Re: spring 2004 wise traditions mag - disappointed with a few comments

[Guest guest]

> even tho homosexuals may have always been around (historically)

> i still don't see any reason that nature would purposely make

> them (because in a nutshell it's nature's goal for us

> to survive, and to survive we must procreate)

Survival does not require that all individuals procreate. In fact,

the existence of productive, non-procreative siblings can aid in the

survival of the procreative siblings' offspring.

(possibly the lone gay male on this group)

[Guest guest]

>> hi - i'm very new here and surely dont' want to tread on toes or stir

things up unneccessarily... but.... did christie say that? i

thought what she said was that it be " discussed with tact " ? <<

That is correct. I asked for courtesy. I didn't ask for the discussion to

end, I asked for the poster to put themselves into my shoes, or the shoes of

the mom or dad of a lesbian or gay man, and read their words through our

eyes before posting. That's all.

And I have no authority on this list... it was just a personal request. And

I greatly appreciate those who took it to heart. We had a very heated and

sometimes quite painful exchange on this exact topic a few months ago, and I

don't want to relive it, personally. I think that people should have their

beliefs, whatever they are, even the wrong ones <G>, but to use tact when

selecting how they express themselves, as I will also do.

I like how Heidi phrased it: " Personally I think diet etc. has a lot to do

with how sexuality plays out in a person. " I agree with that. But it's

perfectly logical to think that diet or other environmental influences could

make a little gay baby go straight as much as make a little straight baby go

gay.... I'm not saying that DOES happen, but it's perfectly logical. So why

phrase it as " Does diet make you gay? " as if that is a hideous defect of

some kind? Even if you think it is, wouldn't it be kinder and more civil,

knowing there are gay people on this list because we've identified ourselves

that way, to NOT say it that way, but phrase it more as Heidi did? So we can

still discuss it without pissing everyone off.

I refuse to believe that common courtesy and putting yourself in someone

else's shoes is being " politically correct. " I am not trying to get into

anyone's head and change how they think. Just keep things polite.

Christie

[Guest guest]

>> even tho homosexuals may have always been

around (historically) i still don't see any reason that nature would

purposely make them (because in a nutshell it's nature's goal for us

to survive, and to survive we must procreate), <<

On the surface that does sound logical, but in the case of highly social

species, it's not accurate. Non-breeding members of a group contribute to

the overall survival of the group... look at, just as one example, wolves,

where only two members of the pack ever reproduce at all, but the whole pack

operates in such a way that their offspring survive to reproduce. This

happens in human groups as well, where unmarried aunts provide child care,

etc. It's not always beneficial to a species to have every single member of

the species reproducing. " Kin survival " is a genuine biological factor in

human success as a species.

There are other successful models of reproduction, but having a small

proportion of your group be homosexual (or otherwise non-reproducing) could

actually be beneficial or neutral, not detrimental, to the survival of the

group.

Lastly of course.... homosexuals ARE still fertile in most cases and we do

still have children, either early in life before we got things figured out,

or deliberately later on. And genes have absolutely no idea WHY you

reproduced. <G>

Christie

[Guest guest]

> Personally I always found hot women lead to " being gay. " But that's

me.

Hmm, Lynn. I must say, I've had precisely the opposite experience.

Chris

[Guest guest]

> > even tho homosexuals may have always been around (historically)

> > i still don't see any reason that nature would purposely make

> > them (because in a nutshell it's nature's goal for us

> > to survive, and to survive we must procreate)

>

> Survival does not require that all individuals procreate. In fact,

> the existence of productive, non-procreative siblings can aid in the

> survival of the procreative siblings' offspring.

>

> (possibly the lone gay male on this group)

This is still missing the point. " Nature " doesn't " purposely " make

anything. We can talk about a gene doing such and such because it

wants such and such, but this is obviously metaphor, and to consider

it as a literalism is ridiculous. And why on earth

would " nature " " purposefully " put that hair underneath my belly

button anyway?

Chris

[Guest guest]

>> Personally I always found hot women lead to " being gay. " But that's

> me.

>

> Hmm, Lynn. I must say, I've had precisely the opposite experience.

Hence the " personally. "

Lynn S.

------

Lynn Siprelle * web developer, writer, mama, fiber junky

http://www.siprelle.com/

http://www.thenewhomemaker.com/

http://www.democracyfororegon.com/

[Guest guest]

> And why on earth

> would " nature " " purposefully " put that hair underneath my belly

> button anyway?

