FLM films - My Webpage

2003-02-12 17:37:53-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - ("Mathew R. Ignash" <mathewignash@comcast.net>)


On 12 Feb 2003 22:15:26 GMT, boyinterrupted66@aol.com (BoyInterrupted66) wrote: > i have gaydar > > he should be xanders butt monkey since they xander is working on bein gay ,,, > maybe andrew can help in that department So Andrew is a happy person, what of it? How does this mesh with his request for a Christina Riccibot and his passionate admission that "Scully so wants me!" -- Mathew Homepage - http://mathew.fcpages.com/ Angel web site - http://angel.fcpages.com/

2003-02-12 17:37:53-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - ("Mathew R. Ignash" <mathewignash@comcast.net>)


On 12 Feb 2003 22:15:26 GMT, boyinterrupted66@aol.com (BoyInterrupted66) wrote: > i have gaydar > > he should be xanders butt monkey since they xander is working on bein gay ,,, > maybe andrew can help in that department So Andrew is a happy person, what of it? How does this mesh with his request for a Christina Riccibot and his passionate admission that "Scully so wants me!" -- Mathew Homepage - http://mathew.fcpages.com/ Angel web site - http://angel.fcpages.com/

2003-02-12 18:18:09-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - (Don Sample <dsample@synapse.net>)


In article <917310572300449.NC-1.55.mathewignash@news.mi.comcast.giganews.com>, Mathew R. Ignash <mathewignash@comcast.net> wrote: > On 12 Feb 2003 22:15:26 GMT, boyinterrupted66@aol.com (BoyInterrupted66) > wrote: > > > i have gaydar > > > > he should be xanders butt monkey since they xander is working on bein gay > > ,,, > > maybe andrew can help in that department > > So Andrew is a happy person, what of it? > > How does this mesh with his request for a Christina Riccibot and his > passionate > admission that "Scully so wants me!" Covering. Just like Larry harrassing all the girls in the school before he came out to Xander. -- Don Sample, dsample@synapse.net Visit the Buffy Body Count at http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/ Quando omni flunkus moritati

2003-02-12 18:18:09-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - (Don Sample <dsample@synapse.net>)


In article <917310572300449.NC-1.55.mathewignash@news.mi.comcast.giganews.com>, Mathew R. Ignash <mathewignash@comcast.net> wrote: > On 12 Feb 2003 22:15:26 GMT, boyinterrupted66@aol.com (BoyInterrupted66) > wrote: > > > i have gaydar > > > > he should be xanders butt monkey since they xander is working on bein gay > > ,,, > > maybe andrew can help in that department > > So Andrew is a happy person, what of it? > > How does this mesh with his request for a Christina Riccibot and his > passionate > admission that "Scully so wants me!" Covering. Just like Larry harrassing all the girls in the school before he came out to Xander. -- Don Sample, dsample@synapse.net Visit the Buffy Body Count at http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/ Quando omni flunkus moritati

2003-02-12 19:53:32-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - (someone <yustabe@bellsouth.net>)


On Wed, 12 Feb 2003 22:51:49 +0000, Al Smith wrote: >>>he should be xanders butt monkey since they xander is working on bein gay ,,, >>>> maybe andrew can help in that department >> >> >> So Andrew is a happy person, what of it? >> >> How does this mesh with his request for a Christina Riccibot and his passionate >> admission that "Scully so wants me!" > > Poor Andrew is confused as to gender preference. It is Dawn's duty > as a woman to help him get over his confusion. I'm sure Anya would > tell her the same. Dawn has to bring Andrew firmly and permanently > back to the hetro side of the field. My suggestion is that she > should dress up like Princess Leah in Star Wars. wash your mouth out with soap; pray for absolution for such disgusting thoughts; then put a bullet through your brain. And have a Nice Day... P.S.- don't you Dawn/Andrew degenerates realize how destructive this liaison would be for Dawn? She'd escape from whatever evil spell she was under, realize she could never show herself in public again, and either join a monastery or commit suicide- you really want that on your conscience??

2003-02-12 19:53:32-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - (someone <yustabe@bellsouth.net>)


On Wed, 12 Feb 2003 22:51:49 +0000, Al Smith wrote: >>>he should be xanders butt monkey since they xander is working on bein gay ,,, >>>> maybe andrew can help in that department >> >> >> So Andrew is a happy person, what of it? >> >> How does this mesh with his request for a Christina Riccibot and his passionate >> admission that "Scully so wants me!" > > Poor Andrew is confused as to gender preference. It is Dawn's duty > as a woman to help him get over his confusion. I'm sure Anya would > tell her the same. Dawn has to bring Andrew firmly and permanently > back to the hetro side of the field. My suggestion is that she > should dress up like Princess Leah in Star Wars. wash your mouth out with soap; pray for absolution for such disgusting thoughts; then put a bullet through your brain. And have a Nice Day... P.S.- don't you Dawn/Andrew degenerates realize how destructive this liaison would be for Dawn? She'd escape from whatever evil spell she was under, realize she could never show herself in public again, and either join a monastery or commit suicide- you really want that on your conscience??

2003-02-12 20:01:31-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - (The Babaloughesian <me@privacy.net>)


"someone" <yustabe@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:pan.2003.02.13.00.53.30.121600@bellsouth.net... > On Wed, 12 Feb 2003 22:51:49 +0000, Al Smith wrote: > > >>>he should be xanders butt monkey since they xander is working on bein gay ,,, > >>>> maybe andrew can help in that department > >> > >> > >> So Andrew is a happy person, what of it? > >> > >> How does this mesh with his request for a Christina Riccibot and his passionate > >> admission that "Scully so wants me!" > > > > Poor Andrew is confused as to gender preference. It is Dawn's duty > > as a woman to help him get over his confusion. I'm sure Anya would > > tell her the same. Dawn has to bring Andrew firmly and permanently > > back to the hetro side of the field. My suggestion is that she > > should dress up like Princess Leah in Star Wars. > > wash your mouth out with soap; pray for absolution for such disgusting > thoughts; then put a bullet through your brain. And have a Nice Day... > > P.S.- don't you Dawn/Andrew degenerates realize how destructive this > liaison would be for Dawn? She'd escape from whatever evil spell she was > under, realize she could never show herself in public again, and either > join a monastery or commit suicide- you really want that on your > conscience?? I'd like her suicide on my conscience. Especially if we get to see her in the Princess Leia outfit first.

2003-02-12 20:01:31-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - (The Babaloughesian <me@privacy.net>)


"someone" <yustabe@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:pan.2003.02.13.00.53.30.121600@bellsouth.net... > On Wed, 12 Feb 2003 22:51:49 +0000, Al Smith wrote: > > >>>he should be xanders butt monkey since they xander is working on bein gay ,,, > >>>> maybe andrew can help in that department > >> > >> > >> So Andrew is a happy person, what of it? > >> > >> How does this mesh with his request for a Christina Riccibot and his passionate > >> admission that "Scully so wants me!" > > > > Poor Andrew is confused as to gender preference. It is Dawn's duty > > as a woman to help him get over his confusion. I'm sure Anya would > > tell her the same. Dawn has to bring Andrew firmly and permanently > > back to the hetro side of the field. My suggestion is that she > > should dress up like Princess Leah in Star Wars. > > wash your mouth out with soap; pray for absolution for such disgusting > thoughts; then put a bullet through your brain. And have a Nice Day... > > P.S.- don't you Dawn/Andrew degenerates realize how destructive this > liaison would be for Dawn? She'd escape from whatever evil spell she was > under, realize she could never show herself in public again, and either > join a monastery or commit suicide- you really want that on your > conscience?? I'd like her suicide on my conscience. Especially if we get to see her in the Princess Leia outfit first.

2003-02-12 21:03:35-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - (someone <yustabe@bellsouth.net>)


On Thu, 13 Feb 2003 01:03:25 +0000, sillyma wrote: > On Wed, 12 Feb 2003 19:53:32 -0500, "someone" <yustabe@bellsouth.net> > wrote: > > >>P.S.- don't you Dawn/Andrew degenerates realize how destructive this >>liaison would be for Dawn? She'd escape from whatever evil spell she was >>under, realize she could never show herself in public again, and either >>join a monastery or commit suicide- you really want that on your >>conscience?? >> > > > I'm pretty sure you meant nunnery. Did you ever see Ms. 45? I'm no, I meant monastery, e.g.: http://www.carmelslc.org/carmelpg5.htm haven't seen Ms. 45. Googled it, looks interesting. > picturing Dawn now in a nun's habit. With fishnet stockings. Oh, and > fm heels. Too much mascara and murder red lipstick. > OK, let's negotiate- nix the mascara and lipstick, keep the habit (low cut back maybe?) and stockings, shoes optional, I THINK WE HAVE A WINNER! > I'm a bad man. I think I should go lie down. sweet dreams ;-)

2003-02-12 21:03:35-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - (someone <yustabe@bellsouth.net>)


On Thu, 13 Feb 2003 01:03:25 +0000, sillyma wrote: > On Wed, 12 Feb 2003 19:53:32 -0500, "someone" <yustabe@bellsouth.net> > wrote: > > >>P.S.- don't you Dawn/Andrew degenerates realize how destructive this >>liaison would be for Dawn? She'd escape from whatever evil spell she was >>under, realize she could never show herself in public again, and either >>join a monastery or commit suicide- you really want that on your >>conscience?? >> > > > I'm pretty sure you meant nunnery. Did you ever see Ms. 45? I'm no, I meant monastery, e.g.: http://www.carmelslc.org/carmelpg5.htm haven't seen Ms. 45. Googled it, looks interesting. > picturing Dawn now in a nun's habit. With fishnet stockings. Oh, and > fm heels. Too much mascara and murder red lipstick. > OK, let's negotiate- nix the mascara and lipstick, keep the habit (low cut back maybe?) and stockings, shoes optional, I THINK WE HAVE A WINNER! > I'm a bad man. I think I should go lie down. sweet dreams ;-)

2003-02-12 22:15:26+00:00 - andrews gay - (boyinterrupted66@aol.com)


i have gaydar he should be xanders butt monkey since they xander is working on bein gay ,,, maybe andrew can help in that department

2003-02-12 22:15:26+00:00 - andrews gay - (boyinterrupted66@aol.com)


i have gaydar he should be xanders butt monkey since they xander is working on bein gay ,,, maybe andrew can help in that department

2003-02-12 22:51:49+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (Al Smith <invalid@address.com>)


>>he should be xanders butt monkey since they xander is working on bein gay ,,, >>> maybe andrew can help in that department > > > So Andrew is a happy person, what of it? > > How does this mesh with his request for a Christina Riccibot and his passionate > admission that "Scully so wants me!" Poor Andrew is confused as to gender preference. It is Dawn's duty as a woman to help him get over his confusion. I'm sure Anya would tell her the same. Dawn has to bring Andrew firmly and permanently back to the hetro side of the field. My suggestion is that she should dress up like Princess Leah in Star Wars.

2003-02-12 22:51:49+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (Al Smith <invalid@address.com>)


>>he should be xanders butt monkey since they xander is working on bein gay ,,, >>> maybe andrew can help in that department > > > So Andrew is a happy person, what of it? > > How does this mesh with his request for a Christina Riccibot and his passionate > admission that "Scully so wants me!" Poor Andrew is confused as to gender preference. It is Dawn's duty as a woman to help him get over his confusion. I'm sure Anya would tell her the same. Dawn has to bring Andrew firmly and permanently back to the hetro side of the field. My suggestion is that she should dress up like Princess Leah in Star Wars.

2003-02-13 00:41:57+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (sweick@aol.com)


In article <120220031818097807%dsample@synapse.net>, Don Sample <dsample@synapse.net> writes: >In article ><917310572300449.NC-1.55.mathewignash@news.mi.comcast.giganews.com>, >Mathew R. Ignash <mathewignash@comcast.net> wrote: > >> On 12 Feb 2003 22:15:26 GMT, boyinterrupted66@aol.com (BoyInterrupted66) >> wrote: >> >> > i have gaydar >> > >> > he should be xanders butt monkey since they xander is working on bein gay >> > ,,, >> > maybe andrew can help in that department >> >> So Andrew is a happy person, what of it? >> >> How does this mesh with his request for a Christina Riccibot and his >> passionate >> admission that "Scully so wants me!" > >Covering. Just like Larry harrassing all the girls in the school >before he came out to Xander. > No no no, Don. Andrew is bi. He was written as interested in girls from the beginning. Only later did the writers mess up the continuity and had Andrew get the hots for the boys. A total retcon. With his "moments" with Dawn, we can clearly see that he's a guy that swings both ways. It's the only way to fit his former self with his current self. They just keep writing him as wanting a boyfriend. He's both, just as he can be both good nerd Andrew and dark leather coat wearing murderous Andrew. Though the First made him do it does rank up there with drug addiction as lame excuses. But he's doing his pentance now. Which is better than most murderers on this show. ;-| (Still waiting for the "Andrew's under a gay spell" posts to appear.) Stephen Weick The crew of Columbia went to touch the face of heaven, and have now entered that kingdom.

2003-02-13 00:41:57+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (sweick@aol.com)


In article <120220031818097807%dsample@synapse.net>, Don Sample <dsample@synapse.net> writes: >In article ><917310572300449.NC-1.55.mathewignash@news.mi.comcast.giganews.com>, >Mathew R. Ignash <mathewignash@comcast.net> wrote: > >> On 12 Feb 2003 22:15:26 GMT, boyinterrupted66@aol.com (BoyInterrupted66) >> wrote: >> >> > i have gaydar >> > >> > he should be xanders butt monkey since they xander is working on bein gay >> > ,,, >> > maybe andrew can help in that department >> >> So Andrew is a happy person, what of it? >> >> How does this mesh with his request for a Christina Riccibot and his >> passionate >> admission that "Scully so wants me!" > >Covering. Just like Larry harrassing all the girls in the school >before he came out to Xander. > No no no, Don. Andrew is bi. He was written as interested in girls from the beginning. Only later did the writers mess up the continuity and had Andrew get the hots for the boys. A total retcon. With his "moments" with Dawn, we can clearly see that he's a guy that swings both ways. It's the only way to fit his former self with his current self. They just keep writing him as wanting a boyfriend. He's both, just as he can be both good nerd Andrew and dark leather coat wearing murderous Andrew. Though the First made him do it does rank up there with drug addiction as lame excuses. But he's doing his pentance now. Which is better than most murderers on this show. ;-| (Still waiting for the "Andrew's under a gay spell" posts to appear.) Stephen Weick The crew of Columbia went to touch the face of heaven, and have now entered that kingdom.

2003-02-13 00:50:30+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (JustMe <whome@nospam.com>)


"Al Smith" <invalid@address.com> wrote in message news:9eA2a.343$Ky.61843@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca... > >>he should be xanders butt monkey since they xander is working on bein gay ,,, > >>> maybe andrew can help in that department > > > > > > So Andrew is a happy person, what of it? > > > > How does this mesh with his request for a Christina Riccibot and his passionate > > admission that "Scully so wants me!" > > Poor Andrew is confused as to gender preference. It is Dawn's duty > as a woman to help him get over his confusion. I'm sure Anya would > tell her the same. Dawn has to bring Andrew firmly and permanently > back to the hetro side of the field. My suggestion is that she > should dress up like Princess Leah in Star Wars. > Ah, Princess Lea in the gold bikini..

2003-02-13 00:50:30+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (JustMe <whome@nospam.com>)


"Al Smith" <invalid@address.com> wrote in message news:9eA2a.343$Ky.61843@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca... > >>he should be xanders butt monkey since they xander is working on bein gay ,,, > >>> maybe andrew can help in that department > > > > > > So Andrew is a happy person, what of it? > > > > How does this mesh with his request for a Christina Riccibot and his passionate > > admission that "Scully so wants me!" > > Poor Andrew is confused as to gender preference. It is Dawn's duty > as a woman to help him get over his confusion. I'm sure Anya would > tell her the same. Dawn has to bring Andrew firmly and permanently > back to the hetro side of the field. My suggestion is that she > should dress up like Princess Leah in Star Wars. > Ah, Princess Lea in the gold bikini..

2003-02-13 01:01:12+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


>Subject: andrews gay >From: boyinterrupted66@aol.com (BoyInterrupted66) >Date: 2/12/2003 2:15 PM Pacific Standard Time >Message-id: <20030212171526.08383.00000498@mb-mt.aol.com> > >i have gaydar > >he should be xanders butt monkey since they xander is working on bein gay ,,, >maybe andrew can help in that department > I think Andrew is bi Rose It's not Giles

2003-02-13 01:01:12+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


>Subject: andrews gay >From: boyinterrupted66@aol.com (BoyInterrupted66) >Date: 2/12/2003 2:15 PM Pacific Standard Time >Message-id: <20030212171526.08383.00000498@mb-mt.aol.com> > >i have gaydar > >he should be xanders butt monkey since they xander is working on bein gay ,,, >maybe andrew can help in that department > I think Andrew is bi Rose It's not Giles

2003-02-13 01:03:25+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (sillyman@famous.com)


On Wed, 12 Feb 2003 19:53:32 -0500, "someone" <yustabe@bellsouth.net> wrote: >P.S.- don't you Dawn/Andrew degenerates realize how destructive this >liaison would be for Dawn? She'd escape from whatever evil spell she was >under, realize she could never show herself in public again, and either >join a monastery or commit suicide- you really want that on your >conscience?? > I'm pretty sure you meant nunnery. Did you ever see Ms. 45? I'm picturing Dawn now in a nun's habit. With fishnet stockings. Oh, and fm heels. Too much mascara and murder red lipstick. I'm a bad man. I think I should go lie down.

2003-02-13 01:03:25+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (sillyman@famous.com)


On Wed, 12 Feb 2003 19:53:32 -0500, "someone" <yustabe@bellsouth.net> wrote: >P.S.- don't you Dawn/Andrew degenerates realize how destructive this >liaison would be for Dawn? She'd escape from whatever evil spell she was >under, realize she could never show herself in public again, and either >join a monastery or commit suicide- you really want that on your >conscience?? > I'm pretty sure you meant nunnery. Did you ever see Ms. 45? I'm picturing Dawn now in a nun's habit. With fishnet stockings. Oh, and fm heels. Too much mascara and murder red lipstick. I'm a bad man. I think I should go lie down.

