arndt@squirt.DEC (11/14/85)
The following is part of an explanation to a personal posting that expands
on my understanding of homosexuality.
***********************
Thanks for writing. I believe that you are confused in your thinking in
your reply to my posting. Let me explain:
You say:
I don't see how you could say all this if you've never had sex with a man.
*** Well, I don't believe that it is necessary to actually experience
everything to evaluate it. Perhaps on some things like smell, etc. But not
everything. If it were so a judge would have to have stolen something in order
to evaluate the behavior of a thief, eh? My point was, and is, that we don't
appear to be MADE at all for same sex behavior when that behavior is viewed
as 'fulfillment' or the best it can be. The biological parts don't FIT!!
Remember we are (I was) talking about the IDEAL and fulfillment sexually.
Sure you can 'get off' with a tree or just about anything other than someone
of the opposite sex - and of course sex with the opposte sex is not
automatically 'fulfillment'!!
I see same sex in the same catagory as masturbation - less than an
ideal of sexual fulfillment for a man or a woman. I don't have to actually
EXPERIENCE same sex behavior to make these comments - there is nothing new
I would discover about how many or what kind of biological sexual parts a
human has. Nothing new or germaine to my line of reasoning would appear from
my trying it, you see. Remember I'm not saying it isn't fun, etc. Just that
it ain't best, eh? (Of course I also think it's 'wrong' but that's not what
I'm trying to say. Again, I'm only saying it ain't 'IDEAL'.)
You say:
You don't really say why your thoughts are [supposedly] true; why being close
to another person is less intimate [notice I'm talking about love and not just
sex; you seem to just be talking about sex but I'm sure you don't mean just
that] if that person is a member of the same sex.
**** Sorry but I do believe I HAVE stated why my thoughts are
'true'. Observation and logical extension from that plus my own experience of
sex. I certainly believe in love between men! I HAVE loved men. Just not a
sexual expression of that love! A man, in my view, CANNOT fulfill another man
sexually. It's, pardon my expression, like a monkey trying to copulate with
a football!!! Saw a porn film about homosexual sex and it was sad and funny
at the same time. These guys kept turning each other over looking for some
place to 'hook up' and it did remind me of the above monkey. Remember it is
my point exactly that sex MEANS (since there ARE two sexes, you see) between
male and female! By biological definition of an ideal. Everything less is
just rubbin' yourself on something - your hand, your friend's hand, a tree, etc.
You say:
Again, how can you say what it IS? Sex is sex, so sexual fulfullment is
always possible. If you're talking about emotional fulfullment, though, you
can't indulge in sex with something you can't relate too, e.g. a dog or sheep.
**** You are quite right that one can release sexual feelings
with almost anything. The question is though, what is the IDEAL!!!! The term,
'jerk off' to describe someone is a recognition that sex with yourself is
not 'fulfillment' and those who practice sex alone are less than bright, etc.
I wouldn't be too sure about emotional feelings for non-humans. People get
pretty wrapped up with their pets. But sexual fulfillment with a pet again
falls short, eh? For the same reason as same sex. We ain't MADE for it.
And homosexuals don't really believe that as you say, 'sex is sex'. Take
for example Ray's posting on 'Can we have honest love affairs'. Just sex
is NOT enough. Sex without emotional, spiritual, attachments is not
fulfullment. The question is what satisfies me and you as male human
sexual beings? From my point of view not another man. That is like
settling for peanut butter and jelly all the time when there is a 36 course
dinner available!! Women are endlessly fascinating - even some of the
dollies on this net.
Homosexuals complain that they are treated as second class citizens. But
they ARE acting like second class sexual citizens!! They 'feel' attraction
to the same sex. ha. Well, we 'feel' attraction to a lot of things, eh?
But that doesn't mean that they are all 'right' does it? I may feel like
shooting someone or stealing or not helping. Really feel it. But there is
more to behavior than how I 'feel'. Sexually, I think a homosexual is stuck
on himself - his own body. If there were no such thing as a female you
might have a case.
I can understand your reluctance to 'launch out' if all you see of women is
the techie nerdish passionless programmer image of some women engineers in
their 'man's' clothes and way of expression. But both you and they, I believe,
need some 'romance' with the opposite sex to let nature take it's course.
