Ship of Fools: How? Explain it to me ...

Thread: How? Explain it to me ... Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028621

Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :

With respect to same-sex marriage (and probably a whole bunch more shibboleths), the Pope says, "policies which undermine the family threaten human dignity and the future of humanity itself."

How?

How is my human dignity, or anybody else's, altered by my married friends e.g. Tom & Minoru, or Leslie & Kathleen? How are they undermining anyone's family? How are they endangering the future of humanity? What are they doing that is so different and so awful compared to what Christine & Bruce and Nina & Bill do?

I would like to know exactly how same-sex marriage will lead to the end of the nuclear family, or the extinction of the human race, or whatever the heck the Pope thinks is going to happen to our species. Thank you. OliviaG

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

Which of course is not the result of large numbers of men and women abjuring marriage and parenthood altogether...

Intelligent people, too. Loads of societies have found ways of removing the intelligent from reproduction - celibate monastic setups, not just in Christianity - polygamy backed up by eunuchs in the civil service - simply not marrying clever women. Now those are a threat.

Penny

[ 13. January 2012, 21:56: Message edited by: Penny S ]

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
With respect to same-sex marriage (and probably a whole bunch more shibboleths), the Pope says, "policies which undermine the family threaten human dignity and the future of humanity itself."

How?

There's apparently a secret plan!

quote:
During his Boxing Day sermon, the Bishop of Córdoba, Demetrio Fernández, said there was a conspiracy by the United Nations. "The Minister for Family of the Papal Government, Cardinal Antonelli, told me a few days ago in Zaragoza that UNESCO has a program for the next 20 years to make half the world population homosexual. To do this they have distinct programs, and will continue to implant the ideology that is already present in our schools."

Unfortunately the bishop didn't provide any details of how the plan is supposed to work. Either that, or it was covered up by the conspiracy!!! [Eek!]

Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :

[Killing me]

Seriously, though, making half the population homosexual tomorrow would still leave 3.5 billion heterosexuals, about the same number as the total world population in the 1960-70s. I had no idea we were on the brink of survival back then. OliviaG

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

I presume that he doesn't realise that women could be same-sex oriented, since they aren't sexual beings (in his terms, anyway). After all, he's not far from the era of Queen Victoria in his thinking.

So, this plot would appear to mean that all men should become gay, since just about half the world population is male.

That would definitely solve the problems of climate change, food shortages, etc., in a relatively short time, although the switch-hitters might confuse the issue.

Posted by Nicolemrw (# 28) on :

I was wondering how long before someone started a thread on this.

It's one of the crazist things I've ever heard. I'm with the OP, can anyone parse this in any way that makes sense? How does the marrige of people who would otherwise presumably remain unmarried destroy humanity?

Posted by joan knox (# 16100) on :

well, *she said, conspiratorially* we all know it was gay marriage that actually killed off the dinosaurs... next item on the gay agenda [packed full of fun stuff] is to see the polar ice caps melt, followed by Armageddon.
Teh gayz certainly are to blame for the economic meltdown, as seen in microcosm with the slump in sales of this particular supermarket chain
You have been warned... [Ultra confused]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

In all honesty, it does seem a relic of the idea that homosexuality is somehow 'catching' - that you can influence someone's sexuality so that there is some risk of the percentage of the population that is not heterosexual somehow going up.

But my understanding was that the Roman Catholic Church now accepts that sexuality is innate. They still don't like homosexuality, but I had thought they now accepted that homosexuals were 'born that way'. In which case there's no risk of straights becoming gays.

Although I suppose there's still the risk of closet homosexuals no longer staying in the closet and producing children as a result.

But I can't imagine that the fractional drop in fertility this would cause is much of a threat. It's not as if the world has a baby shortage, for God's sake.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by joan knox:
followed by Armageddon.