Hold it right there, fella! Mike eating insects, someone

discussing the rather odd eating habits of some vegan cultures, okay.

But this is way too much information!

Lynn S.

------

Lynn Siprelle * web developer, writer, mama, fiber junky

http://www.siprelle.com/

http://www.thenewhomemaker.com/

http://www.democracyfororegon.com/

[Guest guest]

i vote for a return to the n era.

as repressive as it may have been, it still beats everyone having sex

with everyone else, everywhere, with no apparent boundaries anymore.

laura

p.s. and I'm betting there's a nutritional factor in there, too.

sugar addicts can lose their emotional boundaries. i would think that

would apply to other kind of boundaries like sexual.

too bad there don't seem to be boundaries anymore. i would love to see a

return to appropriate boundaries. not n (although they had

chaperones; i would love to see a return to chaperones. teens will

always be teens...i know i was) , and not the way things are now. just

appropriate boundaries. and i guess, there are probably as many

different definitions of boundaries as there are people.

In 20 years I'd guess things will be more

open and calm regarding sexuality (or else we'll be re-living

the n era ...).

[Guest guest]

>> And why on earth

would " nature " " purposefully " put that hair underneath my belly

button anyway? <<

So you're denying nature has a sense of humor? Do you think that's due to

environmental toxins?

Christie

[Guest guest]

> i vote for a return to the n era.

When it happens, , look me up; I make corsets. And I promise I

won't make a pass at you.

Lynn S.

------

Lynn Siprelle * web developer, writer, mama, fiber junky

http://www.siprelle.com/

http://www.thenewhomemaker.com/

http://www.democracyfororegon.com/

[Guest guest]

>Non-breeding members of a group contribute to

>the overall survival of the group... look at, just as one example, wolves,

>where only two members of the pack ever reproduce at all, but the whole pack

>operates in such a way that their offspring survive to reproduce.

That is a really, really good example! It's also true that some frogs change

sex depending on the current sex ratios. My sister has a theory that

boys that are raised with lots of violence are " triggered " to become

soldiers, because they adapt to what society needs them to be. Our society

is so individualistic that we don't see things in terms of the whole.

-- Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

:

>too bad there don't seem to be boundaries anymore. i would love to see a

>return to appropriate boundaries. not n (although they had

>chaperones; i would love to see a return to chaperones. teens will

>always be teens...i know i was) , and not the way things are now. just

>appropriate boundaries. and i guess, there are probably as many

>different definitions of boundaries as there are people.

It may depend on who you hang out with. In my circle anyway,

people may TALK permissive but their lives are pretty boring

and monagomous. But during the n times, people would

not TALK about sex but they had it a lot ... siphilous was endemic

(with no cure!) and whorehouses were common. Women were

expected to be " pure " but men " had their needs " .

Personally I'd rather people talked openly and lived their lives

more wisely. Discussing a thing openly can keep a person from

making bad mistakes.

-- Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

reminds me of the book Kosher Sex, a book i have been meaning to read for

a long time.

supposedly, the more 'chaste' you are before marriage, and the more

faithful you are during marriage, the better sex you have.

my husband and i probably come off as prudes to most people. we believe

sex belongs in the bedroom, not on TV, not in the movies, and while we

are very private about our sex life outwardly, when we are together we

have the greatest, wild sex. it's the best. i never had sex this good

before i was married and i now regret all the sex i DID have.

we try to explain it to our 13 year old this way.

in the old days, sex was never spoken of. going to the bathroom wasn't

either. they are both PRIVATE activities.

nowadays, everyone talks about sex, it is so out in the open, and it is

sickening because sex was meant to be a PRIVATE activity like going to

the bathroom.

that's why they call them PRIVATE parts!!! you don't go to the bathroom

on TV or even talk about it on TV. sex should be the same way. and we

have lost A LOT in our culture as a result. I'm embarrassed to be

raising my son in this culture. i wish he had been born in the 50's and

saw things on TV like Lucy, which was squeaky clean, and not things like

Friends where sex is the main topic. i think Friends is hilarious but

it's not for anyone under 18. that's just my opinion. call me a prude.

laura

On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 23:26:49 -0700 Heidi Schuppenhauer

<heidis@...> writes:

:

>too bad there don't seem to be boundaries anymore. i would love to see

a

>return to appropriate boundaries. not n (although they had

>chaperones; i would love to see a return to chaperones. teens will

>always be teens...i know i was) , and not the way things are now. just

>appropriate boundaries. and i guess, there are probably as many

>different definitions of boundaries as there are people.