2003-02-13 01:38:50-08:00 - Re: andrews gay - (Shuggie <Shuggie_member@newsguy.com>)


In article <20030212171526.08383.00000498@mb-mt.aol.com>, boyinterrupted66@aol.com says... > >i have gaydar > >he should be xanders butt monkey since they xander is working on bein gay ,,, >maybe andrew can help in that department I think for Andrew it's less about whether you're male and female and more about a certain attitude, strength, confidence, knowing your own mind, a certain determination/ruthlessness - all the things he feels he lacks in himself.

2003-02-13 01:38:50-08:00 - Re: andrews gay - (Shuggie <Shuggie_member@newsguy.com>)


In article <20030212171526.08383.00000498@mb-mt.aol.com>, boyinterrupted66@aol.com says... > >i have gaydar > >he should be xanders butt monkey since they xander is working on bein gay ,,, >maybe andrew can help in that department I think for Andrew it's less about whether you're male and female and more about a certain attitude, strength, confidence, knowing your own mind, a certain determination/ruthlessness - all the things he feels he lacks in himself.

2003-02-13 03:31:14+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (Shorty <notrealshorty@hotmail.com>)


On 12 Feb 2003 22:15:26 GMT, boyinterrupted66@aol.com (BoyInterrupted66) wrote: >i have gaydar > >he should be xanders butt monkey since they xander is working on bein gay ,,, >maybe andrew can help in that department I wonder: If Dawn gets Andrew to fall fer her, and he spends the rest of the season running around saying, 'Straight Now', what will the gay viewers think of ME. I cant wait for 'Andrew is bi-sexual' arguments to start up and everybody who participated will be arguing the exact opposite of what they did with Willow. Heh.

2003-02-13 03:31:14+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (Shorty <notrealshorty@hotmail.com>)


On 12 Feb 2003 22:15:26 GMT, boyinterrupted66@aol.com (BoyInterrupted66) wrote: >i have gaydar > >he should be xanders butt monkey since they xander is working on bein gay ,,, >maybe andrew can help in that department I wonder: If Dawn gets Andrew to fall fer her, and he spends the rest of the season running around saying, 'Straight Now', what will the gay viewers think of ME. I cant wait for 'Andrew is bi-sexual' arguments to start up and everybody who participated will be arguing the exact opposite of what they did with Willow. Heh.

2003-02-13 08:25:06-08:00 - Re: andrews gay - (Shuggie <Shuggie_member@newsguy.com>)


In article <20030213105025.14158.00000679@mb-ms.aol.com>, sweick@aol.com says... > > >Spike, Anya, and Andrew, killers searching for redemption, and hot >animal sex. > I normally hate those shipper composite names but "Spanyandrew" has kind of a cute ring to it dontcha think? ;)

2003-02-13 08:25:06-08:00 - Re: andrews gay - (Shuggie <Shuggie_member@newsguy.com>)


In article <20030213105025.14158.00000679@mb-ms.aol.com>, sweick@aol.com says... > > >Spike, Anya, and Andrew, killers searching for redemption, and hot >animal sex. > I normally hate those shipper composite names but "Spanyandrew" has kind of a cute ring to it dontcha think? ;)

2003-02-13 09:07:47+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (paulJ@aol.com)


On 13 Feb 2003 00:41:57 GMT, sweick@aol.com (SWeick) wrote: >No no no, Don. Andrew is bi. He was written as interested in >girls from the beginning. Only later did the writers mess up the >continuity and had Andrew get the hots for the boys. A total retcon. >With his "moments" with Dawn, we can clearly see that he's >a guy that swings both ways. WTF?? He does not like Dawn as a girlfriend! He said she was a peach! A FUCKING PEACH! That means he's GAY! Did you hear the way he talked about buffy's friggin underwear? With not a drop of drool on his mouth! Did he look dizzy! NO That means he's GAY! Any hetero man would be woozy at just the thought of digging through Buffy's drawers! Damn you people are thick!

2003-02-13 09:07:47+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (paulJ@aol.com)


On 13 Feb 2003 00:41:57 GMT, sweick@aol.com (SWeick) wrote: >No no no, Don. Andrew is bi. He was written as interested in >girls from the beginning. Only later did the writers mess up the >continuity and had Andrew get the hots for the boys. A total retcon. >With his "moments" with Dawn, we can clearly see that he's >a guy that swings both ways. WTF?? He does not like Dawn as a girlfriend! He said she was a peach! A FUCKING PEACH! That means he's GAY! Did you hear the way he talked about buffy's friggin underwear? With not a drop of drool on his mouth! Did he look dizzy! NO That means he's GAY! Any hetero man would be woozy at just the thought of digging through Buffy's drawers! Damn you people are thick!

2003-02-13 11:43:17-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - (David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com>)


On Thu, 13 Feb 2003 17:05:04 +0000, Lawrence Solomon wrote: > > > Don Sample wrote: > >> > How does this mesh with his request for a Christina Riccibot and his >> > passionate >> > admission that "Scully so wants me!" >> >> Covering. Just like Larry harrassing all the girls in the school before >> he came out to Xander. > > Yeah, that was such a total retcon of Larry's character. I mean, he was > hitting on girls at the beginning of the episode, so he was clearly > straight, and by the end, they tell us he's gay now? I mean, c'mon... did > they really expect us to swallow that one? You can't retcon things within the same episode. However, yes, they retconned him from earlier episodes. -- David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com> NOYFB, P

2003-02-13 11:43:17-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - (David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com>)


On Thu, 13 Feb 2003 17:05:04 +0000, Lawrence Solomon wrote: > > > Don Sample wrote: > >> > How does this mesh with his request for a Christina Riccibot and his >> > passionate >> > admission that "Scully so wants me!" >> >> Covering. Just like Larry harrassing all the girls in the school before >> he came out to Xander. > > Yeah, that was such a total retcon of Larry's character. I mean, he was > hitting on girls at the beginning of the episode, so he was clearly > straight, and by the end, they tell us he's gay now? I mean, c'mon... did > they really expect us to swallow that one? You can't retcon things within the same episode. However, yes, they retconned him from earlier episodes. -- David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com> NOYFB, P

2003-02-13 13:17:06-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - ("C.L. Lassiter" <seaelle@unc.edu>)


Mathew R. Ignash <mathewignash@comcast.net> wrote: > How does this mesh with his request for a Christina Riccibot and his passionate > admission that "Scully so wants me!" Hell, I'm gay, and I so wish Scully would want me! cl, big Gillian Anderson fan

2003-02-13 13:17:06-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - ("C.L. Lassiter" <seaelle@unc.edu>)


Mathew R. Ignash <mathewignash@comcast.net> wrote: > How does this mesh with his request for a Christina Riccibot and his passionate > admission that "Scully so wants me!" Hell, I'm gay, and I so wish Scully would want me! cl, big Gillian Anderson fan

2003-02-13 14:18:50-08:00 - Re: andrews gay - (himiko@animail.net)


sweick@aol.com (SWeick) wrote in message news:<20030213105025.14158.00000679@mb-ms.aol.com>... > > > >He said she was a peach! A FUCKING PEACH! > > > What Andrew does with fruit is between him and his God. > > And I'm sure Dawn is still a virgin. Probably, but I'm starting to think she writes slashy fanfics. I mean, she slashed Andrew and Clem right there in public without turning a hair...well, none on her head anyway. himiko

2003-02-13 14:18:50-08:00 - Re: andrews gay - (himiko@animail.net)


sweick@aol.com (SWeick) wrote in message news:<20030213105025.14158.00000679@mb-ms.aol.com>... > > > >He said she was a peach! A FUCKING PEACH! > > > What Andrew does with fruit is between him and his God. > > And I'm sure Dawn is still a virgin. Probably, but I'm starting to think she writes slashy fanfics. I mean, she slashed Andrew and Clem right there in public without turning a hair...well, none on her head anyway. himiko

2003-02-13 15:50:25+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (sweick@aol.com)


In article <7lnm4vsj29q4maojjcja3l8kstirvkdgcq@4ax.com>, paulJ@aol.com writes: >On 13 Feb 2003 00:41:57 GMT, sweick@aol.com (SWeick) wrote: > >>No no no, Don. Andrew is bi. He was written as interested in >>girls from the beginning. Only later did the writers mess up the >>continuity and had Andrew get the hots for the boys. A total retcon. >>With his "moments" with Dawn, we can clearly see that he's >>a guy that swings both ways. > > >WTF?? He does not like Dawn as a girlfriend! He wants her as his cuddle monkey. To which, as a DOMFDD, ewwww. >He said she was a peach! A FUCKING PEACH! What Andrew does with fruit is between him and his God. And I'm sure Dawn is still a virgin. >That means he's GAY! No, he's bi. > Did you hear the way he talked about buffy's >friggin underwear? Absolutely. Andrew likes girls. Probably likes dressing like them occassionally, but he likes girls. They just don't like him. With not a drop of drool on his mouth! Did he >look dizzy! NO That means he's GAY! Cause all gay men want to have sex with Katrina in a French Maid's outfit. Or a Christina Ricci sexbot. And all straight guys grab other guys in the "wrong touching" sort of way like Andrew did with the WarrenWillow. And think Spike is hot when he's having sex with Anya. And likes touching Jonathan's "magic bone." >Any hetero man would be woozy at just the thought of digging through >Buffy's drawers! What do you mean, she washes them. Besides, he didn't go through her drawers. That was said just to trick The First. (BTW, why does evil's unholy ghost have to be so lame?) >Damn you people are thick! He's bi. Switch hitter. Goes both ways. Gives and takes it. Yin and yangs. Pos and neg. You're just one of those Gay Andrew activists that threatened Joss after they killed off Warren. So what if they were the only realistic gay couple on the show. Get over it! It was important to the storyline. And you got to see Warren as a ghost. (Next thing you know, they'll be wasting money on lame net banners.) But it's time for Andrew to move on. Though I think Spike might be a better match for Andrew. He or Anya. Not sure yet. Maybe as a threesome. Spike, Anya, and Andrew, killers searching for redemption, and hot animal sex. Stephen Weick The crew of Columbia went to touch the face of heaven, and have now entered that kingdom.

2003-02-13 15:50:25+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (sweick@aol.com)


In article <7lnm4vsj29q4maojjcja3l8kstirvkdgcq@4ax.com>, paulJ@aol.com writes: >On 13 Feb 2003 00:41:57 GMT, sweick@aol.com (SWeick) wrote: > >>No no no, Don. Andrew is bi. He was written as interested in >>girls from the beginning. Only later did the writers mess up the >>continuity and had Andrew get the hots for the boys. A total retcon. >>With his "moments" with Dawn, we can clearly see that he's >>a guy that swings both ways. > > >WTF?? He does not like Dawn as a girlfriend! He wants her as his cuddle monkey. To which, as a DOMFDD, ewwww. >He said she was a peach! A FUCKING PEACH! What Andrew does with fruit is between him and his God. And I'm sure Dawn is still a virgin. >That means he's GAY! No, he's bi. > Did you hear the way he talked about buffy's >friggin underwear? Absolutely. Andrew likes girls. Probably likes dressing like them occassionally, but he likes girls. They just don't like him. With not a drop of drool on his mouth! Did he >look dizzy! NO That means he's GAY! Cause all gay men want to have sex with Katrina in a French Maid's outfit. Or a Christina Ricci sexbot. And all straight guys grab other guys in the "wrong touching" sort of way like Andrew did with the WarrenWillow. And think Spike is hot when he's having sex with Anya. And likes touching Jonathan's "magic bone." >Any hetero man would be woozy at just the thought of digging through >Buffy's drawers! What do you mean, she washes them. Besides, he didn't go through her drawers. That was said just to trick The First. (BTW, why does evil's unholy ghost have to be so lame?) >Damn you people are thick! He's bi. Switch hitter. Goes both ways. Gives and takes it. Yin and yangs. Pos and neg. You're just one of those Gay Andrew activists that threatened Joss after they killed off Warren. So what if they were the only realistic gay couple on the show. Get over it! It was important to the storyline. And you got to see Warren as a ghost. (Next thing you know, they'll be wasting money on lame net banners.) But it's time for Andrew to move on. Though I think Spike might be a better match for Andrew. He or Anya. Not sure yet. Maybe as a threesome. Spike, Anya, and Andrew, killers searching for redemption, and hot animal sex. Stephen Weick The crew of Columbia went to touch the face of heaven, and have now entered that kingdom.

2003-02-13 17:05:04+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (Lawrence Solomon <merkaz@ameritech.net>)


Don Sample wrote: > > How does this mesh with his request for a Christina Riccibot and his > > passionate > > admission that "Scully so wants me!" > > Covering. Just like Larry harrassing all the girls in the school > before he came out to Xander. Yeah, that was such a total retcon of Larry's character. I mean, he was hitting on girls at the beginning of the episode, so he was clearly straight, and by the end, they tell us he's gay now? I mean, c'mon... did they really expect us to swallow that one? ;) -- Larry Solomon shlomo@merkazjudaica.com Proprietor, Merkaz Judaica http://www.merkazjudaica.com "I will speak ill of no man, and speak all the good I know of everybody." -Benjamin Franklin

2003-02-13 17:05:04+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (Lawrence Solomon <merkaz@ameritech.net>)


Don Sample wrote: > > How does this mesh with his request for a Christina Riccibot and his > > passionate > > admission that "Scully so wants me!" > > Covering. Just like Larry harrassing all the girls in the school > before he came out to Xander. Yeah, that was such a total retcon of Larry's character. I mean, he was hitting on girls at the beginning of the episode, so he was clearly straight, and by the end, they tell us he's gay now? I mean, c'mon... did they really expect us to swallow that one? ;) -- Larry Solomon shlomo@merkazjudaica.com Proprietor, Merkaz Judaica http://www.merkazjudaica.com "I will speak ill of no man, and speak all the good I know of everybody." -Benjamin Franklin

2003-02-13 19:18:51+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu>)


Mathew R. Ignash <mathewignash@comcast.net> wrote: : On 12 Feb 2003 22:15:26 GMT, boyinterrupted66@aol.com (BoyInterrupted66) wrote: :> i have gaydar :> :> he should be xanders butt monkey since they xander is working on bein gay ,,, :> maybe andrew can help in that department : So Andrew is a happy person, what of it? : How does this mesh with his request for a Christina Riccibot and his passionate Just a big doll to dress up. : admission that "Scully so wants me!" Fronting in front of the nerds. Shawn

2003-02-13 19:18:51+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu>)


Mathew R. Ignash <mathewignash@comcast.net> wrote: : On 12 Feb 2003 22:15:26 GMT, boyinterrupted66@aol.com (BoyInterrupted66) wrote: :> i have gaydar :> :> he should be xanders butt monkey since they xander is working on bein gay ,,, :> maybe andrew can help in that department : So Andrew is a happy person, what of it? : How does this mesh with his request for a Christina Riccibot and his passionate Just a big doll to dress up. : admission that "Scully so wants me!" Fronting in front of the nerds. Shawn

2003-02-13 19:21:24+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu>)


SWeick <sweick@aol.com> wrote: : In article <120220031818097807%dsample@synapse.net>, Don Sample : <dsample@synapse.net> writes: : (Still waiting for the "Andrew's under a gay spell" posts to appear.) No scapegoat to pin the spell on yet. Unless Kennedy has hidden powers. :) Shawn

2003-02-13 19:21:24+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu>)


SWeick <sweick@aol.com> wrote: : In article <120220031818097807%dsample@synapse.net>, Don Sample : <dsample@synapse.net> writes: : (Still waiting for the "Andrew's under a gay spell" posts to appear.) No scapegoat to pin the spell on yet. Unless Kennedy has hidden powers. :) Shawn

2003-02-13 19:21:39+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


Paul wrote: > >Any hetero man would be woozy at just the thought of digging through >Buffy's drawers! Maybe some hetero men aren't panty pervs. ;) Rose It's not Giles

2003-02-13 19:21:39+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


Paul wrote: > >Any hetero man would be woozy at just the thought of digging through >Buffy's drawers! Maybe some hetero men aren't panty pervs. ;) Rose It's not Giles

2003-02-13 19:22:43+11:00 - Re: andrews gay - (Bingus <bingus@netspace.net.au-nospam->)


> Poor Andrew is confused as to gender preference. It is Dawn's duty > as a woman to help him get over his confusion. I'm sure Anya would > tell her the same. Dawn has to bring Andrew firmly and permanently > back to the hetro side of the field. My suggestion is that she > should dress up like Princess Leah in Star Wars. Now *theres* a scene that I'd like to see. Bingus -- Willow: Well, they certainly haven't been right, since Tara. We have to face it. You can't handle Tara being my girlfriend. Xander: No! It was bad before that! (he steps out in between them again) Since you two went off to college and forgot about me! Just left me in the basement to-- (turns on Willow in shock) Tara's your girlfriend? Giles: (from upstairs) Bloody hell!

2003-02-13 19:22:43+11:00 - Re: andrews gay - (Bingus <bingus@netspace.net.au-nospam->)


> Poor Andrew is confused as to gender preference. It is Dawn's duty > as a woman to help him get over his confusion. I'm sure Anya would > tell her the same. Dawn has to bring Andrew firmly and permanently > back to the hetro side of the field. My suggestion is that she > should dress up like Princess Leah in Star Wars. Now *theres* a scene that I'd like to see. Bingus -- Willow: Well, they certainly haven't been right, since Tara. We have to face it. You can't handle Tara being my girlfriend. Xander: No! It was bad before that! (he steps out in between them again) Since you two went off to college and forgot about me! Just left me in the basement to-- (turns on Willow in shock) Tara's your girlfriend? Giles: (from upstairs) Bloody hell!