You'd think that a chunk of the Christian Right in the US would embrace us, then. Some of them seem pretty darn eager for Armageddon. We should be thanked.

quote:
Teh gayz certainly are to blame for the economic meltdown, as seen in microcosm with the slump in sales of this particular supermarket chain

It's kind of interesting how that article says "analysts say this is the reason... but WE know the real reason folks". Could generate a very interesting discussion about the power of prayer. I sometimes wonder whether God just slaps his forehead as people credit him with things he's entirely left alone.

I mean, smiting supermarket chains? Do we really think God's priorities include smiting supermarket chains for their evil influence upon the world? Do we not think that if God was going to strike a telling blow against the gay agenda, he'd aim for something a bit more definitive than lowering Tesco's share price in a tough economic climate?

But of course, he wants to do it subtly so that only those with faith can tell it was really him. [brick wall]

I was sorely tempted to leave a fairly sarcastic comment, but it would probably just lead them to quote something about the blessings of being persecuted.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
"The Minister for Family of the Papal Government, Cardinal Antonelli, told me a few days ago in Zaragoza that UNESCO has a program for the next 20 years to make half the world population homosexual.

I think the cardinal has his conspiracies mixed up. The usual right-wing critique of UNESCO is that it is an agency bent on giving the third-world domination of the entire planet. Which would make it a rather unlikely candidate for the forcible promotion of homosexuality.

Posted by Apocalypso (# 15405) on :

If you begin with the premise that homosexuality is a sin chosen by rebellious and/or misguided people,

and continue with the notion that others can be therefore be influenced (read "converted") to choose it too,

and tack onto that the notion that people who've "chosen" homosexuality (however perversely and in defiance of Natural Law and their Divine Maker) are uniformly motivated to "convert" heterosexual people to this egregious sin (because, after all, misery loves company),

you will naturally end up at the conclusion described in the OP.

Presenting evidence to the contrary of any of these premises is useless. It's like arguing about scripture with those folks for whom the entire Bible presents a literally-truthful description of the known universe, physical, historical, and moral. For such folks, The Truth is, and must be, seamless. Otherwise it can't be Truth, and since it IS Truth, any apparent seams are the Devil's handiwork, deceit used to persuade the unwary toward a big bite of the apple.

[ 14. January 2012, 16:08: Message edited by: Apocalypso ]

Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by joan knox:
Teh gayz certainly are to blame for the economic meltdown, as seen in microcosm with the slump in sales of this particular supermarket chain
It's kind of interesting how that article says "analysts say this is the reason... but WE know the real reason folks". Could generate a very interesting discussion about the power of prayer. I sometimes wonder whether God just slaps his forehead as people credit him with things he's entirely left alone.

I mean, smiting supermarket chains? Do we really think God's priorities include smiting supermarket chains for their evil influence upon the world? Do we not think that if God was going to strike a telling blow against the gay agenda, he'd aim for something a bit more definitive than lowering Tesco's share price in a tough economic climate?

But of course, he wants to do it subtly so that only those with faith can tell it was really him.

So true. As I commented here, a well-timed thunderbolt aimed at Brighton would probably be easier than attempting to change the shopping habits of hundreds of thousands of shoppers, and I'm sure it would be more effective in expressing divine disapproval of teh gayz.

Posted by Aelred of Rievaulx (# 16860) on :

Partner and I often smile across the breakfast table and reflect that we are, in our quiet way, totally undermining western civilisation, family values, human decency, and the right to life among others.

And all we thought we were doing was loving one another and sharing our lives!

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

It's the fact that you smile while doing it that demonstrates just how wicked and depraved you are.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:

How is my human dignity, or anybody else's, altered by my married friends e.g. Tom & Minoru, or Leslie & Kathleen? How are they undermining anyone's family? How are they endangering the future of humanity?

It doesn't, they don't - not in any way whatever.

He is 100% wrong.

Posted by Huia (# 3473) on :

It really doesn't say a lot for the heterosexual lifestyle if people are seen as being converted
so easily.

As for Aelred and his partner - obviously covert anarchists of the worst kind [Roll Eyes]

Given the state of civilisation, I wish I could find such a quiet, loving way of undermining it.