It may depend on who you hang out with. In my circle anyway,

people may TALK permissive but their lives are pretty boring

and monagomous. But during the n times, people would

not TALK about sex but they had it a lot ... siphilous was endemic

(with no cure!) and whorehouses were common. Women were

expected to be " pure " but men " had their needs " .

Personally I'd rather people talked openly and lived their lives

more wisely. Discussing a thing openly can keep a person from

making bad mistakes.

-- Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

Lynn-

>Personally I always found hot women lead to " being gay. " But that's me.

And for me, hot women lead to being straight. Fascinating thing,

biochemical individuality. ;-)

-

[Guest guest]

-

>i vote for a return to the n era.

>

>as repressive as it may have been, it still beats everyone having sex

>with everyone else, everywhere, with no apparent boundaries anymore.

You might want to read up on the popularity of the prostitution business

during the n era.

-

[Guest guest]

,

but don't you think prostitution kept sex somewhat CONTAINED? I'm not

saying prostitution is a good thing. but I'm also inclined to say is

serves a purpose and i don't think i would be too upset if it were

legalized and regulated (for sake of disease).

of course the biggest problem with prostit. is STD's...and i know there

was a big problem even back then.

but with the way things are now, with children being sexualized at

younger and younger ages, with sex being so 'out there' that a market for

sex is being created right before out eyes...for people who might not

otherwise be having sex (very young people) (like junior high schoolers).

at least in the n era, people had a CHANCE to grow up chaste and

remain faithful during marriage.

but these days sex is everywhere and promiscuity is becoming the norm

among young people. this was not always the case. and so the chances of

somewhat marrying a virgin as a virgin i think are MINUSCULE today.

my husband and i did not have premarital sex. with each other, that is.

they say that contributes to trust in a marriage.

i know in my case, the reason i had sex the first time at 17, was really

because i was so curious and was wondering what i was missing out on.

and this was the 70's. it's even worse now.

the sex drive is VERY strong. God invented sex, but He also in His

wisdom invented marriage as a wonderful vehicle for sex.

but not everyone who wants to be married is married, I'm so sad to say (i

was there for a VERY long time).

and even those who are married often, sadly, want a piece somewhere else.

and of course there are people who don't want to get married who have

very strong sex drives.

maybe I'm just very fortunate to have married a wonderful man. :-) i

could have married a real loser and not realized it til it was too late.

:-(

and so, the sex drive is so strong, there will always be sex outside of

marriage. it's just a fact of life. and so prostitution serves a

purpose, i suppose.

so , i STILL would rather return to the n era (but with

antibiotics!)! i don't think prostitution is any less now than it was

then. and maybe it is more.

who knows.

this is a very interesting discussion.

thanks for letting me 'discuss'.

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 11:02:10 -0400 Idol <Idol@...>

writes:

-

>i vote for a return to the n era.

>

>as repressive as it may have been, it still beats everyone having sex

>with everyone else, everywhere, with no apparent boundaries anymore.

You might want to read up on the popularity of the prostitution business

during the n era.

[Guest guest]

-

>but don't you think prostitution kept sex somewhat CONTAINED?

Contained? Sure, if by " contained " you mean " middle and upper class women

were kept in a relatively sex-free container while men of sufficient means

visited prostitutes extremely frequently " .

>but I'm also inclined to say is

>serves a purpose and i don't think i would be too upset if it were

>legalized and regulated (for sake of disease).

I'd rather see it legalized too, but not to " contain " sex or reduce the

number of people having it or the amount of sex people get. It would serve

public health to regulate it, and from what I've read, a variety of violent

crimes are significantly reduced when prostitution is available.

>but with the way things are now, with children being sexualized at

>younger and younger ages, with sex being so 'out there' that a market for

>sex is being created right before out eyes...for people who might not

>otherwise be having sex (very young people) (like junior high schoolers).

>

>at least in the n era, people had a CHANCE to grow up chaste and

>remain faithful during marriage.

The chance you believe in was largely illusory (patronage of prostitutes in

some circles was virtually 100%) and to the degree it wasn't, it was due to

undesirable factors like women being second-class citizens at best.

>my husband and i did not have premarital sex. with each other, that is.

>they say that contributes to trust in a marriage.

Who's " they " ? I can cough up some other " they " s who say that a lack of

premarital sex causes sexually incompatible couples to make the mistake of

marrying.