2003-02-13 19:22:52+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


Stephen wrote: > >Spike, Anya, and Andrew, killers searching for redemption, and hot >animal sex. > I'll take #1 and #3 to go. Rose It's not Giles

2003-02-13 19:22:52+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


Stephen wrote: > >Spike, Anya, and Andrew, killers searching for redemption, and hot >animal sex. > I'll take #1 and #3 to go. Rose It's not Giles

2003-02-13 19:23:28+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu>)


C.L. Lassiter <seaelle@unc.edu> wrote: : Mathew R. Ignash <mathewignash@comcast.net> wrote: :> How does this mesh with his request for a Christina Riccibot and his passionate :> admission that "Scully so wants me!" : Hell, I'm gay, and I so wish Scully would want me! : cl, big Gillian Anderson fan Ditto. Gillian, please lick me, I'm nicer than Mulder ever was!!! Shawn

2003-02-13 19:23:28+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu>)


C.L. Lassiter <seaelle@unc.edu> wrote: : Mathew R. Ignash <mathewignash@comcast.net> wrote: :> How does this mesh with his request for a Christina Riccibot and his passionate :> admission that "Scully so wants me!" : Hell, I'm gay, and I so wish Scully would want me! : cl, big Gillian Anderson fan Ditto. Gillian, please lick me, I'm nicer than Mulder ever was!!! Shawn

2003-02-13 19:24:07+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu>)


Rose <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote: :>Subject: andrews gay :>From: boyinterrupted66@aol.com (BoyInterrupted66) :>Date: 2/12/2003 2:15 PM Pacific Standard Time :>Message-id: <20030212171526.08383.00000498@mb-mt.aol.com> :> :>i have gaydar :> :>he should be xanders butt monkey since they xander is working on bein gay ,,, :>maybe andrew can help in that department :> : I think Andrew is bi I think Andrew, like Jonathan, is rather inexperienced on the whole love front. Shawn

2003-02-13 19:24:07+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu>)


Rose <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote: :>Subject: andrews gay :>From: boyinterrupted66@aol.com (BoyInterrupted66) :>Date: 2/12/2003 2:15 PM Pacific Standard Time :>Message-id: <20030212171526.08383.00000498@mb-mt.aol.com> :> :>i have gaydar :> :>he should be xanders butt monkey since they xander is working on bein gay ,,, :>maybe andrew can help in that department :> : I think Andrew is bi I think Andrew, like Jonathan, is rather inexperienced on the whole love front. Shawn

2003-02-13 19:24:27+11:00 - Re: andrews gay - (Bingus <bingus@netspace.net.au-nospam->)


> I think Andrew is bi > I think he's actually straight. The gay side of him has only really ever been used for laughs, nothing serious. Bingus -- Buffy: And in some language that's English?

2003-02-13 19:24:27+11:00 - Re: andrews gay - (Bingus <bingus@netspace.net.au-nospam->)


> I think Andrew is bi > I think he's actually straight. The gay side of him has only really ever been used for laughs, nothing serious. Bingus -- Buffy: And in some language that's English?

2003-02-13 19:25:05+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu>)


Shorty <notrealshorty@hotmail.com> wrote: : On 12 Feb 2003 22:15:26 GMT, boyinterrupted66@aol.com : (BoyInterrupted66) wrote: :>i have gaydar :> :>he should be xanders butt monkey since they xander is working on bein gay ,,, :>maybe andrew can help in that department : I wonder: : If Dawn gets Andrew to fall fer her, and he spends the rest of the : season running around saying, 'Straight Now', what will the gay : viewers think of ME. I cant wait for 'Andrew is bi-sexual' arguments : to start up and everybody who participated will be arguing the exact : opposite of what they did with Willow. Heh. It's such an unlikely direction, you may have to wait awhile. Shawn

2003-02-13 19:25:05+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu>)


Shorty <notrealshorty@hotmail.com> wrote: : On 12 Feb 2003 22:15:26 GMT, boyinterrupted66@aol.com : (BoyInterrupted66) wrote: :>i have gaydar :> :>he should be xanders butt monkey since they xander is working on bein gay ,,, :>maybe andrew can help in that department : I wonder: : If Dawn gets Andrew to fall fer her, and he spends the rest of the : season running around saying, 'Straight Now', what will the gay : viewers think of ME. I cant wait for 'Andrew is bi-sexual' arguments : to start up and everybody who participated will be arguing the exact : opposite of what they did with Willow. Heh. It's such an unlikely direction, you may have to wait awhile. Shawn

2003-02-13 20:05:48-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - (Go-ta Maga-nus <mtm@e.c>)


"Rose" <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote in message news:20030213172946.11342.00001405@mb-ch.aol.com... > >Subject: Re: andrews gay > >From: Shawn Hill shill@fas.harvard.edu > >Date: 2/13/2003 11:18 AM Pacific Standard Time > >Message-id: <b2gr2r$hpg$4@news.fas.harvard.edu> > > > >Mathew R. Ignash <mathewignash@comcast.net> wrote: > >: On 12 Feb 2003 22:15:26 GMT, boyinterrupted66@aol.com (BoyInterrupted66) > >wrote: > > > >:> i have gaydar > >:> > >:> he should be xanders butt monkey since they xander is working on bein gay > >,,, > >:> maybe andrew can help in that department > > > >: So Andrew is a happy person, what of it? > > > >: How does this mesh with his request for a Christina Riccibot and his > >passionate > > > >Just a big doll to dress up. > > > >: admission that "Scully so wants me!" > > > >Fronting in front of the nerds. > > > > Nope. It slipped out and then he was embarrassed. > > > > Rose > It's not Giles That Capt. Archer comment slipped out too. So he's bi.

2003-02-13 20:05:48-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - (Go-ta Maga-nus <mtm@e.c>)


"Rose" <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote in message news:20030213172946.11342.00001405@mb-ch.aol.com... > >Subject: Re: andrews gay > >From: Shawn Hill shill@fas.harvard.edu > >Date: 2/13/2003 11:18 AM Pacific Standard Time > >Message-id: <b2gr2r$hpg$4@news.fas.harvard.edu> > > > >Mathew R. Ignash <mathewignash@comcast.net> wrote: > >: On 12 Feb 2003 22:15:26 GMT, boyinterrupted66@aol.com (BoyInterrupted66) > >wrote: > > > >:> i have gaydar > >:> > >:> he should be xanders butt monkey since they xander is working on bein gay > >,,, > >:> maybe andrew can help in that department > > > >: So Andrew is a happy person, what of it? > > > >: How does this mesh with his request for a Christina Riccibot and his > >passionate > > > >Just a big doll to dress up. > > > >: admission that "Scully so wants me!" > > > >Fronting in front of the nerds. > > > > Nope. It slipped out and then he was embarrassed. > > > > Rose > It's not Giles That Capt. Archer comment slipped out too. So he's bi.

2003-02-13 22:29:46+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


>Subject: Re: andrews gay >From: Shawn Hill shill@fas.harvard.edu >Date: 2/13/2003 11:18 AM Pacific Standard Time >Message-id: <b2gr2r$hpg$4@news.fas.harvard.edu> > >Mathew R. Ignash <mathewignash@comcast.net> wrote: >: On 12 Feb 2003 22:15:26 GMT, boyinterrupted66@aol.com (BoyInterrupted66) >wrote: > >:> i have gaydar >:> >:> he should be xanders butt monkey since they xander is working on bein gay >,,, >:> maybe andrew can help in that department > >: So Andrew is a happy person, what of it? > >: How does this mesh with his request for a Christina Riccibot and his >passionate > >Just a big doll to dress up. > >: admission that "Scully so wants me!" > >Fronting in front of the nerds. > Nope. It slipped out and then he was embarrassed. Rose It's not Giles

2003-02-13 22:29:46+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


>Subject: Re: andrews gay >From: Shawn Hill shill@fas.harvard.edu >Date: 2/13/2003 11:18 AM Pacific Standard Time >Message-id: <b2gr2r$hpg$4@news.fas.harvard.edu> > >Mathew R. Ignash <mathewignash@comcast.net> wrote: >: On 12 Feb 2003 22:15:26 GMT, boyinterrupted66@aol.com (BoyInterrupted66) >wrote: > >:> i have gaydar >:> >:> he should be xanders butt monkey since they xander is working on bein gay >,,, >:> maybe andrew can help in that department > >: So Andrew is a happy person, what of it? > >: How does this mesh with his request for a Christina Riccibot and his >passionate > >Just a big doll to dress up. > >: admission that "Scully so wants me!" > >Fronting in front of the nerds. > Nope. It slipped out and then he was embarrassed. Rose It's not Giles

2003-02-13 23:29:09+11:00 - Re: andrews gay - (Bingus <bingus@netspace.net.au-nospam->)


> > I think for Andrew it's less about whether you're male and female and more about > a certain attitude, strength, confidence, knowing your own mind, a certain > determination/ruthlessness - all the things he feels he lacks in himself. Hmmm.. thats actually a very interesting point. Kinda fits right in there with his desire to follow others. Bingus -- Buffy: Let me guess. Gwendolyn Post, not a watcher. Giles: Yes she was, she was kicked out by the council two years ago for misuses of dark power. They swear there was a memo.

2003-02-13 23:29:09+11:00 - Re: andrews gay - (Bingus <bingus@netspace.net.au-nospam->)


> > I think for Andrew it's less about whether you're male and female and more about > a certain attitude, strength, confidence, knowing your own mind, a certain > determination/ruthlessness - all the things he feels he lacks in himself. Hmmm.. thats actually a very interesting point. Kinda fits right in there with his desire to follow others. Bingus -- Buffy: Let me guess. Gwendolyn Post, not a watcher. Giles: Yes she was, she was kicked out by the council two years ago for misuses of dark power. They swear there was a memo.

2003-02-14 00:14:02+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (Shorty <notrealshorty@hotmail.com>)


On 13 Feb 2003 19:21:39 GMT, fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote: >Paul wrote: > >> >>Any hetero man would be woozy at just the thought of digging through >>Buffy's drawers! > >Maybe some hetero men aren't panty pervs. ;) > > >Rose >It's not Giles Uh...nope pretty much all of us are. Sorry.

2003-02-14 00:14:02+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (Shorty <notrealshorty@hotmail.com>)


On 13 Feb 2003 19:21:39 GMT, fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote: >Paul wrote: > >> >>Any hetero man would be woozy at just the thought of digging through >>Buffy's drawers! > >Maybe some hetero men aren't panty pervs. ;) > > >Rose >It's not Giles Uh...nope pretty much all of us are. Sorry.

2003-02-14 00:37:45+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (dominicanindian@aol.com)


<< >Paul wrote: > >> >>Any hetero man would be woozy at just the thought of digging through >>Buffy's drawers! > >Maybe some hetero men aren't panty pervs. ;) > > >Rose >It's not Giles Uh...nope pretty much all of us are. Sorry. >> and if not ... theyre either bi or gay

2003-02-14 00:37:45+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (dominicanindian@aol.com)


<< >Paul wrote: > >> >>Any hetero man would be woozy at just the thought of digging through >>Buffy's drawers! > >Maybe some hetero men aren't panty pervs. ;) > > >Rose >It's not Giles Uh...nope pretty much all of us are. Sorry. >> and if not ... theyre either bi or gay

2003-02-14 00:39:09+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (dominicanindian@aol.com)


<< :> How does this mesh with his request for a Christina Riccibot and his passionate :> admission that "Scully so wants me!" : Hell, I'm gay, and I so wish Scully would want me! >> even some gay men would have sex with women hell i'd pork rose mcgowans pale ass any day of the week

2003-02-14 00:39:09+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (dominicanindian@aol.com)


<< :> How does this mesh with his request for a Christina Riccibot and his passionate :> admission that "Scully so wants me!" : Hell, I'm gay, and I so wish Scully would want me! >> even some gay men would have sex with women hell i'd pork rose mcgowans pale ass any day of the week

2003-02-14 00:41:26-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - (The Babaloughesian <me@privacy.net>)


"Shorty" <notrealshorty@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:o5do4vcn66qkqbks291chdcgjguc4t356p@4ax.com... > On 13 Feb 2003 19:21:39 GMT, fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote: > > >Paul wrote: > > > >> > >>Any hetero man would be woozy at just the thought of digging through > >>Buffy's drawers! > > > >Maybe some hetero men aren't panty pervs. ;) > > > > > >Rose > >It's not Giles > > > Uh...nope pretty much all of us are. Sorry. Uh, not quite.

2003-02-14 00:41:26-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - (The Babaloughesian <me@privacy.net>)


"Shorty" <notrealshorty@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:o5do4vcn66qkqbks291chdcgjguc4t356p@4ax.com... > On 13 Feb 2003 19:21:39 GMT, fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote: > > >Paul wrote: > > > >> > >>Any hetero man would be woozy at just the thought of digging through > >>Buffy's drawers! > > > >Maybe some hetero men aren't panty pervs. ;) > > > > > >Rose > >It's not Giles > > > Uh...nope pretty much all of us are. Sorry. Uh, not quite.

2003-02-14 00:42:59+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (dominicanindian@aol.com)


<< >Spike, Anya, and Andrew, killers searching for redemption, and hot >animal sex. > I'll take #1 and #3 to go. >> actually id take the whole cast except Dawn, Riley, Giles and fat ass Xander willow, angel,oz, cordy, buffy and principal wood are a plus wow am i fucked up ; p and id totally pork faith , ,,,,, shes so bisexual ... i love it

2003-02-14 00:42:59+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (dominicanindian@aol.com)


<< >Spike, Anya, and Andrew, killers searching for redemption, and hot >animal sex. > I'll take #1 and #3 to go. >> actually id take the whole cast except Dawn, Riley, Giles and fat ass Xander willow, angel,oz, cordy, buffy and principal wood are a plus wow am i fucked up ; p and id totally pork faith , ,,,,, shes so bisexual ... i love it

2003-02-14 00:43:55-06:00 - Re: andrews gay - (Zombie Elvis <DELETE-ME-2-REPLY-robertocastillo@ameritech.net>)


It was a time of great turmoil. The strong preyed on the weak, dogs and cats lived together. One voice cried out in the wilderness: Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu> wrote in <b2gr7k$hpg$5@news.fas.harvard.edu>: > SWeick <sweick@aol.com> wrote: > : In article <120220031818097807%dsample@synapse.net>, Don Sample > : <dsample@synapse.net> writes: > > : (Still waiting for the "Andrew's under a gay spell" posts to appear.) > > No scapegoat to pin the spell on yet. Unless Kennedy has hidden powers. > :) > Ah, so Kennedy doesn't actually have Gaydar, she has a Gay Ray that she aims at random members of either sex when she is bored. So Xander asked the wrong lesbian to "gay him up." -- "Now, wait a minute. You think I'm evil if I bring a group of girls on a camping trip and *don't* touch them?" -- Rupert Giles Roberto Castillo robertocastillo@ameritech.net http://www.enteract.com/~castillo

2003-02-14 00:43:55-06:00 - Re: andrews gay - (Zombie Elvis <DELETE-ME-2-REPLY-robertocastillo@ameritech.net>)


It was a time of great turmoil. The strong preyed on the weak, dogs and cats lived together. One voice cried out in the wilderness: Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu> wrote in <b2gr7k$hpg$5@news.fas.harvard.edu>: > SWeick <sweick@aol.com> wrote: > : In article <120220031818097807%dsample@synapse.net>, Don Sample > : <dsample@synapse.net> writes: > > : (Still waiting for the "Andrew's under a gay spell" posts to appear.) > > No scapegoat to pin the spell on yet. Unless Kennedy has hidden powers. > :) > Ah, so Kennedy doesn't actually have Gaydar, she has a Gay Ray that she aims at random members of either sex when she is bored. So Xander asked the wrong lesbian to "gay him up." -- "Now, wait a minute. You think I'm evil if I bring a group of girls on a camping trip and *don't* touch them?" -- Rupert Giles Roberto Castillo robertocastillo@ameritech.net http://www.enteract.com/~castillo

2003-02-14 01:04:42+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (sillyman@famous.com)


On Fri, 14 Feb 2003 00:14:02 GMT, Shorty <notrealshorty@hotmail.com> wrote: >On 13 Feb 2003 19:21:39 GMT, fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote: > >>Paul wrote: >> >>> >>>Any hetero man would be woozy at just the thought of digging through >>>Buffy's drawers! >> >>Maybe some hetero men aren't panty pervs. ;) >> >> >>Rose >>It's not Giles > > >Uh...nope pretty much all of us are. Sorry. If pretty much all of us are, then it's not a perversion, it's normal. Which makes me a perv, I guess, 'cause going through a gal's drawer full of delicates doesn't do a thing for me.

2003-02-14 01:04:42+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (sillyman@famous.com)


On Fri, 14 Feb 2003 00:14:02 GMT, Shorty <notrealshorty@hotmail.com> wrote: >On 13 Feb 2003 19:21:39 GMT, fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote: > >>Paul wrote: >> >>> >>>Any hetero man would be woozy at just the thought of digging through >>>Buffy's drawers! >> >>Maybe some hetero men aren't panty pervs. ;) >> >> >>Rose >>It's not Giles > > >Uh...nope pretty much all of us are. Sorry. If pretty much all of us are, then it's not a perversion, it's normal. Which makes me a perv, I guess, 'cause going through a gal's drawer full of delicates doesn't do a thing for me.