Huia

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
[QB] With respect to same-sex marriage (and probably a whole bunch more shibboleths), the Pope says, "policies which undermine the family threaten human dignity and the future of humanity itself."

How?

I assume that the Pope is talking about policies that mean that an act that has evolved into as much a social one as a reproductive one can not be undertaken with the aid of devices to minimise the risk like small pieces of rubber?

No?

Then I assume he's talking about acts like lobbying to prevent couples in stable monogamous relationships marrying or adopting kids without parents.

No?

Then I assume he's taking about policies to prevent stable loving monogamous relationships in line with both parties natural inclinations rather than making them live a lie?

No?

Then I assume he's talking about suggesting that significan numbers of people of the less common gender (and numbers of people of both) fail to get married and instead devote their lives to his cult?

No?

Then I assume he's talking about the claim that people shouldn't even learn about a natural intimate act because it's an attack on religious freedom?

No?

Then what? Oh, he's objecting that people who love people of their own gender can get married now. He's objecting that people can make families? Right. Gotcha.

Posted by Aelred of Rievaulx (# 16860) on :

quote:
It's the fact that you smile while doing it that demonstrates just how wicked and depraved you are.

@Orfeo

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
[I mean, smiting supermarket chains? Do we really think God's priorities include smiting supermarket chains for their evil influence upon the world?

Oh that You would rend the heavens and come down...

Posted by joan knox (# 16100) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
[I mean, smiting supermarket chains? Do we really think God's priorities include smiting supermarket chains for their evil influence upon the world?
Oh that You would rend the heavens and come down...

...and grab this once in a lifetime BOGOF offer on 9p tins of baked beans. Yes, customers, that's right - 9p for a tin of beans, plus another tin of beans thrown in. This price is so cheap, it's positively obscene!!!

*offers subject to change in the face of impending apocalypses

No?

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

[Killing me]

Well you sold ME. But maybe God just doesn't like beans?

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

In the absence of any conservative willing to defend the Pope, I think the logic goes something like this.

One of the primary purposes of marriage in Catholic tradition is procreation. However, if marriage is redefined in such a way that procreation is no longer an essential part of it - for example, by accepting the possibility of gay marriage - then heterosexual married couples will be less likely to have children, because they'll no longer see a moral imperative to do so. Ergo, fewer families.

I think this is self-evidently rather silly, but for a different reason than the ones so far stated.

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

I would explain it like this:

The Catholic church takes the view that sexual love, the sex act, and the procreation and nurturing of children are inseparably connected, and that the best context in which they occur is a commited, exclusive, monogamous and permanent union of two people showing unconditional and self-sacrificing love. That is what the pope means by the shorthand "the family".

The family (in that ideal sense) is a unique help to human well-being and dignity. If every child's experience of growing up is formed in an environment of selfless love between parents, in an environment where he or she is a uniquely precious and valued part that is not only highly conducive to physical security and the development of mental and moral faculties, it reinforces the importance and sacredness of every individual life, and it gives the raising of children an honoured place in society.

The view reported in the OP is not that homosexual relationships per se threaten ‘the family', but that ‘policies' might undermine it. Thus Aelred's smiles across the breakfast table aren't the problem: the problem is that when the laws and customs of a particular society ceases to hold up ‘the family' as a pre-eminent model for sexual relationships and treats a whole range of other domestic arrangements with the same rights and respect, then ‘the family' loses some valuable social buttressing. It is hard enough, in the best situations, to live up to all that the Church asks of spouses and parents, and if there is no advantage (in money, or material support, or esteem, or recognition) to at least making a fair attempt to be the ideal family, then it becomes harder still. If my domestic arrangements are, basically, a matter of my own personal choice, if it is up to me what gender of partner I live with, what commitment I have to them, how long I stay with them, and what would make me leave, I am in a very different position than if the ideal family is presented to me as a given, and to which I will aspire.