Please notice I did NOT say you needed sex. But LIFE.
You say:
What's the big difference between a shit hole and a piss hole? It seems more
likely now that intravenous drug users started AIDS. I fail to understand
your logic in "that's why it hits homosexuals ... - and heterosexuals in third
world ..." ... why precisely do 3rd world heterosexuals get AIDS?
**** I agree that perhaps some form of behavior other than
homosexual started AIDS. But no matter what the percentages, drug users and
such to homosexuals, the fact remains that anal intercourse - which IS the
way homosexuals find 'fulfullment' and solve the biological question of where
to put it - is the behavior that causes homosexuals to be a vector for the
disease. If you didn't do that you perhaps wouldn't be vectors for AIDS.
Every little four year old knows he shouldn't roll his duky in balls and eat
it. But homosexuals 'rim' each other - think of that next time some little
'liberated' yuppie pin head techie nerdish dolly in her plaid shirt gives you
a kiss of good fellowship. Would you kiss her lips if you knew she had been
licking the rim? Look, homosexuals, male and female, are reduced to things
like the above behavior for sexual 'fulfillment' which in any other context
would be immediately seen as just plain stupid things to do. But homosexual
propaganda talks about 'lifestyles' and 'choice' and 'preference' and throws
cant and slogans and seagulls in the air to fog up what is really a very simple
isssue. WE AIN'T MADE FOR IT!!
[The seagull are a reference to the 'famous' seagull studies in which it is
proported that male seagulls sometimes display a homosexual 'lifestyle'.
Unfortunately for the propaganda this only occurs when there are not female
seagulls around.]
Heterosexuals in the third world, and elsewhere get all the diseases, and
remember AIDS is only the tip of the disease iceberg, that one leaves oneself
open to from using the lower bowel as a sexual organ - or any such unhealthy
behavior like unclean needles, etc. It is now estimated that one half!!! of
the population of east and central Africa will get AIDS, the 'slim disease'
as they call it. It is going to solve the population problem in the third
world in a way in which we didn't expect. Millions will die. The Black Death
will look small beside it. Now of course I don't blame this on homosexuals!!
Only for their part and that mostly among themselves.
The difference between a 'shit hole and a piss hole' as you put it is exactly
my point!!! Even 'ideal' sex uses the man's 'piss hole'. ALL sex for a man
uses it. But the lower bowel, it seems to me at least, has nothing to do with
sexual behavior unless conditioned to it - and then at great personal risk, eh?
(You know, tearing, AIDS, etc.)
Again, I don't hate homosexuals. I think that some of them are fine people.
Just mistaken in their understanding of human sexual expression. And of course
as I stated in my first posting, when they propagandize in schools and
elsewhere that what they believe is 'right' I oppose it. Or am I not supposed
to be able to do that?
Keep chargin'
Ken Arndtgerber@mit-amt.MIT.EDU (Andrew S. Gerber) (11/15/85)
> Keep chargin' > > Ken Arndt Ken: I am sick and tired of your postings. You say the same things over and over again. I've read the same sh*t that's been coming off your keyboard for almost two years now, and it's always the same. You like homosexuals. Fine. You've said that enough times. But we are deviant, gross, doing the wrong thing. Fine. We are wrong. You are right. I am wrong. You are right. You are always right. What you do is correct. What we do is wrong. Happy, now? Will you go away, now? Will you let us be wrong in peace? Will you stop telling us what to do? I kinda doubt it, but maybe you will. -- +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Andrew S. Gerber MIT '87 Systems Manager, Visible Language Workshop | | gerber@mit-athena.MIT.EDU, gerber@mit-amt.MIT.EDU, gerber@mit-mc.MIT.EDU | | {decvax, mit-eddie}!mit-amt!gerber {decvax, mit-eddie}!mit-athena!gerber | +---------------------------------------+-------------------------------------+ | Well we know where we're goin' | And we're not little children | | But we don't know where we've been. | And we know what we want. | | And we know what we're knowing | And the future is certain | | But we can't say what we've seen. | Give us time to work it out. | +---------------------------------------+-------------------------------------+ | "Road to Nowhere", Talking Heads, from the album "Little Creatures" | | Copyright 1985, Talking Heads, EMI Records | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+