2003-02-14 01:19:52+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


GTM wrote: > >That Capt. Archer comment slipped out too. So he's bi. > I said that already. Rose It's not Giles

2003-02-14 01:19:52+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


GTM wrote: > >That Capt. Archer comment slipped out too. So he's bi. > I said that already. Rose It's not Giles

2003-02-14 05:09:38+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (Dan McEwen <dannyboymcny@aol.com>)


"Mathew R. Ignash" <mathewignash@comcast.net> wrote in news:917310572300449.NC-1.55.mathewignash@news.mi.comcast.giganews.com: > On 12 Feb 2003 22:15:26 GMT, boyinterrupted66@aol.com > (BoyInterrupted66) wrote: > >> i have gaydar >> >> he should be xanders butt monkey since they xander is working on >> bein gay ,,, maybe andrew can help in that department > > So Andrew is a happy person, what of it? > > How does this mesh with his request for a Christina Riccibot and his > passionate admission that "Scully so wants me!" Closet-case. There have been many indications that Andrew was in love with Warren. -- Dan a.a. #1617

2003-02-14 05:09:38+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (Dan McEwen <dannyboymcny@aol.com>)


"Mathew R. Ignash" <mathewignash@comcast.net> wrote in news:917310572300449.NC-1.55.mathewignash@news.mi.comcast.giganews.com: > On 12 Feb 2003 22:15:26 GMT, boyinterrupted66@aol.com > (BoyInterrupted66) wrote: > >> i have gaydar >> >> he should be xanders butt monkey since they xander is working on >> bein gay ,,, maybe andrew can help in that department > > So Andrew is a happy person, what of it? > > How does this mesh with his request for a Christina Riccibot and his > passionate admission that "Scully so wants me!" Closet-case. There have been many indications that Andrew was in love with Warren. -- Dan a.a. #1617

2003-02-14 06:49:41-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - ("Mathew R. Ignash" <mathewignash@comcast.net>)


On 14 Feb 2003 05:09:38 GMT, Dan McEwen wrote: > "Mathew R. Ignash" <mathewignash@comcast.net> wrote in > news:917310572300449.NC-1.55.mathewignash@news.mi.comcast.giganews.com: > > > On 12 Feb 2003 22:15:26 GMT, boyinterrupted66@aol.com > > (BoyInterrupted66) wrote: > > > >> i have gaydar > >> > >> he should be xanders butt monkey since they xander is working on > >> bein gay ,,, maybe andrew can help in that department > > > > So Andrew is a happy person, what of it? > > > > How does this mesh with his request for a Christina Riccibot and his > > passionate admission that "Scully so wants me!" > > Closet-case. There have been many indications that Andrew was in love > with Warren. Yes, we know Andrew loved Warren, but the point being he's expressed sexual attraction to women too, even in slips of the tongue about some wanting him. Seems he has to swing both ways. Let's face it, Andrew lays awake at night dreaming of Gillian Anderson, Scott Bacula, Christina Ricca and Matthew Broderick! It would seem to be he just has a thing for cool sci-fi/fantasy celebrities, not a particular gender. -- Mathew Homepage - http://mathew.fcpages.com/ Angel web site - http://angel.fcpages.com/

2003-02-14 06:49:41-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - ("Mathew R. Ignash" <mathewignash@comcast.net>)


On 14 Feb 2003 05:09:38 GMT, Dan McEwen wrote: > "Mathew R. Ignash" <mathewignash@comcast.net> wrote in > news:917310572300449.NC-1.55.mathewignash@news.mi.comcast.giganews.com: > > > On 12 Feb 2003 22:15:26 GMT, boyinterrupted66@aol.com > > (BoyInterrupted66) wrote: > > > >> i have gaydar > >> > >> he should be xanders butt monkey since they xander is working on > >> bein gay ,,, maybe andrew can help in that department > > > > So Andrew is a happy person, what of it? > > > > How does this mesh with his request for a Christina Riccibot and his > > passionate admission that "Scully so wants me!" > > Closet-case. There have been many indications that Andrew was in love > with Warren. Yes, we know Andrew loved Warren, but the point being he's expressed sexual attraction to women too, even in slips of the tongue about some wanting him. Seems he has to swing both ways. Let's face it, Andrew lays awake at night dreaming of Gillian Anderson, Scott Bacula, Christina Ricca and Matthew Broderick! It would seem to be he just has a thing for cool sci-fi/fantasy celebrities, not a particular gender. -- Mathew Homepage - http://mathew.fcpages.com/ Angel web site - http://angel.fcpages.com/

2003-02-14 07:11:13-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - ("Mathew R. Ignash" <mathewignash@comcast.net>)


On 13 Feb 2003 14:18:50 -0800, himiko@animail.net (himiko) wrote: > sweick@aol.com (SWeick) wrote in message news:<20030213105025.14158.00000679@mb-ms.aol.com>... > > > > > > >He said she was a peach! A FUCKING PEACH! > > > > > > What Andrew does with fruit is between him and his God. > > > > And I'm sure Dawn is still a virgin. > > Probably, but I'm starting to think she writes slashy fanfics. I > mean, she slashed Andrew and Clem right there in public without > turning a hair...well, none on her head anyway. That was Xander and Clem! What would we call that? Clander or Xem? -- Mathew Homepage - http://mathew.fcpages.com/ Angel web site - http://angel.fcpages.com/

2003-02-14 07:11:13-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - ("Mathew R. Ignash" <mathewignash@comcast.net>)


On 13 Feb 2003 14:18:50 -0800, himiko@animail.net (himiko) wrote: > sweick@aol.com (SWeick) wrote in message news:<20030213105025.14158.00000679@mb-ms.aol.com>... > > > > > > >He said she was a peach! A FUCKING PEACH! > > > > > > What Andrew does with fruit is between him and his God. > > > > And I'm sure Dawn is still a virgin. > > Probably, but I'm starting to think she writes slashy fanfics. I > mean, she slashed Andrew and Clem right there in public without > turning a hair...well, none on her head anyway. That was Xander and Clem! What would we call that? Clander or Xem? -- Mathew Homepage - http://mathew.fcpages.com/ Angel web site - http://angel.fcpages.com/

2003-02-14 07:14:02-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - ("Mathew R. Ignash" <mathewignash@comcast.net>)


On 14 Feb 2003 00:39:09 GMT, dominicanindian@aol.com (DominicanIndian) wrote: > << :> How does this mesh with his request for a Christina Riccibot and his > passionate > :> admission that "Scully so wants me!" > > : Hell, I'm gay, and I so wish Scully would want me! >> > > > even some gay men would have sex with women > > hell i'd pork rose mcgowans pale ass any day of the week Okay, this is contradictory. If you would bone either sex, you are bisexual! That's what the freakin word MEANS! Even if you'd mostly do like to do the one gender, then only consider a few particularly sexy members of the opposite gender. -- Mathew Homepage - http://mathew.fcpages.com/ Angel web site - http://angel.fcpages.com/

2003-02-14 07:14:02-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - ("Mathew R. Ignash" <mathewignash@comcast.net>)


On 14 Feb 2003 00:39:09 GMT, dominicanindian@aol.com (DominicanIndian) wrote: > << :> How does this mesh with his request for a Christina Riccibot and his > passionate > :> admission that "Scully so wants me!" > > : Hell, I'm gay, and I so wish Scully would want me! >> > > > even some gay men would have sex with women > > hell i'd pork rose mcgowans pale ass any day of the week Okay, this is contradictory. If you would bone either sex, you are bisexual! That's what the freakin word MEANS! Even if you'd mostly do like to do the one gender, then only consider a few particularly sexy members of the opposite gender. -- Mathew Homepage - http://mathew.fcpages.com/ Angel web site - http://angel.fcpages.com/

2003-02-14 07:22:02-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - ("Mathew R. Ignash" <mathewignash@comcast.net>)


On Fri, 14 Feb 2003 00:43:55 -0600, Zombie Elvis wrote: > Ah, so Kennedy doesn't actually have Gaydar, she has a Gay Ray that > she aims at random members of either sex when she is bored. So Xander > asked the wrong lesbian to "gay him up." Okay, now it's all coming into place. Kennedy sitting on the couch, with her "slash ray" shooting unlikely couples! Kennedy: Let's see, Spike and Giles! ZAP! Spike: Rupert, has anyone ever told you that you look hot with your glasses off? Rupert: Dear lord, I never noticed before, you are a sexy man. Do you like Mexican? Kennedy: Okay, now let's try Anya and Amanda! ZAP Amanda: So I beat up this guy I liked once... Anya: Let's go have sex in Xander's room, that will really piss him off! Amanda: Sounds fun! The horrors, the horrors! -- Mathew Homepage - http://mathew.fcpages.com/ Angel web site - http://angel.fcpages.com/

2003-02-14 07:22:02-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - ("Mathew R. Ignash" <mathewignash@comcast.net>)


On Fri, 14 Feb 2003 00:43:55 -0600, Zombie Elvis wrote: > Ah, so Kennedy doesn't actually have Gaydar, she has a Gay Ray that > she aims at random members of either sex when she is bored. So Xander > asked the wrong lesbian to "gay him up." Okay, now it's all coming into place. Kennedy sitting on the couch, with her "slash ray" shooting unlikely couples! Kennedy: Let's see, Spike and Giles! ZAP! Spike: Rupert, has anyone ever told you that you look hot with your glasses off? Rupert: Dear lord, I never noticed before, you are a sexy man. Do you like Mexican? Kennedy: Okay, now let's try Anya and Amanda! ZAP Amanda: So I beat up this guy I liked once... Anya: Let's go have sex in Xander's room, that will really piss him off! Amanda: Sounds fun! The horrors, the horrors! -- Mathew Homepage - http://mathew.fcpages.com/ Angel web site - http://angel.fcpages.com/

2003-02-14 08:03:19-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - (forge <bake455@spamsucks.bellsouth.net>)


On 14 Feb 2003 05:09:38 GMT, Dan McEwen <dannyboymcny@aol.com> wrote: >> How does this mesh with his request for a Christina Riccibot and his >> passionate admission that "Scully so wants me!" > >Closet-case. There have been many indications that Andrew was in love >with Warren. That, though, is partly sycophancy and not homosexuality per se. He's attracted to people who have power. Ricci and Scully (and Warren) are powerful people. I say he's bi.

2003-02-14 08:03:19-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - (forge <bake455@spamsucks.bellsouth.net>)


On 14 Feb 2003 05:09:38 GMT, Dan McEwen <dannyboymcny@aol.com> wrote: >> How does this mesh with his request for a Christina Riccibot and his >> passionate admission that "Scully so wants me!" > >Closet-case. There have been many indications that Andrew was in love >with Warren. That, though, is partly sycophancy and not homosexuality per se. He's attracted to people who have power. Ricci and Scully (and Warren) are powerful people. I say he's bi.

2003-02-14 09:47:12-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - ("C.L. Lassiter" <seaelle@unc.edu>)


Mathew R. Ignash <mathewignash@comcast.net> wrote: > On 14 Feb 2003 00:39:09 GMT, dominicanindian@aol.com (DominicanIndian) wrote: >> << :> How does this mesh with his request for a Christina Riccibot and his >> passionate >> :> admission that "Scully so wants me!" >> >> : Hell, I'm gay, and I so wish Scully would want me! >> >> >> >> even some gay men would have sex with women >> >> hell i'd pork rose mcgowans pale ass any day of the week > Okay, this is contradictory. If you would bone either sex, you are bisexual! > That's what the freakin word MEANS! Even if you'd mostly do like to do the one > gender, then only consider a few particularly sexy members of the opposite > gender. Uh oh. Here comes the flame war. :-) For the record, I'm a Kinsey 6, and even though I'd want Scully to want me, I wouldn't actually want her to do anything with/to me. I'd want her to be my very hot best friend and confidant. See, even though I'm gay, I can appreciate a beautiful woman without wanting to have sex with her. (Which brings up one of my pet peeves about some straight men who say stuff like "I can't tell if a man's good-looking," but that's another discussion.) But back to your assertion. I'd say that if one sleeps with both and *enjoys* it, then, yes, s/he is bi. Many, however, can and have slept with both sexes (societal pressures, experimentation, and so forth), but have realized a preference for one or the other. I'd say their self-identification (straight, bi, gay, omni :-) is far more important than any label either of us would choose to use. Just my feelings on the matter. cl

2003-02-14 09:47:12-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - ("C.L. Lassiter" <seaelle@unc.edu>)


Mathew R. Ignash <mathewignash@comcast.net> wrote: > On 14 Feb 2003 00:39:09 GMT, dominicanindian@aol.com (DominicanIndian) wrote: >> << :> How does this mesh with his request for a Christina Riccibot and his >> passionate >> :> admission that "Scully so wants me!" >> >> : Hell, I'm gay, and I so wish Scully would want me! >> >> >> >> even some gay men would have sex with women >> >> hell i'd pork rose mcgowans pale ass any day of the week > Okay, this is contradictory. If you would bone either sex, you are bisexual! > That's what the freakin word MEANS! Even if you'd mostly do like to do the one > gender, then only consider a few particularly sexy members of the opposite > gender. Uh oh. Here comes the flame war. :-) For the record, I'm a Kinsey 6, and even though I'd want Scully to want me, I wouldn't actually want her to do anything with/to me. I'd want her to be my very hot best friend and confidant. See, even though I'm gay, I can appreciate a beautiful woman without wanting to have sex with her. (Which brings up one of my pet peeves about some straight men who say stuff like "I can't tell if a man's good-looking," but that's another discussion.) But back to your assertion. I'd say that if one sleeps with both and *enjoys* it, then, yes, s/he is bi. Many, however, can and have slept with both sexes (societal pressures, experimentation, and so forth), but have realized a preference for one or the other. I'd say their self-identification (straight, bi, gay, omni :-) is far more important than any label either of us would choose to use. Just my feelings on the matter. cl

2003-02-14 13:00:45-08:00 - Re: andrews gay - (sam_14042@yahoo.com)


"C.L. Lassiter" <seaelle@unc.edu> wrote in message news:<3e4d0170@news.unc.edu>... > Mathew R. Ignash <mathewignash@comcast.net> wrote: > > On 14 Feb 2003 00:39:09 GMT, dominicanindian@aol.com (DominicanIndian) wrote: > > >> << :> How does this mesh with his request for a Christina Riccibot and his > >> passionate > >> :> admission that "Scully so wants me!" > > >> : Hell, I'm gay, and I so wish Scully would want me! >> > >> > >> > >> even some gay men would have sex with women > >> > >> hell i'd pork rose mcgowans pale ass any day of the week > > > Okay, this is contradictory. If you would bone either sex, you are bisexual! > > That's what the freakin word MEANS! Even if you'd mostly do like to do the one > > gender, then only consider a few particularly sexy members of the opposite > > gender. > > Uh oh. Here comes the flame war. :-) > > For the record, I'm a Kinsey 6, and even though I'd want Scully to > want me, I wouldn't actually want her to do anything with/to me. I'd want > her to be my very hot best friend and confidant. See, even though I'm > gay, I can appreciate a beautiful woman without wanting to have sex with > her. (Which brings up one of my pet peeves about some straight men who > say stuff like "I can't tell if a man's good-looking," but that's another > discussion.) > For the record, there really are guys who just can't tell if other guys are good looking. I'm one of them. I mean, I can make educated guesses based on which guys women always go crazy over... but I'm still not very good at it. It never even registered with me that, say, James Marsters was good looking until I hit the net and saw the women drooling. It kinda sucks, actually. If I was able to discern male hotness, I might be able to, I dunno, do stuff with my hair or clothes or something that would bring me closer to the standard.

2003-02-14 13:00:45-08:00 - Re: andrews gay - (sam_14042@yahoo.com)


"C.L. Lassiter" <seaelle@unc.edu> wrote in message news:<3e4d0170@news.unc.edu>... > Mathew R. Ignash <mathewignash@comcast.net> wrote: > > On 14 Feb 2003 00:39:09 GMT, dominicanindian@aol.com (DominicanIndian) wrote: > > >> << :> How does this mesh with his request for a Christina Riccibot and his > >> passionate > >> :> admission that "Scully so wants me!" > > >> : Hell, I'm gay, and I so wish Scully would want me! >> > >> > >> > >> even some gay men would have sex with women > >> > >> hell i'd pork rose mcgowans pale ass any day of the week > > > Okay, this is contradictory. If you would bone either sex, you are bisexual! > > That's what the freakin word MEANS! Even if you'd mostly do like to do the one > > gender, then only consider a few particularly sexy members of the opposite > > gender. > > Uh oh. Here comes the flame war. :-) > > For the record, I'm a Kinsey 6, and even though I'd want Scully to > want me, I wouldn't actually want her to do anything with/to me. I'd want > her to be my very hot best friend and confidant. See, even though I'm > gay, I can appreciate a beautiful woman without wanting to have sex with > her. (Which brings up one of my pet peeves about some straight men who > say stuff like "I can't tell if a man's good-looking," but that's another > discussion.) > For the record, there really are guys who just can't tell if other guys are good looking. I'm one of them. I mean, I can make educated guesses based on which guys women always go crazy over... but I'm still not very good at it. It never even registered with me that, say, James Marsters was good looking until I hit the net and saw the women drooling. It kinda sucks, actually. If I was able to discern male hotness, I might be able to, I dunno, do stuff with my hair or clothes or something that would bring me closer to the standard.