And, in favour of that view, I do think it is clearly the case that the increasing acceptance of homosexual partnerships as equal to marriage is part of a broader social trend to a more liberal sexual ethic based on choice and consent. Living together unmarried is commonplace (a vicar - not mine - recently told me that in the past decade he had not conducted a single wedding in his (large, urban) parish where the parties were not already cohabiting). Divorce is an accepted part of life. It is not remotely shocking that children do not live with their two biological parents. The idea of having one single life-long sexual relationship is still a valid choice, but it is one choice amongst many. It is no longer expected as a matter of course.

That's what I think is the substance of the pro-family opposition to gay marriage, and I think there is real substance to it. It is not simply an immoral or insane prejudice.

I do support gay marriage, of course, and my answer to the case against would be that the liberalisation of sexual ethics generally has already happened, and will not be reversed by denying recognition to the gays. Support for "the family" (in the sense used here) may be less than it used to be, but we won't get it back by picking a minority and denying them similar support. Secondly, I think that if I (as someone who wants a monogamous and permanent heterosexual union) want my choices to be recognised and supported, I would be inconsistent not to want other people's choices recognised and supported, too. And I think that liberalisation has benefits which balance, and possibly outweigh, the costs. Increased personal freedom, equality between the sexes, not stigmatising people whose relationships fail, tolerance of other cultures and of minority groups, reduced acceptability of domestic abuse, and increased ease of showing love to people who on the traditional model would be thought wayward, all these are social goods that have come from this trend. The pope is probably right, though, to think that it has also made living in (what he considers to be) the best way more difficult than it was when that was the only legitimate game in town.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
That's what I think is the substance of the pro-family opposition to gay marriage, and I think there is real substance to it. It is not simply an immoral or insane prejudice.

I do support gay marriage, of course, and my answer to the case against would be that the liberalisation of sexual ethics generally has already happened, and will not be reversed by denying recognition to the gays. Support for "the family" (in the sense used here) may be less than it used to be, but we won't get it back by picking a minority and denying them similar support.

This gets at why "pro-famiy" is a slogan rather than an actual position. It involves support for The Family, an abstract concept, at the expense of actual families, the groupings of real people.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

I tend to agree, Eliab. And this is not the first time that I've felt that when people fight gay rights, they are arguably waking up to a much wider argument they effectively lost 30 or 40 years ago.

It was quite interesting a few years ago when Australian same-sex couples (all automatically de facto as marriage isn't possible) were given the same rights as opposite-sex de facto couples. It was very, very rare for opponents of this move to clearly articulate the logic that a big part of their 'problem' stemmed from the fact that de facto couples had already, much much earlier, been given the same rights as married couples in almost all respects. It was a two-link chain that going to enable same-sex couples to be treated the same as heterosexual married ones, and they'd allowed the first link to remain in place for decades without maintaining consistent opposition against it.

I only ever saw one or two faint acknowledgments that their preferred position would be that the rights in question were restricted to married couples - because such a position is now politicial suicide.

Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :

Thanks, Eliab.

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

quote:
Originally posted by joan knox:
well, *she said, conspiratorially* we all know it was gay marriage that actually killed off the dinosaurs...

It all makes sense now. The classic "Triceratops vs. Tyrannosaurus" fight in all those 50s sci-fi movies actually started with the Triceratops saying, "Oh honey ... those arms ... what were you thinking?"

3.5 billion gays, eh? Does this mean that at last I stand an outside chance of getting a date?

... or are they all going to be lesbians? [Frown]

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by joan knox:
followed by Armageddon.
You'd think that a chunk of the Christian Right in the US would embrace us, then. Some of them seem pretty darn eager for Armageddon. We should be thanked.

No, sorry, you're all too yucky to be embraced; only the Jews going back to Israel and fucking the Palestinians is allowed as an Armageddon-trigger, men fucking each other isn't.

'Cause that's consistent...