>so , i STILL would rather return to the n era (but with

>antibiotics!)! i don't think prostitution is any less now than it was

>then. and maybe it is more.

Try googling on prostitution and n-era London. I don't have time

to hunt up some references myself, but I think you'll be surprised by what

you find.

-

[Guest guest]

hi ,

like i said, interesting discussion.

I'm supposed to be cleaning up the house to put it on the market right

now! i shouldn't even be sitting here 'loafing' on the computer.

I'm sure we have, i have, 'idealized' the n era and I'm sure many

things today are better. but maybe some things back then were better

than they today, too.

i think the reason why lack of premarital sex promotes trust in a

marriage, because, it's like gossip. if someone bad mouths someone else,

you think, what is that person saying about ME? if a person easily has

sex before marriage, you might always wonder if that person might easily

have sex with someone else...

and as far as sex. compatibility is, i personally think that's a lot of

bunk. get the book the Sex Starved Marriage. no two people are

completely compatible in any area. my husband loves warm weather. i

hate it. i LOVE winter and cold weather. I'm miserable every summer.

he's in his glory.

but we love each other and are committed to each other. that means i

want him to be happy and vice versa so we work out a compromise. for now

the compromise is in NJ. i want to move north REAL BAD. he wants to

move south. so we stay here for the sake of each other.

the same with sex. what the heck is sexual incompatibility anyway? did

you ever fall in love with someone you were sexually incompatable with?

if you LOVE someone, the sex falls into place. i think people who are

basically sexually 'normal', who fall in love, don't have major problems.

and if you DO have a problem, you try to solve it. have money problems?

see a financial counselor. have sex problems? see a therapist.

if one person wants to have more sex than the other, the one who wants

more might have to settle for a little less, and the one who wants less

might have to give a little more.

even if a husband were to somehow, uh, become dismembered (in an accident

or whatever) and be unable to 'perform', i would hope the wife wouldn't

divorce him cuz they were now no longer sexually incompatible. if she

truly loves him, she'll stay and they'll do 'other things'.

it's all about love and commitment. once you have that, everything else

should fall into place, barring extreme circumstance like alcoholism,

drug abuse, domestic violence, etc.

the way people get together now is more like a 'supermarket' mentality.

this person is too fat...this person doesn't make enough money...this

person doesn't want to have enough sex.

if you LOVE someone, you accept their faults. so what if their sexual

desires don't match yours. if you love each other, you'll work out

something that is acceptable to both of you.

i hope that doesn't sound too simplistic. my husband and i have had our

share of problems, difficulties and incompatibilities. the word divorce

has come up more than once in the last 17 years. things have been hellish

between us at various times. but i guess we both wanted to work things

out, and thank God we did. things are better than they ever have been.

i shudder to think what we might be missing out on if we had succumbed to

our major dissatisfactions and divorced.

but that's just my opinion and i might be wrong. :-)

now i gotta try to quit loafing and get some housework done before the

realtor gets here!

laura

>my husband and i did not have premarital sex. with each other, that is.

>they say that contributes to trust in a marriage.

Who's " they " ? I can cough up some other " they " s who say that a lack of

premarital sex causes sexually incompatible couples to make the mistake

of

marrying.

>

[Guest guest]

It depends ALOT on where you are looking and what ELSE you are looking

for in the person!

I bet I could find alot virgin guys in the local university of applied

sciences (depending on what they are studying, of course, I'm talking

about men studying things like physics and such)! But whether I

*wanted* any of them (or if they were interested in me, unless I

dressed like a computer ) is just another question.

CU Anja

--- In , Busse <laurabusse@j...>

wrote:

and so the chances of

> somewhat marrying a virgin as a virgin i think are MINUSCULE today.

>

[Guest guest]

> I think Christie's objection (and mine, although unaired) had to do

with

> talking about homosexuality as though it were a birth defect or

disease that

> could be prevented via the mother's diet.

" Defect " is a value judgment. " Variable dependent on diet " is not.

I don't think WAPF should be exercising value judgments upon

homosexuality, but we should be clear that issues of causality or

mechanisms of occurrence have nothing whatsoever to do with value

judgments.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Yeah and with no real birthcontrol, there were a lot of children whose

mother was working as a prostitute and didn't know who the father of

each of her children was, plus she probably had VD.

Which means, some husband had it as well and his wife shared it.