2003-02-14 14:02:46-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - ("C.L. Lassiter" <seaelle@unc.edu>)


Rose <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote: >>Subject: Re: andrews gay >>From: "C.L. Lassiter" seaelle@unc.edu >> >> For the record, I'm a Kinsey 6, and even though I'd want Scully to >>want me, I wouldn't actually want her to do anything with/to me. I'd want >>her to be my very hot best friend and confidant. See, even though I'm >>gay, I can appreciate a beautiful woman without wanting to have sex with >>her. (Which brings up one of my pet peeves about some straight men who >>say stuff like "I can't tell if a man's good-looking," but that's another >>discussion.) >> > Such a lie. They just say that so the person they're talking to won't think > they're gay. Ya think? ;^) >> But back to your assertion. I'd say that if one sleeps with both >>and *enjoys* it, then, yes, s/he is bi. > Wouldn't that make Willow bi then? She seemed to enjoy sex with Oz, though > maybe she just enjoyed being close to someone. I'm not terribly uncomfortable with either classification for her though, given her "when did you know" conversation with Kennedy, I'd guess (And one always brings one's own life perspective into these things. I acknowledge that up front.) that she loved Oz but that it was Tara who really awakened her understanding of just how good things can be. Again, strictly my "read." (Personal example: I used to work for a man who is married, has a child, adores them both, and he's gay. As he said to me, he met his wife, fell in love, married, and had a son "before all the votes were in.") >> Many, however, can and have slept >>with both sexes (societal pressures, experimentation, and so forth), but >>have realized a preference for one or the other. I'd say their >>self-identification (straight, bi, gay, omni :-) is far more important >>than any label either of us would choose to use. >> > I see your point, but words have to have SOME objective meaning. I mean, taken > to its logical conclusion, if were were to apply your standard, a woman who > doesn't like sex with women and loves sex with men could call herself a lesbian > and we'd all have to agree with her. Then she'd be an idiot, and no, we wouldn't have to agree with her; although anyone is welcome to profess whatever s/he wishes. Slipping out of my F cap and into someone else's T (Lord knows I wouldn't own one!) my assumption would be that most who've experienced both sides of the street would frequent and acknowledge the side on which s/he's the most comfortable, i.e., sure I could say I'm het het het, but I'd be lying. And all my friends would be doubled over with laughter. cl, who did have one co-worker who told him all it would take was one really great sexual experience with "the right woman" to which cl says "Ick"

2003-02-14 14:02:46-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - ("C.L. Lassiter" <seaelle@unc.edu>)


Rose <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote: >>Subject: Re: andrews gay >>From: "C.L. Lassiter" seaelle@unc.edu >> >> For the record, I'm a Kinsey 6, and even though I'd want Scully to >>want me, I wouldn't actually want her to do anything with/to me. I'd want >>her to be my very hot best friend and confidant. See, even though I'm >>gay, I can appreciate a beautiful woman without wanting to have sex with >>her. (Which brings up one of my pet peeves about some straight men who >>say stuff like "I can't tell if a man's good-looking," but that's another >>discussion.) >> > Such a lie. They just say that so the person they're talking to won't think > they're gay. Ya think? ;^) >> But back to your assertion. I'd say that if one sleeps with both >>and *enjoys* it, then, yes, s/he is bi. > Wouldn't that make Willow bi then? She seemed to enjoy sex with Oz, though > maybe she just enjoyed being close to someone. I'm not terribly uncomfortable with either classification for her though, given her "when did you know" conversation with Kennedy, I'd guess (And one always brings one's own life perspective into these things. I acknowledge that up front.) that she loved Oz but that it was Tara who really awakened her understanding of just how good things can be. Again, strictly my "read." (Personal example: I used to work for a man who is married, has a child, adores them both, and he's gay. As he said to me, he met his wife, fell in love, married, and had a son "before all the votes were in.") >> Many, however, can and have slept >>with both sexes (societal pressures, experimentation, and so forth), but >>have realized a preference for one or the other. I'd say their >>self-identification (straight, bi, gay, omni :-) is far more important >>than any label either of us would choose to use. >> > I see your point, but words have to have SOME objective meaning. I mean, taken > to its logical conclusion, if were were to apply your standard, a woman who > doesn't like sex with women and loves sex with men could call herself a lesbian > and we'd all have to agree with her. Then she'd be an idiot, and no, we wouldn't have to agree with her; although anyone is welcome to profess whatever s/he wishes. Slipping out of my F cap and into someone else's T (Lord knows I wouldn't own one!) my assumption would be that most who've experienced both sides of the street would frequent and acknowledge the side on which s/he's the most comfortable, i.e., sure I could say I'm het het het, but I'd be lying. And all my friends would be doubled over with laughter. cl, who did have one co-worker who told him all it would take was one really great sexual experience with "the right woman" to which cl says "Ick"

2003-02-14 15:07:05-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - ("C.L. Lassiter" <seaelle@unc.edu>)


Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu> wrote: > C.L. Lassiter <seaelle@unc.edu> wrote: > : her to be my very hot best friend and confidant. See, even though I'm > : gay, I can appreciate a beautiful woman without wanting to have sex with > : her. (Which brings up one of my pet peeves about some straight men who > : say stuff like "I can't tell if a man's good-looking," but that's another > : discussion.) > Let's start it. When I hear that one I always think "you sure as hell > can, why do you think you wanted to hit him as soon as he walked in?" > It's men who call other men "pretty boy," and even if it's not meant > nicely it shows they know. Yeah, but if pushed, they'll still deny having the ability to comprehend beauty in another man. "How could I possibly know?" Yeah, right. Frankly, some of my best friendships with straight men involve those who're so comfortable with their own sexuality as to have no issue with perceiving another man as attractive. > : have realized a preference for one or the other. I'd say their > : self-identification (straight, bi, gay, omni :-) is far more important > : than any label either of us would choose to use. > Far more important. We agree again. cl

2003-02-14 15:07:05-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - ("C.L. Lassiter" <seaelle@unc.edu>)


Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu> wrote: > C.L. Lassiter <seaelle@unc.edu> wrote: > : her to be my very hot best friend and confidant. See, even though I'm > : gay, I can appreciate a beautiful woman without wanting to have sex with > : her. (Which brings up one of my pet peeves about some straight men who > : say stuff like "I can't tell if a man's good-looking," but that's another > : discussion.) > Let's start it. When I hear that one I always think "you sure as hell > can, why do you think you wanted to hit him as soon as he walked in?" > It's men who call other men "pretty boy," and even if it's not meant > nicely it shows they know. Yeah, but if pushed, they'll still deny having the ability to comprehend beauty in another man. "How could I possibly know?" Yeah, right. Frankly, some of my best friendships with straight men involve those who're so comfortable with their own sexuality as to have no issue with perceiving another man as attractive. > : have realized a preference for one or the other. I'd say their > : self-identification (straight, bi, gay, omni :-) is far more important > : than any label either of us would choose to use. > Far more important. We agree again. cl

2003-02-14 15:08:04-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - ("C.L. Lassiter" <seaelle@unc.edu>)


Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu> wrote: > C.L. Lassiter <seaelle@unc.edu> wrote: > : her. (Which brings up one of my pet peeves about some straight men who > : say stuff like "I can't tell if a man's good-looking," but that's another > : discussion.) > Let's start it. Hey. All you straight men here. Can *you* tell when another man is attractive? cl

2003-02-14 15:08:04-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - ("C.L. Lassiter" <seaelle@unc.edu>)


Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu> wrote: > C.L. Lassiter <seaelle@unc.edu> wrote: > : her. (Which brings up one of my pet peeves about some straight men who > : say stuff like "I can't tell if a man's good-looking," but that's another > : discussion.) > Let's start it. Hey. All you straight men here. Can *you* tell when another man is attractive? cl

2003-02-14 16:20:54-06:00 - Re: andrews gay - (Chad Englin <chad@yoda.bsd.uchicago.edu>)


"Mathew R. Ignash" <mathewignash@comcast.net> wrote in message news:91759982458472.NC-1.55.mathewignash@news.mi.comcast.giganews.com... > On 14 Feb 2003 21:23:07 GMT, dominicanindian@aol.com (DominicanIndian) wrote: > > > << Okay, this is contradictory. If you would bone either sex, you are bisexual! > > >> > > > > > > not nessicarily....my friend is straight, though he masterbates to gay > > porn..... > > Again, the guy is mislabeling himself. I can't help it when a duck calls itself > a chicken. Doesn't change what a chicken is. Agreed. I would be highly suspicious of anyone who claims to be completely straight and masturbates to gay porn. This "friend" is most likely in some serious denial and probably ought to see a professional therapist of some kind to deal with whatever issues are preventing him/her from acknowledging their feelings.

2003-02-14 16:20:54-06:00 - Re: andrews gay - (Chad Englin <chad@yoda.bsd.uchicago.edu>)


"Mathew R. Ignash" <mathewignash@comcast.net> wrote in message news:91759982458472.NC-1.55.mathewignash@news.mi.comcast.giganews.com... > On 14 Feb 2003 21:23:07 GMT, dominicanindian@aol.com (DominicanIndian) wrote: > > > << Okay, this is contradictory. If you would bone either sex, you are bisexual! > > >> > > > > > > not nessicarily....my friend is straight, though he masterbates to gay > > porn..... > > Again, the guy is mislabeling himself. I can't help it when a duck calls itself > a chicken. Doesn't change what a chicken is. Agreed. I would be highly suspicious of anyone who claims to be completely straight and masturbates to gay porn. This "friend" is most likely in some serious denial and probably ought to see a professional therapist of some kind to deal with whatever issues are preventing him/her from acknowledging their feelings.

2003-02-14 16:34:48-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - ("Mathew R. Ignash" <mathewignash@comcast.net>)


On 14 Feb 2003 19:25:43 GMT, Shawn Hill wrote: > Mathew R. Ignash <mathewignash@comcast.net> wrote: > : On 14 Feb 2003 00:39:09 GMT, dominicanindian@aol.com (DominicanIndian) wrote: > > :> << :> How does this mesh with his request for a Christina Riccibot and his > :> passionate > :> :> admission that "Scully so wants me!" > :> > :> : Hell, I'm gay, and I so wish Scully would want me! >> > :> > :> > :> even some gay men would have sex with women > :> > :> hell i'd pork rose mcgowans pale ass any day of the week > > : Okay, this is contradictory. If you would bone either sex, you are bisexual! > : That's what the freakin word MEANS! Even if you'd mostly do like to do the one > : gender, then only consider a few particularly sexy members of the opposite > : gender. > > You've got to learn to cut out the black and white extremes, and go > swimming in all the grey areas. > > To me, sexuality is on a spectrum. In between 100% straight and 100% gay, > there are all these points individuals could be on. "Mostly gay" is one > of them. And you seem to need to learn the english language. "Mostly gay" translates to "bisexual!" Bisexual doens't mean you love both genders EQUALLY! Yes, I realize that means everyone on your silly scale who isn't a 1 or a 7 is bisexual! So there are a lot of bisexuals out there who label themseves wrong. Big whoop. -- Mathew Homepage - http://mathew.fcpages.com/ Angel web site - http://angel.fcpages.com/

2003-02-14 16:34:48-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - ("Mathew R. Ignash" <mathewignash@comcast.net>)


On 14 Feb 2003 19:25:43 GMT, Shawn Hill wrote: > Mathew R. Ignash <mathewignash@comcast.net> wrote: > : On 14 Feb 2003 00:39:09 GMT, dominicanindian@aol.com (DominicanIndian) wrote: > > :> << :> How does this mesh with his request for a Christina Riccibot and his > :> passionate > :> :> admission that "Scully so wants me!" > :> > :> : Hell, I'm gay, and I so wish Scully would want me! >> > :> > :> > :> even some gay men would have sex with women > :> > :> hell i'd pork rose mcgowans pale ass any day of the week > > : Okay, this is contradictory. If you would bone either sex, you are bisexual! > : That's what the freakin word MEANS! Even if you'd mostly do like to do the one > : gender, then only consider a few particularly sexy members of the opposite > : gender. > > You've got to learn to cut out the black and white extremes, and go > swimming in all the grey areas. > > To me, sexuality is on a spectrum. In between 100% straight and 100% gay, > there are all these points individuals could be on. "Mostly gay" is one > of them. And you seem to need to learn the english language. "Mostly gay" translates to "bisexual!" Bisexual doens't mean you love both genders EQUALLY! Yes, I realize that means everyone on your silly scale who isn't a 1 or a 7 is bisexual! So there are a lot of bisexuals out there who label themseves wrong. Big whoop. -- Mathew Homepage - http://mathew.fcpages.com/ Angel web site - http://angel.fcpages.com/

2003-02-14 16:38:00-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - ("Mathew R. Ignash" <mathewignash@comcast.net>)


On 14 Feb 2003 21:23:07 GMT, dominicanindian@aol.com (DominicanIndian) wrote: > << Okay, this is contradictory. If you would bone either sex, you are bisexual! > >> > > > not nessicarily....my friend is straight, though he masterbates to gay > porn..... Again, the guy is mislabeling himself. I can't help it when a duck calls itself a chicken. Doesn't change what a chicken is. -- Mathew Homepage - http://mathew.fcpages.com/ Angel web site - http://angel.fcpages.com/

2003-02-14 16:38:00-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - ("Mathew R. Ignash" <mathewignash@comcast.net>)


On 14 Feb 2003 21:23:07 GMT, dominicanindian@aol.com (DominicanIndian) wrote: > << Okay, this is contradictory. If you would bone either sex, you are bisexual! > >> > > > not nessicarily....my friend is straight, though he masterbates to gay > porn..... Again, the guy is mislabeling himself. I can't help it when a duck calls itself a chicken. Doesn't change what a chicken is. -- Mathew Homepage - http://mathew.fcpages.com/ Angel web site - http://angel.fcpages.com/

2003-02-14 17:26:39-08:00 - Re: andrews gay - (himiko@animail.net)


"Mathew R. Ignash" <mathewignash@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<917543188462.NC-1.55.mathewignash@news.mi.comcast.giganews.com>... > On 13 Feb 2003 14:18:50 -0800, himiko@animail.net (himiko) wrote: > > > sweick@aol.com (SWeick) wrote in message news:<20030213105025.14158.00000679@mb-ms.aol.com>... > > > > > > > > > >He said she was a peach! A FUCKING PEACH! > > > > > > > > > What Andrew does with fruit is between him and his God. > > > > > > And I'm sure Dawn is still a virgin. > > > > Probably, but I'm starting to think she writes slashy fanfics. I > > mean, she slashed Andrew and Clem right there in public without > > turning a hair...well, none on her head anyway. > > That was Xander and Clem! What would we call that? Clander or Xem? I like Xem. And you're right, it was Xander and Clem. Well, at least we are spared the horror of Clandrew or Andem. himiko

2003-02-14 17:26:39-08:00 - Re: andrews gay - (himiko@animail.net)


"Mathew R. Ignash" <mathewignash@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<917543188462.NC-1.55.mathewignash@news.mi.comcast.giganews.com>... > On 13 Feb 2003 14:18:50 -0800, himiko@animail.net (himiko) wrote: > > > sweick@aol.com (SWeick) wrote in message news:<20030213105025.14158.00000679@mb-ms.aol.com>... > > > > > > > > > >He said she was a peach! A FUCKING PEACH! > > > > > > > > > What Andrew does with fruit is between him and his God. > > > > > > And I'm sure Dawn is still a virgin. > > > > Probably, but I'm starting to think she writes slashy fanfics. I > > mean, she slashed Andrew and Clem right there in public without > > turning a hair...well, none on her head anyway. > > That was Xander and Clem! What would we call that? Clander or Xem? I like Xem. And you're right, it was Xander and Clem. Well, at least we are spared the horror of Clandrew or Andem. himiko

2003-02-14 18:12:00-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - (-Andy- <a.stoffel@spamworm.adelphia.net>)


In article <20030214173125.23179.00000672@mb-bd.aol.com>, fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote: > OK, that's two different things. Women will sometimes go crazy over men who > are NOT conventionally good looking (Steven Tyler of Aerosmith) But that's ok. Means there's hope for the rest of us :-). > Same with women. I mean, Uma Thurman has a lot of facial "flaws" (by the > standards of conventional beauty) and yet men used to go nuts over her. Hmmm... probably that green catsuit she wore as Poison-Ivy in that atrocious Batman movie or the black leather one she wore as the Evil Mrs. Peel in "The Avengers" movie (which is not a bad movie but appears to have been so badly edited to the point that some scenes made no sense and the transition between other scenes stunk. ) Personally, I prefer her in that outfit she wore as Emma Peel walking up the drive to that mansion house (yum!) and there is something about women and swords (in the same outfit) :-).... And.... there's the bit walking across the Thames (I think that's what it was) in that bubble... Yummm... Uma Thurman in movement.... anyway... obviously, tastes vary. -Andy- --

2003-02-14 18:12:00-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - (-Andy- <a.stoffel@spamworm.adelphia.net>)


In article <20030214173125.23179.00000672@mb-bd.aol.com>, fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote: > OK, that's two different things. Women will sometimes go crazy over men who > are NOT conventionally good looking (Steven Tyler of Aerosmith) But that's ok. Means there's hope for the rest of us :-). > Same with women. I mean, Uma Thurman has a lot of facial "flaws" (by the > standards of conventional beauty) and yet men used to go nuts over her. Hmmm... probably that green catsuit she wore as Poison-Ivy in that atrocious Batman movie or the black leather one she wore as the Evil Mrs. Peel in "The Avengers" movie (which is not a bad movie but appears to have been so badly edited to the point that some scenes made no sense and the transition between other scenes stunk. ) Personally, I prefer her in that outfit she wore as Emma Peel walking up the drive to that mansion house (yum!) and there is something about women and swords (in the same outfit) :-).... And.... there's the bit walking across the Thames (I think that's what it was) in that bubble... Yummm... Uma Thurman in movement.... anyway... obviously, tastes vary. -Andy- --

2003-02-14 18:22:28+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


>Subject: Re: andrews gay >From: "C.L. Lassiter" seaelle@unc.edu >Date: 2/14/2003 6:47 AM Pacific Standard Time >Message-id: <3e4d0170@news.unc.edu> > >Mathew R. Ignash <mathewignash@comcast.net> wrote: >> On 14 Feb 2003 00:39:09 GMT, dominicanindian@aol.com (DominicanIndian) >wrote: > >>> << :> How does this mesh with his request for a Christina Riccibot and his >>> passionate >>> :> admission that "Scully so wants me!" >>> >>> : Hell, I'm gay, and I so wish Scully would want me! >> >>> >>> >>> even some gay men would have sex with women >>> >>> hell i'd pork rose mcgowans pale ass any day of the week > >> Okay, this is contradictory. If you would bone either sex, you are >bisexual! >> That's what the freakin word MEANS! Even if you'd mostly do like to do the >one >> gender, then only consider a few particularly sexy members of the opposite >> gender. > > Uh oh. Here comes the flame war. :-) > > For the record, I'm a Kinsey 6, and even though I'd want Scully to >want me, I wouldn't actually want her to do anything with/to me. I'd want >her to be my very hot best friend and confidant. See, even though I'm >gay, I can appreciate a beautiful woman without wanting to have sex with >her. (Which brings up one of my pet peeves about some straight men who >say stuff like "I can't tell if a man's good-looking," but that's another >discussion.) > Such a lie. They just say that so the person they're talking to won't think they're gay. > But back to your assertion. I'd say that if one sleeps with both >and *enjoys* it, then, yes, s/he is bi. Wouldn't that make Willow bi then? She seemed to enjoy sex with Oz, though maybe she just enjoyed being close to someone. > Many, however, can and have slept >with both sexes (societal pressures, experimentation, and so forth), but >have realized a preference for one or the other. I'd say their >self-identification (straight, bi, gay, omni :-) is far more important >than any label either of us would choose to use. > I see your point, but words have to have SOME objective meaning. I mean, taken to its logical conclusion, if were were to apply your standard, a woman who doesn't like sex with women and loves sex with men could call herself a lesbian and we'd all have to agree with her. Rose It's not Giles