Posted by crynwrcymraeg (# 13018) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:

quote:
Originally posted by joan knox:
well, *she said, conspiratorially* we all know it was gay marriage that actually killed off the dinosaurs...
It all makes sense now. The classic "Triceratops vs. Tyrannosaurus" fight in all those 50s sci-fi movies actually started with the Triceratops saying, "Oh honey ... those arms ... what were you thinking?"

3.5 billion gays, eh? Does this mean that at last I stand an outside chance of getting a date?

... or are they all going to be lesbians?

i reckon you are in with a chance m8 !

otherwise come to London, UK or Barcellona ! [Two face]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
3.5 billion gays, eh? Does this mean that at last I stand an outside chance of getting a date?

... or are they all going to be lesbians?

My maths suggests that if they ARE all lesbians, then the straight male population of the world is going be even more frustrated than you'll be. Although for reasons I've never fully understood, they'll also be incredibly turned on as their fantasies walk by suggestively, hand in hand.

[ 18. January 2012, 20:03: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
...for reasons I've never fully understood, they'll also be incredibly turned on as their fantasies walk by suggestively, hand in hand.

I should imagine more threesome encounters happen between two lesbians and a gay man than with a straight. More's the pity. I had a threesome with two girls a thousand years ago, and it was lovely, though not what most people imagine/want it to be like if internet porn is any indication of that.

[ 19. January 2012, 09:55: Message edited by: Yorick ]

Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
...for reasons I've never fully understood, they'll also be incredibly turned on as their fantasies walk by suggestively, hand in hand.
I should imagine more threesome encounters happen between two lesbians and a gay man than with a straight. More's the pity. I had a threesome with two girls a thousand years ago, and it was lovely, though not what most people imagine/want it to be like if internet porn is any indication of that.

I have no idea if you're right or not, but what would the gay man get out of it? [Confused]

Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :

Well, perhaps I'm being a little loose with my terminology, but I understand these sexuality things are often more spectral than binary.

Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :

Fair enough. I think I see what you're getting at, and we seem to be getting rather off-track, so I'll leave it there.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Well, perhaps I'm being a little loose with my terminology, but I understand these sexuality things are often more spectral than binary.

Even if it is spectral rather than binary, a man who tends to prefer women is clearly going to get more out of going to bed with 2 women than a man who tends to prefer men would.

And I've no idea how on earth you reached the opposite conclusion, Yorick, it isn't like you and I can only surmise that you were feeling a bit tired or distracted when you wrote your posts!

The WOMEN might be elsewhere on the spectrum, but from the man's point of view your proposition makes no sense whatsoever.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Now, to return more to the original topic, I've truly had a lightbulb moment, brought on by a discussion about gay marriage off-Ship.

I finally get it now. "Marriage is between a man and a woman" is code for "Marriage is between a man and the mother of the man's children".

Because that's what women WERE. That was their job - to be mothers. No-one had to write down that this was the purpose of marriage because it was socially obvious. Jane Austen certainly knew it. A woman's goal was to get married, and a woman would be stark raving bonkers to refuse an offer of marriage because what other options were there?

It's not gay rights that have shifted the rationale of marriage, it's women's rights. The thing is, once you redefine marriage more as a partnership of equals than as a means of a man securing the mother of his children, you have to start considering why the gender of the members of the partnership matters.

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

Bingo!

Once the subsidiary role of "possession" doesn't exist, because the two persons involved are equal, then equal just means equal. If anything, it implies same-sex!

That loss of ownership rights is the biggest force driving the "old-time values" campaign, just as the loss of lordship over (black) slaves is what drives a lot of the voting in certain states of the US (plus the denial of the real-American status of Obama).

Posted by Apocalypso (# 15405) on :

Brilliant analysis. Once again, it's all down to the specter of the poor, downtrodden White Guy losing his privileges.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The thing is, once you redefine marriage more as a partnership of equals than as a means of a man securing the mother of his children, you have to start considering why the gender of the members of the partnership matters.

