arndt@squirt.DEC (11/12/85)
This posting is prompted by a number of personal messages received and by some comments on the net (motss and elsewhere) about homosexuality, etc. Owen Rowley says on net.flame that I have 'terrorized' net.motss and sends me mail (thanks Owen - I mean that) suggesting I protest too much and should let myself slide down that slippery slope to degradation at the bottem of which all you guys await me. Or words (sorry Owen it really was a nice letter) to that effect. A net lolly pop writes me a private mail to the effect the I am a chauvinist (me??? why I LOVE women - think they're ALL equal) and asks why I think it is important for a man to have a woman to love, "above all others on earth" (quoting me). And says I should be proud of homosexuals for choosing the superior sex, blah, blah. Other confused souls have written me from time to time asking 'where I'm coming from' so to speak. Wellllllll. (That sound is thousands of 'n' keys!) Let's start with masturbation. (Ain't that where we all start?) I mean that seriously. The 'self' starts with itself and moves outward seeking fulfillment. The free self uncovers the ideal and the involved self struggles to give it substance. Tension builds between the ideal assented to and the outworking of that ideal in day to day living. Remember Ray's "Can we have honest love affairs?" in motss?? The ideal being in this case 'honest love affairs' as opposed to what happens often in live itself. In masturbation the self must supply other imaginary selves in seeking a sense of fulfillment with meaning. That is if the ideal about sex assented to involves more than just a very basic physical release from body sexual tension not involving contact with another self. I know I'll have a protest from Rich Rosen but it seems to me that masturbation falls short of what sex is about, eh? Well, I feel the same way about homosexuality as I do about masturbation. It falls short of what sex is all about. To the extent that the homosexuals make it my business by touting an 'alternative lifestyle' with 'rights' I oppose what I view as their lack of understanding of what sex is all about. I think that they are actually anti-sex!!!! Self destructive sexual behavior is what they are actually doing. I feel sorry for them for their loss of sexuality and while they themselves are not really funny their pretensions to being an expression of human sexuality that has fulfillment for either a man or a woman IS funny. They can never have anything more than two members of the same sex masturbating each other - just another pair of hands! That ole biological problem for the man of WHERE do you put it, and for the woman WHAT do you put in it? Or are we just left with fanning it? I see an analogy here between homosexual pretensions to human sexual fulfullment and someone who insists on forcing food up his rectum and trying to vomit it out. We ain't MADE that way!! AND FOR ME TO SAY SO IS 'HATE', ETC, ETC. Sure. Now I don't propose to see that everyone wears big mittens to bed or that sodomy laws be strictly enforced in private lives. But when, as I say, the case is put forward that it's just another way of sexual expression so it should be presented as such in schools, etc. I draw the line. It IS a perversion of what being a sexual human being is about. It may feel good, be fun, etc. but it ain't sexual fulfullment any way you cut it. To say it is is to move into comedy. And then there's AIDS. Human sexual activity, homosexual or heterosexual, that insists that the lower bowel is a sexual organ thereby creates the vector for many diseases. AIDS = anal intercourse of course. That's why it hits homosexuals most in this country - and heterosexuals in third world countries. Safe sex indeed. How about REAL sex children??? Well, having said all that let me say that I don't hate homosexuals. They are people just like me. Some no doubt are better people than me. Many I would be glad to have as friends. That doesn't mean I have to assent to their beliefs, does it???? I have Democrats for friends, Catholics, and even some who use Unix. Why not homosexuals. Let me ask YOU why YOU protest so much against what I've said???? Eh? I could go on as to why I think one certain woman is the ideal but this is too long already. Put it away and read it again later. Keep chargin' Ken Arndt
sdyer@bbncc5.UUCP (Steve Dyer) (11/12/85)
This is our semi-annual net.motss.newuser posting... > This posting is prompted by a number of personal messages received and by > some comments on the net (motss and elsewhere) about homosexuality, etc. Shame, shame, shame on you people for goading Ken in private messages. Unfortunately, this generally overstimulates him, leading to another message of the form we've just seen. Unless you enjoy "when are you going to stop beating your wife" arguments, ignore the guy--now THAT (surprisingly) works. -- /Steve Dyer {harvard,seismo}!bbnccv!bbncc5!sdyer sdyer@bbncc5.ARPA
up547413042@ucdavis.UUCP (0048) (11/16/85)
Ken Ardnt says: > Well, I feel the same way about homosexuality as I do about masturbation. It > falls short of what sex is all about. To the extent that the homosexuals make > it my business by touting an 'alternative lifestyle' with 'rights' I oppose > what I view as their lack of understanding of what sex is all about. I think > that they are actually anti-sex!!!! Self destructive sexual behavior is what > they are actually doing. I feel sorry for them for their loss of sexuality > and while they themselves are not really funny their pretensions to being > an expression of human sexuality that has fulfillment for either a man or > a woman IS funny. They can never have anything more than two members of the > same sex masturbating each other - just another pair of hands! That ole > biological problem for the man of WHERE do you put it, and for the woman > WHAT do you put in it? Or are we just left with fanning it? I would be interested in a proof on how gay sexual behaviour is self- destructive. I engage in it with my lover, and I have found that it is constructive; the physical act is only one aspect of it. I guess I don't believe in sex, only making love. A bonding occurs (or should, in my opinion) when such an act is performed. I'm afraid that Mr. Ardnt is the one who seems to lack understanding of what the act is all about. He also evidences a lack of understanding in what exactly occurs in homosexual acts. > I draw the line. It IS a > perversion of what being a sexual human being is about. It may feel good, > be fun, etc. but it ain't sexual fulfullment any way you cut it. To say > it is is to move into comedy. I'd be interested in a proof demonstrating that it is a perversion. Such behaviour occurs elsewhere in nature (it's been observed in marine mammals and avian species among other). And who is he to say what sexual fulfilment (or fulfullment, as he says)is anyway? What may be fulfilling for him may not be for others. I'm afraid Mr. Ardnt lack the quality of empathy. > > And then there's AIDS. Human sexual activity, homosexual or heterosexual, > that insists that the lower bowel is a sexual organ thereby creates the > vector for many diseases. AIDS = anal intercourse of course. That's why > it hits homosexuals most in this country - and heterosexuals in third world > countries. Safe sex indeed. How about REAL sex children??? Again, can he prove his assertion? Anal intercourse is not the only way to communicate the disease, and it may not be the only factor. The condition of the immune system at the time the virus is introduced to the body may be a factor as well. Mr. Ardnt makes many assertions, but I think the proof for the, if it exists, is flimsy at best. It is nice to see something written by him which is halfway decent though. That's nice.