2003-02-14 18:22:28+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


>Subject: Re: andrews gay >From: "C.L. Lassiter" seaelle@unc.edu >Date: 2/14/2003 6:47 AM Pacific Standard Time >Message-id: <3e4d0170@news.unc.edu> > >Mathew R. Ignash <mathewignash@comcast.net> wrote: >> On 14 Feb 2003 00:39:09 GMT, dominicanindian@aol.com (DominicanIndian) >wrote: > >>> << :> How does this mesh with his request for a Christina Riccibot and his >>> passionate >>> :> admission that "Scully so wants me!" >>> >>> : Hell, I'm gay, and I so wish Scully would want me! >> >>> >>> >>> even some gay men would have sex with women >>> >>> hell i'd pork rose mcgowans pale ass any day of the week > >> Okay, this is contradictory. If you would bone either sex, you are >bisexual! >> That's what the freakin word MEANS! Even if you'd mostly do like to do the >one >> gender, then only consider a few particularly sexy members of the opposite >> gender. > > Uh oh. Here comes the flame war. :-) > > For the record, I'm a Kinsey 6, and even though I'd want Scully to >want me, I wouldn't actually want her to do anything with/to me. I'd want >her to be my very hot best friend and confidant. See, even though I'm >gay, I can appreciate a beautiful woman without wanting to have sex with >her. (Which brings up one of my pet peeves about some straight men who >say stuff like "I can't tell if a man's good-looking," but that's another >discussion.) > Such a lie. They just say that so the person they're talking to won't think they're gay. > But back to your assertion. I'd say that if one sleeps with both >and *enjoys* it, then, yes, s/he is bi. Wouldn't that make Willow bi then? She seemed to enjoy sex with Oz, though maybe she just enjoyed being close to someone. > Many, however, can and have slept >with both sexes (societal pressures, experimentation, and so forth), but >have realized a preference for one or the other. I'd say their >self-identification (straight, bi, gay, omni :-) is far more important >than any label either of us would choose to use. > I see your point, but words have to have SOME objective meaning. I mean, taken to its logical conclusion, if were were to apply your standard, a woman who doesn't like sex with women and loves sex with men could call herself a lesbian and we'd all have to agree with her. Rose It's not Giles

2003-02-14 19:16:04-08:00 - Re: andrews gay - (sam_14042@yahoo.com)


fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote in message news:<20030214173125.23179.00000672@mb-bd.aol.com>... > >Subject: Re: andrews gay > >From: sam_14042@yahoo.com (Sam) > >Date: 2/14/2003 1:00 PM Pacific Standard Time > >Message-id: <21ced21e.0302141300.67be793c@posting.google.com> > > > >"C.L. Lassiter" <seaelle@unc.edu> wrote in message > >news:<3e4d0170@news.unc.edu>... > >> Mathew R. Ignash <mathewignash@comcast.net> wrote: > >> > On 14 Feb 2003 00:39:09 GMT, dominicanindian@aol.com (DominicanIndian) > wrote: > > >> >> << :> How does this mesh with his request for a Christina Riccibot and > his > >> >> passionate > >> >> :> admission that "Scully so wants me!" > > >> >> : Hell, I'm gay, and I so wish Scully would want me! >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> even some gay men would have sex with women > >> >> > >> >> hell i'd pork rose mcgowans pale ass any day of the week > > >> > Okay, this is contradictory. If you would bone either sex, you are > bisexual! > >> > That's what the freakin word MEANS! Even if you'd mostly do like to do > the one > >> > gender, then only consider a few particularly sexy members of the > opposite > >> > gender. > >> > >> Uh oh. Here comes the flame war. :-) > >> > >> For the record, I'm a Kinsey 6, and even though I'd want Scully to > >> want me, I wouldn't actually want her to do anything with/to me. I'd want > >> her to be my very hot best friend and confidant. See, even though I'm > >> gay, I can appreciate a beautiful woman without wanting to have sex with > >> her. (Which brings up one of my pet peeves about some straight men who > >> say stuff like "I can't tell if a man's good-looking," but that's another > >> discussion.) > >> > > > >For the record, there really are guys who just can't tell if other > >guys are good looking. I'm one of them. I mean, I can make educated > >guesses based on which guys women always go crazy over... but I'm > >still not very good at it. > > > > OK, that's two different things. Women will sometimes go crazy over men who > are NOT conventionally good looking (Steven Tyler of Aerosmith) and ignore some > men who ARE (Groo on Angel was quite handsome but he didn't exactly have an > enormous female following) due to charisma and other factors. > Yeah, I get that. And I can pick up on charisma in guys perfectly fine. It's what largely determines which male actors I like -- George Clooney, for instance, practically oozes charisma. But when I watch a movie with Clooney in it, I don't notice his looks beyond just recognizing the guy. His mannerisms and tone and so forth, I notice. > Same with women. I mean, Uma Thurman has a lot of facial "flaws" (by the > standards of conventional beauty) and yet men used to go nuts over her. > I've really never seen the attraction to Uma Thurman myself. I had a hell of a time swallowing "The Truth About Cats and Dogs" for the simple reason that as far as I'm concerned, Janeane Garofalo is tremendously more attractive than Uma... > OTOH, the issue is what is YOUR opinion about what men are good-looking, not > sexually but aesthetically? What man do you find pleasant to look at in the > way that a nice tree is pleasant to look at? > > I find Buffy-era Cordelia very pleasant to look at. (Since then the various > icky hairstyles and less animated expression have soured my reaction.) Her face > is a work of art that brings me pleasure to look at...not sexual, but aesthetic > pleasure. Why can't there be a man that a straight guy would look at and say > "He has a beautiful face that I enjoy looking at, even though I would never > want to have intercourse with him." > I don't have any problem with that. It seems quite reasonable. It's just that it's not something that registers with me. I know that sounds like the whole George Costanza "Just saying a man is attractive doesn't make you gay!"/"It can't help." syndrome, but I don't find men aesthetically pleasing. It's not a conscious choice -- my eye just doesn't seem to be able to discern it. In me, I think this is part of a larger issue with the fact that I'm just not very good at discerning visual aesthetics. I have very little artistic sense in terms of almost any purely visual medium. I don't even get much out of paintings or sculptures. Not for lack of trying, but while I can appreciate the work that went into it and the principles behind it, I'm almost never struck by visual aesthetic beauty the way I am when I read, for instance, a beautiful passage of text or hear a great song. This isn't something I consider good, believe me. But it's something I've found seems to be true in more than one other guy I know (and it doesn't seem to bother them nearly as much as it does me.) And of course, there are also lots of guys I know who just don't want to look gay. *grin* Female beauty does register with me, but I wonder if that isn't due to the fact that sexual attraction operates on a different circuits, as it were... > >It never even registered with me that, say, James Marsters was good > >looking until I hit the net and saw the women drooling. > > > > Well, perhaps to you James Marsters is not good looking. No one wrote a law > stating that he is. It's just the opinion of a lot of people. OTOH, perhaps > you think D.B. Woodside is a handsome man... or that Nick Brendon is a fine > specimen of masculinity. > To be perfectly honest, until Buffy started referring to Principal Wood as a "hot principle", his looks never even registered with me one way or the other. My reaction the male characters on the show really is almost entirely based on their mannerisms, vocal tones, etc. (And what the character's written like, of course.) > IMO Marsters is not as handsome as Spike is. He has certain facial flaws that > the cameramen are careful to avoid showing. With makeup, lighting and camera > angles, BtVS takes a very good looking man and makes him dazzlingly handsome. > I'm sure that's true of an awful lot of TV and movie stars...they don't look in > real life as dazzling as they look on camera. > I'd tend to assume as much, yeah. I know Sarah Michelle Gellar looks significantly better on the show than she does in interviews and such that I've seen her in. (Though oddly enough, Alyson Hannigan seems to look almost exactly the same way outside of TV that she does onscreen. I know several people who've met her and reported as much...) > >It kinda sucks, actually. If I was able to discern male hotness, I > >might be able to, I dunno, do stuff with my hair or clothes or > >something that would bring me closer to the standard. > > > > Here's the advice I give anyone who says that: > > -- stand straight when you walk > > -- dress in a way that shows you respect yourself (i.e. don't wear pants that > droop below your underwear, don't wear ripped or stained shirts in polite > company). > Heh. While I don't dress in stained or ripped clothing for the most part and my pants go all the way to my waist, I've been told that my fashion sense is somewhat... lacking. I'm currently trying to break myself of my Hawiian shirt habit. > -- take on a manner that exudes confidence, warmth and humor. Respect yourself > without being an egotist and respect other people without grovelling. 90% of > sex appeal is what you exude from within. That's not a cliche, it's just true. > Handsome, brawny men can be unbelievably boring and unsexy, and homely balding > men with imperfect bodies can be so hot you want to jump their bones > immediately. (Neil Young leaps to mind. The sexiest man in the world, imo, > stained teeth, middle-aged belly, hair loss and all.) > > James isn't sexy because he's handsome. He's sexy because he's charismatic and > intelligent and a bit vulnerable. > Thanks for the advice. Most of this is stuff I pretty much considered self-evident... My problem is more in the purely visual realm. In a much more general sense, to be honest. > > > Rose > It's not Giles

2003-02-14 19:16:04-08:00 - Re: andrews gay - (sam_14042@yahoo.com)


fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote in message news:<20030214173125.23179.00000672@mb-bd.aol.com>... > >Subject: Re: andrews gay > >From: sam_14042@yahoo.com (Sam) > >Date: 2/14/2003 1:00 PM Pacific Standard Time > >Message-id: <21ced21e.0302141300.67be793c@posting.google.com> > > > >"C.L. Lassiter" <seaelle@unc.edu> wrote in message > >news:<3e4d0170@news.unc.edu>... > >> Mathew R. Ignash <mathewignash@comcast.net> wrote: > >> > On 14 Feb 2003 00:39:09 GMT, dominicanindian@aol.com (DominicanIndian) > wrote: > > >> >> << :> How does this mesh with his request for a Christina Riccibot and > his > >> >> passionate > >> >> :> admission that "Scully so wants me!" > > >> >> : Hell, I'm gay, and I so wish Scully would want me! >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> even some gay men would have sex with women > >> >> > >> >> hell i'd pork rose mcgowans pale ass any day of the week > > >> > Okay, this is contradictory. If you would bone either sex, you are > bisexual! > >> > That's what the freakin word MEANS! Even if you'd mostly do like to do > the one > >> > gender, then only consider a few particularly sexy members of the > opposite > >> > gender. > >> > >> Uh oh. Here comes the flame war. :-) > >> > >> For the record, I'm a Kinsey 6, and even though I'd want Scully to > >> want me, I wouldn't actually want her to do anything with/to me. I'd want > >> her to be my very hot best friend and confidant. See, even though I'm > >> gay, I can appreciate a beautiful woman without wanting to have sex with > >> her. (Which brings up one of my pet peeves about some straight men who > >> say stuff like "I can't tell if a man's good-looking," but that's another > >> discussion.) > >> > > > >For the record, there really are guys who just can't tell if other > >guys are good looking. I'm one of them. I mean, I can make educated > >guesses based on which guys women always go crazy over... but I'm > >still not very good at it. > > > > OK, that's two different things. Women will sometimes go crazy over men who > are NOT conventionally good looking (Steven Tyler of Aerosmith) and ignore some > men who ARE (Groo on Angel was quite handsome but he didn't exactly have an > enormous female following) due to charisma and other factors. > Yeah, I get that. And I can pick up on charisma in guys perfectly fine. It's what largely determines which male actors I like -- George Clooney, for instance, practically oozes charisma. But when I watch a movie with Clooney in it, I don't notice his looks beyond just recognizing the guy. His mannerisms and tone and so forth, I notice. > Same with women. I mean, Uma Thurman has a lot of facial "flaws" (by the > standards of conventional beauty) and yet men used to go nuts over her. > I've really never seen the attraction to Uma Thurman myself. I had a hell of a time swallowing "The Truth About Cats and Dogs" for the simple reason that as far as I'm concerned, Janeane Garofalo is tremendously more attractive than Uma... > OTOH, the issue is what is YOUR opinion about what men are good-looking, not > sexually but aesthetically? What man do you find pleasant to look at in the > way that a nice tree is pleasant to look at? > > I find Buffy-era Cordelia very pleasant to look at. (Since then the various > icky hairstyles and less animated expression have soured my reaction.) Her face > is a work of art that brings me pleasure to look at...not sexual, but aesthetic > pleasure. Why can't there be a man that a straight guy would look at and say > "He has a beautiful face that I enjoy looking at, even though I would never > want to have intercourse with him." > I don't have any problem with that. It seems quite reasonable. It's just that it's not something that registers with me. I know that sounds like the whole George Costanza "Just saying a man is attractive doesn't make you gay!"/"It can't help." syndrome, but I don't find men aesthetically pleasing. It's not a conscious choice -- my eye just doesn't seem to be able to discern it. In me, I think this is part of a larger issue with the fact that I'm just not very good at discerning visual aesthetics. I have very little artistic sense in terms of almost any purely visual medium. I don't even get much out of paintings or sculptures. Not for lack of trying, but while I can appreciate the work that went into it and the principles behind it, I'm almost never struck by visual aesthetic beauty the way I am when I read, for instance, a beautiful passage of text or hear a great song. This isn't something I consider good, believe me. But it's something I've found seems to be true in more than one other guy I know (and it doesn't seem to bother them nearly as much as it does me.) And of course, there are also lots of guys I know who just don't want to look gay. *grin* Female beauty does register with me, but I wonder if that isn't due to the fact that sexual attraction operates on a different circuits, as it were... > >It never even registered with me that, say, James Marsters was good > >looking until I hit the net and saw the women drooling. > > > > Well, perhaps to you James Marsters is not good looking. No one wrote a law > stating that he is. It's just the opinion of a lot of people. OTOH, perhaps > you think D.B. Woodside is a handsome man... or that Nick Brendon is a fine > specimen of masculinity. > To be perfectly honest, until Buffy started referring to Principal Wood as a "hot principle", his looks never even registered with me one way or the other. My reaction the male characters on the show really is almost entirely based on their mannerisms, vocal tones, etc. (And what the character's written like, of course.) > IMO Marsters is not as handsome as Spike is. He has certain facial flaws that > the cameramen are careful to avoid showing. With makeup, lighting and camera > angles, BtVS takes a very good looking man and makes him dazzlingly handsome. > I'm sure that's true of an awful lot of TV and movie stars...they don't look in > real life as dazzling as they look on camera. > I'd tend to assume as much, yeah. I know Sarah Michelle Gellar looks significantly better on the show than she does in interviews and such that I've seen her in. (Though oddly enough, Alyson Hannigan seems to look almost exactly the same way outside of TV that she does onscreen. I know several people who've met her and reported as much...) > >It kinda sucks, actually. If I was able to discern male hotness, I > >might be able to, I dunno, do stuff with my hair or clothes or > >something that would bring me closer to the standard. > > > > Here's the advice I give anyone who says that: > > -- stand straight when you walk > > -- dress in a way that shows you respect yourself (i.e. don't wear pants that > droop below your underwear, don't wear ripped or stained shirts in polite > company). > Heh. While I don't dress in stained or ripped clothing for the most part and my pants go all the way to my waist, I've been told that my fashion sense is somewhat... lacking. I'm currently trying to break myself of my Hawiian shirt habit. > -- take on a manner that exudes confidence, warmth and humor. Respect yourself > without being an egotist and respect other people without grovelling. 90% of > sex appeal is what you exude from within. That's not a cliche, it's just true. > Handsome, brawny men can be unbelievably boring and unsexy, and homely balding > men with imperfect bodies can be so hot you want to jump their bones > immediately. (Neil Young leaps to mind. The sexiest man in the world, imo, > stained teeth, middle-aged belly, hair loss and all.) > > James isn't sexy because he's handsome. He's sexy because he's charismatic and > intelligent and a bit vulnerable. > Thanks for the advice. Most of this is stuff I pretty much considered self-evident... My problem is more in the purely visual realm. In a much more general sense, to be honest. > > > Rose > It's not Giles

2003-02-14 19:23:56-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - ("Mathew R. Ignash" <mathewignash@comcast.net>)


On 14 Feb 2003 22:18:54 GMT, Shawn Hill wrote: > Mathew R. Ignash <mathewignash@comcast.net> wrote: > : On 14 Feb 2003 19:25:43 GMT, Shawn Hill wrote: > > :> To me, sexuality is on a spectrum. In between 100% straight and 100% gay, > :> there are all these points individuals could be on. "Mostly gay" is one > :> of them. > > : And you seem to need to learn the english language. "Mostly gay" translates to > : "bisexual!" > > I'm afraid it has to do with much more than the english language and your > interpretation of it. Gay, Bisexual and Straight are all hard won > political identities in this day and age No they are not. They are WORDS. You can color them with connotations all you want, I'm talking about their denotation. A hetrosexual is someone interested sexually only in people of the opposite gender. A homosexual is someone interested sexually only in people of the same gender. A bisexual is someone interested sexually in people of either gender. Is when you say a male homosexual friend of yours would screw Rose Mcgowen, you're contradicting yourself,if Rose is a woman and he's a man, that's opposite gender. If Andrew likes boys and girls, he's bisexual. I don't give a fig what he or anyone calls himself when he's marching in a parade. It's not a hard won political statement, it's a plain paper fact. It's not good, it's not evil, it just is. I'm not insulting someone who mislabels themselves, I'm correcting them. I have a friend who told me they don't ever eat pork for religions reasons, then we went out and ordered a pizza with ham and heate it. I know from experience that the guy only pretends to not eat pork for his wife's benefit and so his church accepts him. People do lie about themselves all the time. I would however refuse to say ham isn't a kind of pork just to make him feel better about his lie. Of course it's pork! -- Mathew Homepage - http://mathew.fcpages.com/ Angel web site - http://angel.fcpages.com/

2003-02-14 19:23:56-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - ("Mathew R. Ignash" <mathewignash@comcast.net>)


On 14 Feb 2003 22:18:54 GMT, Shawn Hill wrote: > Mathew R. Ignash <mathewignash@comcast.net> wrote: > : On 14 Feb 2003 19:25:43 GMT, Shawn Hill wrote: > > :> To me, sexuality is on a spectrum. In between 100% straight and 100% gay, > :> there are all these points individuals could be on. "Mostly gay" is one > :> of them. > > : And you seem to need to learn the english language. "Mostly gay" translates to > : "bisexual!" > > I'm afraid it has to do with much more than the english language and your > interpretation of it. Gay, Bisexual and Straight are all hard won > political identities in this day and age No they are not. They are WORDS. You can color them with connotations all you want, I'm talking about their denotation. A hetrosexual is someone interested sexually only in people of the opposite gender. A homosexual is someone interested sexually only in people of the same gender. A bisexual is someone interested sexually in people of either gender. Is when you say a male homosexual friend of yours would screw Rose Mcgowen, you're contradicting yourself,if Rose is a woman and he's a man, that's opposite gender. If Andrew likes boys and girls, he's bisexual. I don't give a fig what he or anyone calls himself when he's marching in a parade. It's not a hard won political statement, it's a plain paper fact. It's not good, it's not evil, it just is. I'm not insulting someone who mislabels themselves, I'm correcting them. I have a friend who told me they don't ever eat pork for religions reasons, then we went out and ordered a pizza with ham and heate it. I know from experience that the guy only pretends to not eat pork for his wife's benefit and so his church accepts him. People do lie about themselves all the time. I would however refuse to say ham isn't a kind of pork just to make him feel better about his lie. Of course it's pork! -- Mathew Homepage - http://mathew.fcpages.com/ Angel web site - http://angel.fcpages.com/