Exactly. In the (quite recent) past the only security for a woman,physical or financial, was to find a man to care for her. Those day are, thankfully, over.

The gender of members of a marriage parnership should not matter one jot.

Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Well, perhaps I'm being a little loose with my terminology, but I understand these sexuality things are often more spectral than binary.
Even if it is spectral rather than binary, a man who tends to prefer women is clearly going to get more out of going to bed with 2 women than a man who tends to prefer men would.

And I've no idea how on earth you reached the opposite conclusion, Yorick, it isn't like you and I can only surmise that you were feeling a bit tired or distracted when you wrote your posts!

The WOMEN might be elsewhere on the spectrum, but from the man's point of view your proposition makes no sense whatsoever.

Yes, I am profoundly ignorant of these matters, but my limited knowledge is as I indicated, and I was neither tired nor distracted when I posted it. I should be surprised to learn to the contrary, but I do think that men are generally more libidinous than women, regardless of their orientation. This is undoubtedly biological, and a function of gender rather than sexuality. On any given day of the month, men are more likely to become sexually aroused than women, be they (in either case) homosexual, bisexual, or heterosexual. This is of course significantly a function of circulating testosterone level, which is highly cyclical in menstruating women. A man is therefore probabilistically more likely to be turned on than a woman by anything at all, including the particular sexual activity of those whose position on the sexual orientation spectrum differs from their own.

Incidentally, I understand that hetero women are very commonly aroused by gay male porn, perhaps more so than men, which I think also refutes your argument.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
Brilliant analysis. Once again, it's all down to the specter of the poor, downtrodden White Guy losing his privileges.

...and said demographic is easy prey to be cannon-fodder for the Religious Right in the US.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Incidentally, I understand that hetero women are very commonly aroused by gay male porn, perhaps more so than men, which I think also refutes your argument.

Because they are hetero women and the video has men on it. Which is the exact corollary of what I said for straight men liking lesbians, and the exact opposite of what YOU said.

Gay man. Likes men. Therefore likes seeing men. Whether the men are straight or gay. Doesn't get excited by seeing women. Might like straight porn because it has both a woman AND A MAN in it. Replace the man with a second woman. Object of interest has been removed. Turn off video, make a cup of tea instead.

Straight man. Likes women. Lesbian video has women in it. Likes video.

It's seriously not rocket science.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Frankly, Yorick, the notion that giving me twice as much of what I don't want will make me more interested defies all logic. If you ask for a salad and get served a meat pie, are you really going to be any happier if, in response, they bring out a second meat pie to go with your first?

Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :

Yes, I do see what you mean, orfeo. I suppose I'm out of my depth here, and I'm sure you're right, but I do suspect that such an exclusively homosexual man is actually as rare a creature as an exclusively heterosexual one. But I absolutely take your point.

Posted by TonyK (# 35) on :

Host Mode <ACTIVATE>

I think we've dealt with the 'two lesbians and a gay man' scenario more than adequately - especially given the OP subject. Can we please now drop it.

Host Mode <DEACTIVATE>

--------------------
Yours aye ... TonyK
Host, Dead Horses
-----------------------------------------

P.S.
Incidentally (and not now posting as a Host!) can I say how much I appreciated your 'lightbulb moment' post, Orfeo - a new and fresh view on the subject, IMHO.

Posted by Aelred of Rievaulx (# 16860) on :

quote:
Yes, I do see what you mean, orfeo. I suppose I'm out of my depth here, and I'm sure you're right, but I do suspect that such an exclusively homosexual man is actually as rare a creature as an exclusively heterosexual one. But I absolutely take your point.

Er....I don't think so. This one finds nothing sexually attractive at all about women - though I like and appreciate feminie beauty. So the MFF scenario would be a dead loss for me. But men... that's a different story entirely!

And I think I know some men who are so utterly straight that the very idea of being in a sexual situation with another man, no matter how libidinous (or horny to use common parlance) they were feeling, would be a total non starter.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0