Come visit this part of the city and you get a taste of it, there are

SO many mothers who have 4 different children from 6 different guys,

who are all drunks or something. Those kids have such an unstable

home, a new " dad " every few weeks and living off welfare. I don't

think that leads to being faithful...

CU Anja

> >at least in the n era, people had a CHANCE to grow up

chaste and

> >remain faithful during marriage.

[Guest guest]

chris, amen!!

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 16:55:27 -0000 " chrismasterjohn "

<ChrisMasterjohn@...> writes:

> I think Christie's objection (and mine, although unaired) had to do

with

> talking about homosexuality as though it were a birth defect or

disease that

> could be prevented via the mother's diet.

" Defect " is a value judgment. " Variable dependent on diet " is not.

I don't think WAPF should be exercising value judgments upon

homosexuality, but we should be clear that issues of causality or

mechanisms of occurrence have nothing whatsoever to do with value

judgments.

Chris

[Guest guest]

> ,

>

> but don't you think prostitution kept sex somewhat CONTAINED

Uh... contained within WHAT?

Chris

[Guest guest]

--- In , " Anja " <schnittie01734@y...>

wrote:

> It depends ALOT on where you are looking and what ELSE you are

looking

> for in the person!

> I bet I could find alot virgin guys in the local university of

applied

> sciences (depending on what they are studying, of course, I'm

talking

> about men studying things like physics and such)! But whether I

> *wanted* any of them (or if they were interested in me, unless I

> dressed like a computer ) is just another question.

> CU Anja

I don't think I knew a lot of physics majors when I was at UMass, but

I worked with a lot of engineering guys, which is pretty brainy. I

think the only guys who were virgins were trying not to be.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Well, *I* wasn't looking into something to " prevent " my children from

being gay, I was just thinking this and that might cause this and

that. The next point would be a gay person saying they (or their

parents) had never eaten margarine in their whole life. So, one would

see, margarine *may* be one of the things but it's more complex. It

must be more complex when you think how healthy everyone thinks

margarine is and wants to lower their cholesterol with using it

instead of butter.

But it's interesting. I know a gay guy and he always hung around with

girls (without sexual interest in them, just like any of those girls)

and every guy said he was gay. Then, at like 18 or something he had a

girlfriend. After they broke up, he had a boyfriend, started dressing

gay and such. I guess you get the point, he's always been " different " ,

not accepted by the boys, but by the girls (as another " girl " not as a

possible partner).

Similar with an ex-co-worker of mine, all the men thought he was gay,

the women obviously thought about that much less and rarely one had an

opinion about him ( " he's a nice guy, I don't care whether he's

interested in guys or gals " ). He is gay indeed. One day, someone did

ask him about whether he had a girlfriend or not and the guy was

shocked how anyone could think he might be into women So, he was

open about himself being gay, but didn't talk about it on his own.

Well, you're all glad, those are the only gay persons I know, so my

life-stories end right here

CU Anja

--- In , " " <jc137@n...>

wrote:

> I think Christie's objection (and mine, although unaired) had to do with

> talking about homosexuality as though it were a birth defect or

disease that

> could be prevented via the mother's diet.

>

> Anja said:

> " but I do think homosexuality could be caused by food. "

> The implication is " bad food " in this case. Personally, I thought the

> statement in the journal that sparked this whole thread ( " We believe

that it

> is important to provide this information to prospective parents who also

> want to be grandparents " ) is insensitive and plain wrong--there are

lots of

> gay and lesbian parents out there!

> I agree with Heidi that nutrition (prenatal and otherwise) and uterine

> environment probably DO affect our sexuality profoundly, but it's

WAAAAYYYYY

> too complicated to say " eating too much XXXX could make your child gay. "

> Gays and lesbians DON'T EVEN HAVE EQUAL CIVIL RIGHTS yet, so yes,

it's still

> a pretty sensitive topic despite " Will and Grace " et al! Even if you

believe

> that homosexuality is " wrong " or and " aberration " and if we all ate WAP

> style and lived in a perfect world there would be no gay folks, keep

in mind

> that there are gay people on this list and to frame your thoughts and

> comments about the subject accordingly. Same goes for discussions that

> touch on race and religion.

> One of the reasons I LOVE this list is our diversity. I'd bet my

gorgeous,

> mineral-rich, cavity-free eye-teeth that if we polled the list on

religious

> and political issues, we'd get an amazing range of answers. And yet

we can

> have (almost 100% of the time) engaging, respectful, wonderful

discussions

> about nutrition and all of the issues that connect to it.

> My 2c.

>