2003-02-14 19:25:43+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu>)


Mathew R. Ignash <mathewignash@comcast.net> wrote: : On 14 Feb 2003 00:39:09 GMT, dominicanindian@aol.com (DominicanIndian) wrote: :> << :> How does this mesh with his request for a Christina Riccibot and his :> passionate :> :> admission that "Scully so wants me!" :> :> : Hell, I'm gay, and I so wish Scully would want me! >> :> :> :> even some gay men would have sex with women :> :> hell i'd pork rose mcgowans pale ass any day of the week : Okay, this is contradictory. If you would bone either sex, you are bisexual! : That's what the freakin word MEANS! Even if you'd mostly do like to do the one : gender, then only consider a few particularly sexy members of the opposite : gender. You've got to learn to cut out the black and white extremes, and go swimming in all the grey areas. To me, sexuality is on a spectrum. In between 100% straight and 100% gay, there are all these points individuals could be on. "Mostly gay" is one of them. Shawn

2003-02-14 19:25:43+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu>)


Mathew R. Ignash <mathewignash@comcast.net> wrote: : On 14 Feb 2003 00:39:09 GMT, dominicanindian@aol.com (DominicanIndian) wrote: :> << :> How does this mesh with his request for a Christina Riccibot and his :> passionate :> :> admission that "Scully so wants me!" :> :> : Hell, I'm gay, and I so wish Scully would want me! >> :> :> :> even some gay men would have sex with women :> :> hell i'd pork rose mcgowans pale ass any day of the week : Okay, this is contradictory. If you would bone either sex, you are bisexual! : That's what the freakin word MEANS! Even if you'd mostly do like to do the one : gender, then only consider a few particularly sexy members of the opposite : gender. You've got to learn to cut out the black and white extremes, and go swimming in all the grey areas. To me, sexuality is on a spectrum. In between 100% straight and 100% gay, there are all these points individuals could be on. "Mostly gay" is one of them. Shawn

2003-02-14 19:27:53+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu>)


C.L. Lassiter <seaelle@unc.edu> wrote: : her to be my very hot best friend and confidant. See, even though I'm : gay, I can appreciate a beautiful woman without wanting to have sex with : her. (Which brings up one of my pet peeves about some straight men who : say stuff like "I can't tell if a man's good-looking," but that's another : discussion.) Let's start it. When I hear that one I always think "you sure as hell can, why do you think you wanted to hit him as soon as he walked in?" It's men who call other men "pretty boy," and even if it's not meant nicely it shows they know. : have realized a preference for one or the other. I'd say their : self-identification (straight, bi, gay, omni :-) is far more important : than any label either of us would choose to use. Far more important. shawn

2003-02-14 19:27:53+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu>)


C.L. Lassiter <seaelle@unc.edu> wrote: : her to be my very hot best friend and confidant. See, even though I'm : gay, I can appreciate a beautiful woman without wanting to have sex with : her. (Which brings up one of my pet peeves about some straight men who : say stuff like "I can't tell if a man's good-looking," but that's another : discussion.) Let's start it. When I hear that one I always think "you sure as hell can, why do you think you wanted to hit him as soon as he walked in?" It's men who call other men "pretty boy," and even if it's not meant nicely it shows they know. : have realized a preference for one or the other. I'd say their : self-identification (straight, bi, gay, omni :-) is far more important : than any label either of us would choose to use. Far more important. shawn

2003-02-14 19:32:53+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu>)


Rose <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote: :>her. (Which brings up one of my pet peeves about some straight men who :>say stuff like "I can't tell if a man's good-looking," but that's another :>discussion.) : Such a lie. They just say that so the person they're talking to won't think : they're gay. Because, of course, our societal stress on gender definition is so rigid that men are, on some level, always having to prove they're not: their masculinity is fragile, so easily damaged or able to be deprived. At least lately such threats have become more about jokes and ribbing than actual insults. :> But back to your assertion. I'd say that if one sleeps with both :>and *enjoys* it, then, yes, s/he is bi. : Wouldn't that make Willow bi then? She seemed to enjoy sex with Oz, though : maybe she just enjoyed being close to someone. Willow is what ever she says she is now. Oz was in the past. : I see your point, but words have to have SOME objective meaning. I mean, taken : to its logical conclusion, if were were to apply your standard, a woman who : doesn't like sex with women and loves sex with men could call herself a lesbian : and we'd all have to agree with her. Isn't meaning somewhere in between the two extremes? What you think about yourself being true, and what others think about you being true, even if there are contradictions? And its unlikely that such a scenario as you describe above (a self-identified lesbian who really prefers sleeping with men) would happen. Shawn

2003-02-14 19:32:53+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu>)


Rose <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote: :>her. (Which brings up one of my pet peeves about some straight men who :>say stuff like "I can't tell if a man's good-looking," but that's another :>discussion.) : Such a lie. They just say that so the person they're talking to won't think : they're gay. Because, of course, our societal stress on gender definition is so rigid that men are, on some level, always having to prove they're not: their masculinity is fragile, so easily damaged or able to be deprived. At least lately such threats have become more about jokes and ribbing than actual insults. :> But back to your assertion. I'd say that if one sleeps with both :>and *enjoys* it, then, yes, s/he is bi. : Wouldn't that make Willow bi then? She seemed to enjoy sex with Oz, though : maybe she just enjoyed being close to someone. Willow is what ever she says she is now. Oz was in the past. : I see your point, but words have to have SOME objective meaning. I mean, taken : to its logical conclusion, if were were to apply your standard, a woman who : doesn't like sex with women and loves sex with men could call herself a lesbian : and we'd all have to agree with her. Isn't meaning somewhere in between the two extremes? What you think about yourself being true, and what others think about you being true, even if there are contradictions? And its unlikely that such a scenario as you describe above (a self-identified lesbian who really prefers sleeping with men) would happen. Shawn

2003-02-14 20:48:18+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (sillyman@famous.com)


On 14 Feb 2003 15:08:04 -0500, "C.L. Lassiter" <seaelle@unc.edu> wrote: > > Hey. All you straight men here. Can *you* tell when another man >is attractive? > >cl Sigh. No. I thought I had a handle on it, but then I started checking this ng daily. If Spike is a dream and Riley is dreck, well . . .

2003-02-14 20:48:18+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (sillyman@famous.com)


On 14 Feb 2003 15:08:04 -0500, "C.L. Lassiter" <seaelle@unc.edu> wrote: > > Hey. All you straight men here. Can *you* tell when another man >is attractive? > >cl Sigh. No. I thought I had a handle on it, but then I started checking this ng daily. If Spike is a dream and Riley is dreck, well . . .

2003-02-14 20:54:10+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (John Briggs <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com>)


Shawn Hill wrote: > Mathew R. Ignash <mathewignash@comcast.net> wrote: >> On 14 Feb 2003 00:39:09 GMT, dominicanindian@aol.com (DominicanIndian) >> wrote: > >>> << :> How does this mesh with his request for a Christina Riccibot and >>> his passionate >>>>> admission that "Scully so wants me!" >>> >>>> Hell, I'm gay, and I so wish Scully would want me! >> >>> >>> >>> even some gay men would have sex with women >>> >>> hell i'd pork rose mcgowans pale ass any day of the week > >> Okay, this is contradictory. If you would bone either sex, you are >> bisexual! That's what the freakin word MEANS! Even if you'd mostly do >> like to do the one gender, then only consider a few particularly sexy >> members of the opposite gender. > > You've got to learn to cut out the black and white extremes, and go > swimming in all the grey areas. > > To me, sexuality is on a spectrum. In between 100% straight and 100% gay, > there are all these points individuals could be on. "Mostly gay" is one > of them. > And "kinda gay"? :-) John Briggs

2003-02-14 20:54:10+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (John Briggs <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com>)


Shawn Hill wrote: > Mathew R. Ignash <mathewignash@comcast.net> wrote: >> On 14 Feb 2003 00:39:09 GMT, dominicanindian@aol.com (DominicanIndian) >> wrote: > >>> << :> How does this mesh with his request for a Christina Riccibot and >>> his passionate >>>>> admission that "Scully so wants me!" >>> >>>> Hell, I'm gay, and I so wish Scully would want me! >> >>> >>> >>> even some gay men would have sex with women >>> >>> hell i'd pork rose mcgowans pale ass any day of the week > >> Okay, this is contradictory. If you would bone either sex, you are >> bisexual! That's what the freakin word MEANS! Even if you'd mostly do >> like to do the one gender, then only consider a few particularly sexy >> members of the opposite gender. > > You've got to learn to cut out the black and white extremes, and go > swimming in all the grey areas. > > To me, sexuality is on a spectrum. In between 100% straight and 100% gay, > there are all these points individuals could be on. "Mostly gay" is one > of them. > And "kinda gay"? :-) John Briggs

2003-02-14 20:55:23+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


>Subject: Re: andrews gay >From: sillyman@famous.com >Date: 2/14/2003 12:48 PM Pacific Standard Time >Message-id: <3e4dfcf0.58730260@news.telus.net> > >On 14 Feb 2003 15:08:04 -0500, "C.L. Lassiter" <seaelle@unc.edu> >wrote: > > >> >> Hey. All you straight men here. Can *you* tell when another man >>is attractive? >> >>cl > >Sigh. No. I thought I had a handle on it, but then I started checking >this ng daily. If Spike is a dream and Riley is dreck, well . . . > There is room for difference of opinion. Some women don't find Spike attractive and think Riley is hot. Rose It's not Giles

2003-02-14 20:55:23+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


>Subject: Re: andrews gay >From: sillyman@famous.com >Date: 2/14/2003 12:48 PM Pacific Standard Time >Message-id: <3e4dfcf0.58730260@news.telus.net> > >On 14 Feb 2003 15:08:04 -0500, "C.L. Lassiter" <seaelle@unc.edu> >wrote: > > >> >> Hey. All you straight men here. Can *you* tell when another man >>is attractive? >> >>cl > >Sigh. No. I thought I had a handle on it, but then I started checking >this ng daily. If Spike is a dream and Riley is dreck, well . . . > There is room for difference of opinion. Some women don't find Spike attractive and think Riley is hot. Rose It's not Giles

2003-02-14 21:10:53+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (sillyman@famous.com)


On 14 Feb 2003 20:55:23 GMT, fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote: >There is room for difference of opinion. Some women don't find Spike >attractive and think Riley is hot. Criminy. Can't a guy be snide anymore?

2003-02-14 21:10:53+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (sillyman@famous.com)


On 14 Feb 2003 20:55:23 GMT, fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote: >There is room for difference of opinion. Some women don't find Spike >attractive and think Riley is hot. Criminy. Can't a guy be snide anymore?

2003-02-14 21:23:07+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (dominicanindian@aol.com)


<< Okay, this is contradictory. If you would bone either sex, you are bisexual! >> not nessicarily....my friend is straight, though he masterbates to gay porn.....

2003-02-14 21:23:07+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (dominicanindian@aol.com)


<< Okay, this is contradictory. If you would bone either sex, you are bisexual! >> not nessicarily....my friend is straight, though he masterbates to gay porn.....

2003-02-14 21:34:11+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (dominicanindian@aol.com)


<< To me, sexuality is on a spectrum. In between 100% straight and 100% gay, there are all these points individuals could be on. "Mostly gay" is one of them. >> I never liked labels........ "straight" "gay" "bisexual" "omnisexual" but there are also men who are physically bisexual , but emotionally straight.....the same are for the women you see in porn films..... it all does make sense in fact , many "straight" men are in gay porn...... I DONT LIKE THAT, its like the straight men are even taunting the gay men in their PORN, but its a double edged sword because in reality those straight men are actually exposing themselves to something they might feel is "nasty" or "gross" between 2 men,,, so they are screwing themselves as well we could be analyzing our sexual feelings both toward both sexes and still never know..... i mean, they still dont know who killed kennedy...

2003-02-14 21:34:11+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (dominicanindian@aol.com)


<< To me, sexuality is on a spectrum. In between 100% straight and 100% gay, there are all these points individuals could be on. "Mostly gay" is one of them. >> I never liked labels........ "straight" "gay" "bisexual" "omnisexual" but there are also men who are physically bisexual , but emotionally straight.....the same are for the women you see in porn films..... it all does make sense in fact , many "straight" men are in gay porn...... I DONT LIKE THAT, its like the straight men are even taunting the gay men in their PORN, but its a double edged sword because in reality those straight men are actually exposing themselves to something they might feel is "nasty" or "gross" between 2 men,,, so they are screwing themselves as well we could be analyzing our sexual feelings both toward both sexes and still never know..... i mean, they still dont know who killed kennedy...

2003-02-14 21:36:11+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (dominicanindian@aol.com)


<< "Mathew R. Ignash" <mathewignash@comcast.net> wrote in news:917310572300449.NC-1.55.mathewignash@news.mi.comcast.giganews.com: > On 12 Feb 2003 22:15:26 GMT, boyinterrupted66@aol.com > (BoyInterrupted66) wrote: > >> i have gaydar >> >> he should be xanders butt monkey since they xander is working on >> bein gay ,,, maybe andrew can help in that department > > So Andrew is a happy person, what of it? > > How does this mesh with his request for a Christina Riccibot and his > passionate admission that "Scully so wants me!" Closet-case. There have been many indications that Andrew was in love with Warren. >> yes, he even killed jonathan for warren/the first

2003-02-14 21:36:11+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (dominicanindian@aol.com)


<< "Mathew R. Ignash" <mathewignash@comcast.net> wrote in news:917310572300449.NC-1.55.mathewignash@news.mi.comcast.giganews.com: > On 12 Feb 2003 22:15:26 GMT, boyinterrupted66@aol.com > (BoyInterrupted66) wrote: > >> i have gaydar >> >> he should be xanders butt monkey since they xander is working on >> bein gay ,,, maybe andrew can help in that department > > So Andrew is a happy person, what of it? > > How does this mesh with his request for a Christina Riccibot and his > passionate admission that "Scully so wants me!" Closet-case. There have been many indications that Andrew was in love with Warren. >> yes, he even killed jonathan for warren/the first

2003-02-14 22:07:21+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


>Subject: Re: andrews gay >From: Shawn Hill shill@fas.harvard.edu >Date: 2/14/2003 11:25 AM Pacific Standard Time >Message-id: <b2jfrn$39s$5@news.fas.harvard.edu> > >Mathew R. Ignash <mathewignash@comcast.net> wrote: >: On 14 Feb 2003 00:39:09 GMT, dominicanindian@aol.com (DominicanIndian) >wrote: > >:> << :> How does this mesh with his request for a Christina Riccibot and his >:> passionate >:> :> admission that "Scully so wants me!" >:> >:> : Hell, I'm gay, and I so wish Scully would want me! >> >:> >:> >:> even some gay men would have sex with women >:> >:> hell i'd pork rose mcgowans pale ass any day of the week > >: Okay, this is contradictory. If you would bone either sex, you are >bisexual! >: That's what the freakin word MEANS! Even if you'd mostly do like to do the >one >: gender, then only consider a few particularly sexy members of the opposite >: gender. > >You've got to learn to cut out the black and white extremes, and go >swimming in all the grey areas. > >To me, sexuality is on a spectrum. In between 100% straight and 100% gay, >there are all these points individuals could be on. "Mostly gay" is one >of them. > Wouldn't it be true that whether Andrew is bi or "mostly gay" is as yet undetermined? FWIW it would be interesting if Andrew were mostly gay but fell in love with Dawn and the two of them had a torrid affair. Sans stat rape sex of course. A torrid smooch affair. Rose It's not Giles

2003-02-14 22:07:21+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


>Subject: Re: andrews gay >From: Shawn Hill shill@fas.harvard.edu >Date: 2/14/2003 11:25 AM Pacific Standard Time >Message-id: <b2jfrn$39s$5@news.fas.harvard.edu> > >Mathew R. Ignash <mathewignash@comcast.net> wrote: >: On 14 Feb 2003 00:39:09 GMT, dominicanindian@aol.com (DominicanIndian) >wrote: > >:> << :> How does this mesh with his request for a Christina Riccibot and his >:> passionate >:> :> admission that "Scully so wants me!" >:> >:> : Hell, I'm gay, and I so wish Scully would want me! >> >:> >:> >:> even some gay men would have sex with women >:> >:> hell i'd pork rose mcgowans pale ass any day of the week > >: Okay, this is contradictory. If you would bone either sex, you are >bisexual! >: That's what the freakin word MEANS! Even if you'd mostly do like to do the >one >: gender, then only consider a few particularly sexy members of the opposite >: gender. > >You've got to learn to cut out the black and white extremes, and go >swimming in all the grey areas. > >To me, sexuality is on a spectrum. In between 100% straight and 100% gay, >there are all these points individuals could be on. "Mostly gay" is one >of them. > Wouldn't it be true that whether Andrew is bi or "mostly gay" is as yet undetermined? FWIW it would be interesting if Andrew were mostly gay but fell in love with Dawn and the two of them had a torrid affair. Sans stat rape sex of course. A torrid smooch affair. Rose It's not Giles

2003-02-14 22:18:54+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu>)


Mathew R. Ignash <mathewignash@comcast.net> wrote: : On 14 Feb 2003 19:25:43 GMT, Shawn Hill wrote: :> To me, sexuality is on a spectrum. In between 100% straight and 100% gay, :> there are all these points individuals could be on. "Mostly gay" is one :> of them. : And you seem to need to learn the english language. "Mostly gay" translates to : "bisexual!" I'm afraid it has to do with much more than the english language and your interpretation of it. Gay, Bisexual and Straight are all hard won political identities in this day and age, ones we need to define and defend and understand for ourselves. My having slept with a woman many years ago doesn't make me any less gay today than a man who never has. If I felt like my interests and actions were more accurately described as bisexual, I'd call myself that. But the label that seems to fit the best, and that I've chosen, is gay. You'll have to trust me on this, even though I think Eliza Dushku is hot. : Bisexual doens't mean you love both genders EQUALLY! Yes, I realize that means : everyone on your silly scale who isn't a 1 or a 7 is bisexual! So there are a : lot of bisexuals out there who label themseves wrong. Big whoop. I think it's more likely you who are doing the mis-labeling. Shawn

