck" are originated in America.

The word boondocks was in reference to the Tagalog bundok mountain (out in the middle of nowhere / off the beaten path). There is not a sensible person in the US who would take this word to be elitist or derogatory.

I'm aware of where "boonies' comes from (but to be technical the US usage originated abroad with GIs). As I said it's BASED on a Tagalog word.

And it's a colloquialism (sometimes disdainful) in the Philippines, for backwards and rural.

I never said it was elitist or derogatory.

Read again. (You do indeed have a tendency to twist which I've come across many a time).

Yes, I did mean embrace. I understand your not wanting to let go of the old derogatory meaning of the word redneck but I currently live in the southern US were people originally from here are proud to cell themselves a redneck. In fact, redneck is many times used as another term for blue color. You reference to the n-word is not even a semi-close comparison and is considered both a swear and derogatory word and no black people don't embrace being called the n-word. In the very PC USA the most popular comedians currently make their living off 'being proud to be a redneck". But yes, you can still use the term to mean a bigot and that is what I meant when I was describing these particular monks. But again, the word when used in normal (non-heated) conversation in the US has a comical sense to it just as boonies does.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bigot

big·ot

noun

a

person

who

is

utterly

intolerant

of

any

differing

creed,

belief,

or

opinion.

[SteeleJoe]

Yes, I did mean embrace. I understand your not wanting to let go of the old derogatory meaning of the word redneck but I currently live in the southern US were people originally from here are proud to cell themselves a redneck. In fact, redneck is many times used as another term for blue color. You reference to the n-word is not even a semi-close comparison and is considered both a swear and derogatory word and no black people don't embrace being called the n-word. In the very PC USA the most popular comedians currently make their living off 'being proud to be a redneck". But yes, you can still use the term to mean a bigot and that is what I meant when I was describing these particular monks. But again, the word when used in normal (non-heated) conversation in the US has a comical sense to it just as boonies does.

http://dictionary.re...om/browse/bigot

big·ot

noun

a

person

who

is

utterly

intolerant

of

any

differing

creed,

belief,

or

opinion.

I know what "bigot" means, thanks very much. No need to insult my intelligence (again). And it describes not just a bigot but a specific type.

I'm not aware if the monks are bigots or not. Nor do I assume they are loutish or necessarily agree that describing them as "opposed to modern ways" as being accurate.

You reference to the n-word is not even a semi-close comparison and is considered both a swear and derogatory word and no black people don't embrace being called the n-word.

Read again: And personally, much like the way I feel about "n*^_er", I don't care who embraces it it remains offensive to me for historical reasons -- though far less so than the N word.

It is an accurate comparison because it describes how I feel about the words and it's about how the word is used and for some people acceptable but not for me, due to historical reasons -- which you seem to acknowledge as valid.

Plenty of Black people embrace being called the N-word by other Black people and use it themselves -- as you well know.

My little angel is calling me away from the PC...

Edited July 18, 2011 by SteeleJoe

[Nisa]

I think we are getting close to a flame-fest here, so let's slow down, re-focus and stick to the topic.

First: The words posters chose, as long as they don't violate rules, are permissible. I know they aren't understandable or used by everyone, but that's the problem with an international audience.

Second: How many men have sex with other men is not the issue. Some do, most don't. Some, if you get them drunk enough, will.

Finally: Lady-boys have a difficult life. They are pretty much the bottom rung of the social latter in most places. I don't care for lady boys myself and most I don't trust, but life is not kind to them.

Do the boys sent to the temple, have to stay? What happens if they leave?

I have no Ladyboys as friends but would like to think the majority are different than the ones I have conversed with. Of the about 1/2 dozen I've had conversations with, 3 tried to pickpocket me and all of them seemed to be in need of mental health. Of course these ladyboys worked the sex trade and approached me. The only other Ladyboys I have at all had contact with have worked at stores on the other side of the counter and my only contact was to pay and get my change back ... never been short changed as far as I know :-)

Edited July 18, 2011 by Nisa

[Nisa]

Yes, I did mean embrace. I understand your not wanting to let go of the old derogatory meaning of the word redneck but I currently live in the southern US were people originally from here are proud to cell themselves a redneck. In fact, redneck is many times used as another term for blue color. You reference to the n-word is not even a semi-close comparison and is considered both a swear and derogatory word and no black people don't embrace being called the n-word. In the very PC USA the most popular comedians currently make their living off 'being proud to be a redneck". But yes, you can still use the term to mean a bigot and that is what I meant when I was describing these particular monks. But again, the word when used in normal (non-heated) conversation in the US has a comical sense to it just as boonies does.

http://dictionary.re...om/browse/bigot

big·ot

noun

a

person

who

is

utterly

intolerant

of

any

differing

creed,

belief,

or

opinion.

I know what "bigot" means, thanks very much. No need to insult my intelligence (again). And it describes not just a bigot but a specific type.

I'm not aware if the monks are bigots or not. Nor do I assume they are loutish or necessarily agree that describing them as "opposed to modern ways" as being accurate.

You reference to the n-word is not even a semi-close comparison and is considered both a swear and derogatory word and no black people don't embrace being called the n-word.

Read again: And personally, much like the way I feel about "n*^_er", I don't care who embraces it it remains offensive to me for historical reasons -- though far less so than the N word.

It is an accurate comparison because it describes how I feel about the words and it's about how the word is used and for some people acceptable but not for me, due to historical reasons -- which you seem to acknowledge as valid.

Plenty of Black people embrace being called the N-word by other Black people and use it themselves -- as you well know.

My little angel is calling me away from the PC...

Not sure where you come from but the N-words is NOT EMBRACED by blacks in the USA. In fact it is a swear and can't be said on broadcast TV (hence the term "n-word" but the word redneck can be said as much as any sitcom wants and it is neither a swear or has it ever been referred to as the "R" word. There are some people within certain groups such as gangs and rappers who like to use the word "Nigga" even though this is widely condemned by the black community and even those who use the word will tell you that it has a completely different meaning than the n-word.

Here is one of the most successful comedians in America ... notice the crowd response right from the start when he asks if there are any rednecks in the audience.

Again, Sorry if it offended you and I won't use it again but you should consider updating your vocabulary when it comes to such a word to avoid being offended. This would also help to confirm how I was using the word in a less harsh way to say backwards thinkers and/or bigots ... and yes, I believe these Monks trying to convert ladyboys is bigoted as it shows an intolerance to other groups which falls right in line with the definition of being a bigot.

Edited July 18, 2011 by Nisa

[animatic]

I think that words like 'rednecks' and 'boonies' aren't really appropriate half way round the world no matter half much they may sing your song...

"Redneck" (along with the more offensive, to me, "white trash") is among the last of the bigoted slurs based on race and socio-economic status, that is socially acceptable (and widely used by my fellow liberals - who are supposed to be tolerant and egalitarian and such) --not surprised to see it but...

In this context it goes beyond being elitist and ugly to being virtually nonsensical.

"Boonies" on the other hand originated in this part of the world. It's base is a Tagalog colloquialism.

Knowing a bit of Dumfarangs history,

he has every right to use redneck if he so chooses with out any PC commentaries added.