2003-02-14 22:18:54+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu>)


Mathew R. Ignash <mathewignash@comcast.net> wrote: : On 14 Feb 2003 19:25:43 GMT, Shawn Hill wrote: :> To me, sexuality is on a spectrum. In between 100% straight and 100% gay, :> there are all these points individuals could be on. "Mostly gay" is one :> of them. : And you seem to need to learn the english language. "Mostly gay" translates to : "bisexual!" I'm afraid it has to do with much more than the english language and your interpretation of it. Gay, Bisexual and Straight are all hard won political identities in this day and age, ones we need to define and defend and understand for ourselves. My having slept with a woman many years ago doesn't make me any less gay today than a man who never has. If I felt like my interests and actions were more accurately described as bisexual, I'd call myself that. But the label that seems to fit the best, and that I've chosen, is gay. You'll have to trust me on this, even though I think Eliza Dushku is hot. : Bisexual doens't mean you love both genders EQUALLY! Yes, I realize that means : everyone on your silly scale who isn't a 1 or a 7 is bisexual! So there are a : lot of bisexuals out there who label themseves wrong. Big whoop. I think it's more likely you who are doing the mis-labeling. Shawn

2003-02-14 22:21:18+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu>)


Rose <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote: :>To me, sexuality is on a spectrum. In between 100% straight and 100% gay, :>there are all these points individuals could be on. "Mostly gay" is one :>of them. : Wouldn't it be true that whether Andrew is bi or "mostly gay" is as yet : undetermined? Nah, and here's why. If you're a bisexual male, you might as well be gay, because you've already lost the straight male privelege and uncontestable butch identity that this society requires of its men. That's one reason I latch onto gay so strongly for myself; might as well own it if that's what they're going to call me anyway. : FWIW it would be interesting if Andrew were mostly gay but fell in love with : Dawn and the two of them had a torrid affair. Sans stat rape sex of course. A : torrid smooch affair. Yuck, no love between Peaches and Nerd!!! Besides, she's crushed out on Xander. Shawn

2003-02-14 22:21:18+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu>)


Rose <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote: :>To me, sexuality is on a spectrum. In between 100% straight and 100% gay, :>there are all these points individuals could be on. "Mostly gay" is one :>of them. : Wouldn't it be true that whether Andrew is bi or "mostly gay" is as yet : undetermined? Nah, and here's why. If you're a bisexual male, you might as well be gay, because you've already lost the straight male privelege and uncontestable butch identity that this society requires of its men. That's one reason I latch onto gay so strongly for myself; might as well own it if that's what they're going to call me anyway. : FWIW it would be interesting if Andrew were mostly gay but fell in love with : Dawn and the two of them had a torrid affair. Sans stat rape sex of course. A : torrid smooch affair. Yuck, no love between Peaches and Nerd!!! Besides, she's crushed out on Xander. Shawn

2003-02-14 22:31:25+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


>Subject: Re: andrews gay >From: sam_14042@yahoo.com (Sam) >Date: 2/14/2003 1:00 PM Pacific Standard Time >Message-id: <21ced21e.0302141300.67be793c@posting.google.com> > >"C.L. Lassiter" <seaelle@unc.edu> wrote in message >news:<3e4d0170@news.unc.edu>... >> Mathew R. Ignash <mathewignash@comcast.net> wrote: >> > On 14 Feb 2003 00:39:09 GMT, dominicanindian@aol.com (DominicanIndian) >wrote: >> >> >> << :> How does this mesh with his request for a Christina Riccibot and >his >> >> passionate >> >> :> admission that "Scully so wants me!" >> >> >> : Hell, I'm gay, and I so wish Scully would want me! >> >> >> >> >> >> >> even some gay men would have sex with women >> >> >> >> hell i'd pork rose mcgowans pale ass any day of the week >> >> > Okay, this is contradictory. If you would bone either sex, you are >bisexual! >> > That's what the freakin word MEANS! Even if you'd mostly do like to do >the one >> > gender, then only consider a few particularly sexy members of the >opposite >> > gender. >> >> Uh oh. Here comes the flame war. :-) >> >> For the record, I'm a Kinsey 6, and even though I'd want Scully to >> want me, I wouldn't actually want her to do anything with/to me. I'd want >> her to be my very hot best friend and confidant. See, even though I'm >> gay, I can appreciate a beautiful woman without wanting to have sex with >> her. (Which brings up one of my pet peeves about some straight men who >> say stuff like "I can't tell if a man's good-looking," but that's another >> discussion.) >> > >For the record, there really are guys who just can't tell if other >guys are good looking. I'm one of them. I mean, I can make educated >guesses based on which guys women always go crazy over... but I'm >still not very good at it. > OK, that's two different things. Women will sometimes go crazy over men who are NOT conventionally good looking (Steven Tyler of Aerosmith) and ignore some men who ARE (Groo on Angel was quite handsome but he didn't exactly have an enormous female following) due to charisma and other factors. Same with women. I mean, Uma Thurman has a lot of facial "flaws" (by the standards of conventional beauty) and yet men used to go nuts over her. OTOH, the issue is what is YOUR opinion about what men are good-looking, not sexually but aesthetically? What man do you find pleasant to look at in the way that a nice tree is pleasant to look at? I find Buffy-era Cordelia very pleasant to look at. (Since then the various icky hairstyles and less animated expression have soured my reaction.) Her face is a work of art that brings me pleasure to look at...not sexual, but aesthetic pleasure. Why can't there be a man that a straight guy would look at and say "He has a beautiful face that I enjoy looking at, even though I would never want to have intercourse with him." >It never even registered with me that, say, James Marsters was good >looking until I hit the net and saw the women drooling. > Well, perhaps to you James Marsters is not good looking. No one wrote a law stating that he is. It's just the opinion of a lot of people. OTOH, perhaps you think D.B. Woodside is a handsome man... or that Nick Brendon is a fine specimen of masculinity. IMO Marsters is not as handsome as Spike is. He has certain facial flaws that the cameramen are careful to avoid showing. With makeup, lighting and camera angles, BtVS takes a very good looking man and makes him dazzlingly handsome. I'm sure that's true of an awful lot of TV and movie stars...they don't look in real life as dazzling as they look on camera. >It kinda sucks, actually. If I was able to discern male hotness, I >might be able to, I dunno, do stuff with my hair or clothes or >something that would bring me closer to the standard. > Here's the advice I give anyone who says that: -- stand straight when you walk -- dress in a way that shows you respect yourself (i.e. don't wear pants that droop below your underwear, don't wear ripped or stained shirts in polite company). -- take on a manner that exudes confidence, warmth and humor. Respect yourself without being an egotist and respect other people without grovelling. 90% of sex appeal is what you exude from within. That's not a cliche, it's just true. Handsome, brawny men can be unbelievably boring and unsexy, and homely balding men with imperfect bodies can be so hot you want to jump their bones immediately. (Neil Young leaps to mind. The sexiest man in the world, imo, stained teeth, middle-aged belly, hair loss and all.) James isn't sexy because he's handsome. He's sexy because he's charismatic and intelligent and a bit vulnerable. Rose It's not Giles

2003-02-14 22:31:25+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


>Subject: Re: andrews gay >From: sam_14042@yahoo.com (Sam) >Date: 2/14/2003 1:00 PM Pacific Standard Time >Message-id: <21ced21e.0302141300.67be793c@posting.google.com> > >"C.L. Lassiter" <seaelle@unc.edu> wrote in message >news:<3e4d0170@news.unc.edu>... >> Mathew R. Ignash <mathewignash@comcast.net> wrote: >> > On 14 Feb 2003 00:39:09 GMT, dominicanindian@aol.com (DominicanIndian) >wrote: >> >> >> << :> How does this mesh with his request for a Christina Riccibot and >his >> >> passionate >> >> :> admission that "Scully so wants me!" >> >> >> : Hell, I'm gay, and I so wish Scully would want me! >> >> >> >> >> >> >> even some gay men would have sex with women >> >> >> >> hell i'd pork rose mcgowans pale ass any day of the week >> >> > Okay, this is contradictory. If you would bone either sex, you are >bisexual! >> > That's what the freakin word MEANS! Even if you'd mostly do like to do >the one >> > gender, then only consider a few particularly sexy members of the >opposite >> > gender. >> >> Uh oh. Here comes the flame war. :-) >> >> For the record, I'm a Kinsey 6, and even though I'd want Scully to >> want me, I wouldn't actually want her to do anything with/to me. I'd want >> her to be my very hot best friend and confidant. See, even though I'm >> gay, I can appreciate a beautiful woman without wanting to have sex with >> her. (Which brings up one of my pet peeves about some straight men who >> say stuff like "I can't tell if a man's good-looking," but that's another >> discussion.) >> > >For the record, there really are guys who just can't tell if other >guys are good looking. I'm one of them. I mean, I can make educated >guesses based on which guys women always go crazy over... but I'm >still not very good at it. > OK, that's two different things. Women will sometimes go crazy over men who are NOT conventionally good looking (Steven Tyler of Aerosmith) and ignore some men who ARE (Groo on Angel was quite handsome but he didn't exactly have an enormous female following) due to charisma and other factors. Same with women. I mean, Uma Thurman has a lot of facial "flaws" (by the standards of conventional beauty) and yet men used to go nuts over her. OTOH, the issue is what is YOUR opinion about what men are good-looking, not sexually but aesthetically? What man do you find pleasant to look at in the way that a nice tree is pleasant to look at? I find Buffy-era Cordelia very pleasant to look at. (Since then the various icky hairstyles and less animated expression have soured my reaction.) Her face is a work of art that brings me pleasure to look at...not sexual, but aesthetic pleasure. Why can't there be a man that a straight guy would look at and say "He has a beautiful face that I enjoy looking at, even though I would never want to have intercourse with him." >It never even registered with me that, say, James Marsters was good >looking until I hit the net and saw the women drooling. > Well, perhaps to you James Marsters is not good looking. No one wrote a law stating that he is. It's just the opinion of a lot of people. OTOH, perhaps you think D.B. Woodside is a handsome man... or that Nick Brendon is a fine specimen of masculinity. IMO Marsters is not as handsome as Spike is. He has certain facial flaws that the cameramen are careful to avoid showing. With makeup, lighting and camera angles, BtVS takes a very good looking man and makes him dazzlingly handsome. I'm sure that's true of an awful lot of TV and movie stars...they don't look in real life as dazzling as they look on camera. >It kinda sucks, actually. If I was able to discern male hotness, I >might be able to, I dunno, do stuff with my hair or clothes or >something that would bring me closer to the standard. > Here's the advice I give anyone who says that: -- stand straight when you walk -- dress in a way that shows you respect yourself (i.e. don't wear pants that droop below your underwear, don't wear ripped or stained shirts in polite company). -- take on a manner that exudes confidence, warmth and humor. Respect yourself without being an egotist and respect other people without grovelling. 90% of sex appeal is what you exude from within. That's not a cliche, it's just true. Handsome, brawny men can be unbelievably boring and unsexy, and homely balding men with imperfect bodies can be so hot you want to jump their bones immediately. (Neil Young leaps to mind. The sexiest man in the world, imo, stained teeth, middle-aged belly, hair loss and all.) James isn't sexy because he's handsome. He's sexy because he's charismatic and intelligent and a bit vulnerable. Rose It's not Giles

2003-02-14 22:37:05+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


>Subject: Re: andrews gay >From: sillyman@famous.com >Date: 2/14/2003 1:10 PM Pacific Standard Time >Message-id: <3e4e046c.60646648@news.telus.net> > >On 14 Feb 2003 20:55:23 GMT, fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote: > > >>There is room for difference of opinion. Some women don't find Spike >>attractive and think Riley is hot. > >Criminy. Can't a guy be snide anymore? > Yes but these days you need a college degree. Rose It's not Giles

2003-02-14 22:37:05+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


>Subject: Re: andrews gay >From: sillyman@famous.com >Date: 2/14/2003 1:10 PM Pacific Standard Time >Message-id: <3e4e046c.60646648@news.telus.net> > >On 14 Feb 2003 20:55:23 GMT, fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote: > > >>There is room for difference of opinion. Some women don't find Spike >>attractive and think Riley is hot. > >Criminy. Can't a guy be snide anymore? > Yes but these days you need a college degree. Rose It's not Giles

2003-02-14 22:47:59+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


>Subject: Re: andrews gay >From: Shawn Hill shill@fas.harvard.edu >Date: 2/14/2003 2:21 PM Pacific Standard Time >Message-id: <b2jq4u$uvv$5@news.fas.harvard.edu> > >Rose <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote: > >:>To me, sexuality is on a spectrum. In between 100% straight and 100% gay, >:>there are all these points individuals could be on. "Mostly gay" is one >:>of them. > >: Wouldn't it be true that whether Andrew is bi or "mostly gay" is as yet >: undetermined? > >Nah, and here's why. If you're a bisexual male, you might as well be gay, >because you've already lost the straight male privelege and uncontestable >butch identity that this society requires of its men. > OK, well now you're talking about social structures. Some people include "bi" within the term "gay". I think that in this discussion we're talking about Andrew's true orientation, not how society views him. Because the issue is whether he would be likely to fall for Dawn, or just see her as a sister-friend. IOW, is Andrew a true homosexual, meaning interested in the same sex only. Rose It's not Giles

2003-02-14 22:47:59+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


>Subject: Re: andrews gay >From: Shawn Hill shill@fas.harvard.edu >Date: 2/14/2003 2:21 PM Pacific Standard Time >Message-id: <b2jq4u$uvv$5@news.fas.harvard.edu> > >Rose <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote: > >:>To me, sexuality is on a spectrum. In between 100% straight and 100% gay, >:>there are all these points individuals could be on. "Mostly gay" is one >:>of them. > >: Wouldn't it be true that whether Andrew is bi or "mostly gay" is as yet >: undetermined? > >Nah, and here's why. If you're a bisexual male, you might as well be gay, >because you've already lost the straight male privelege and uncontestable >butch identity that this society requires of its men. > OK, well now you're talking about social structures. Some people include "bi" within the term "gay". I think that in this discussion we're talking about Andrew's true orientation, not how society views him. Because the issue is whether he would be likely to fall for Dawn, or just see her as a sister-friend. IOW, is Andrew a true homosexual, meaning interested in the same sex only. Rose It's not Giles

2003-02-14 22:50:24+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


>Subject: Re: andrews gay >From: "Mathew R. Ignash" mathewignash@comcast.net >Date: 2/14/2003 1:38 PM Pacific Standard Time >Message-id: ><91759982458472.NC-1.55.mathewignash@news.mi.comcast.giganews.com> > >On 14 Feb 2003 21:23:07 GMT, dominicanindian@aol.com (DominicanIndian) wrote: > >> << Okay, this is contradictory. If you would bone either sex, you are >bisexual! >> >> >> >> >> not nessicarily....my friend is straight, though he masterbates to gay >> porn..... > >Again, the guy is mislabeling himself. I can't help it when a duck calls >itself >a chicken. Doesn't change what a chicken is. > Just because you fantasize about something doesn't mean you'd actually do it. I hope. Otherwise I'm in biiiiiig trouble and not for sexual fantasies... =:o Rose It's not Giles

2003-02-14 22:50:24+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


>Subject: Re: andrews gay >From: "Mathew R. Ignash" mathewignash@comcast.net >Date: 2/14/2003 1:38 PM Pacific Standard Time >Message-id: ><91759982458472.NC-1.55.mathewignash@news.mi.comcast.giganews.com> > >On 14 Feb 2003 21:23:07 GMT, dominicanindian@aol.com (DominicanIndian) wrote: > >> << Okay, this is contradictory. If you would bone either sex, you are >bisexual! >> >> >> >> >> not nessicarily....my friend is straight, though he masterbates to gay >> porn..... > >Again, the guy is mislabeling himself. I can't help it when a duck calls >itself >a chicken. Doesn't change what a chicken is. > Just because you fantasize about something doesn't mean you'd actually do it. I hope. Otherwise I'm in biiiiiig trouble and not for sexual fantasies... =:o Rose It's not Giles

2003-02-14 23:35:46+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (sillyman@famous.com)


On 14 Feb 2003 22:21:18 GMT, Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu> wrote: > >Besides, she's crushed out on Xander. I thought the Xander crush was sweet. Also, positive. I would rather my little sister have a crush on Xander than Andrew, RJ, or Spike anyday. Sadly, I think the crush is over.

2003-02-14 23:35:46+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (sillyman@famous.com)


On 14 Feb 2003 22:21:18 GMT, Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu> wrote: > >Besides, she's crushed out on Xander. I thought the Xander crush was sweet. Also, positive. I would rather my little sister have a crush on Xander than Andrew, RJ, or Spike anyday. Sadly, I think the crush is over.

2003-02-14 23:36:37+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (sillyman@famous.com)


On 14 Feb 2003 22:37:05 GMT, fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote: >Yes but these days you need a college degree. But I do! I do higher math and everything!

2003-02-14 23:36:37+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (sillyman@famous.com)


On 14 Feb 2003 22:37:05 GMT, fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote: >Yes but these days you need a college degree. But I do! I do higher math and everything!

2003-02-14 23:37:39+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (John Campbell Rees <jwcr@gardd-lelog.org.uk>)


During the course of this discussion, Shorty <notrealshorty@hotmail.com>, in message <o5do4vcn66qkqbks291chdcgjguc4t356p@4ax.com> wrote: > On 13 Feb 2003 19:21:39 GMT, fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote: > > >Paul wrote: > > > >> > >>Any hetero man would be woozy at just the thought of digging through > >>Buffy's drawers! > > > >Maybe some hetero men aren't panty pervs. ;) > > > Uh...nope pretty much all of us are. Sorry. Women's underwear is only interesting if a woman is wearing it. It is like a candy wrapper. The interest is in the contents, and the fun is in the removal. -- "Like shooting flies with a laser cannon, the aims a bit tricky, but it certainly deals with the flies." - Lord Miles Vorkosigan.

2003-02-14 23:37:39+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (John Campbell Rees <jwcr@gardd-lelog.org.uk>)


During the course of this discussion, Shorty <notrealshorty@hotmail.com>, in message <o5do4vcn66qkqbks291chdcgjguc4t356p@4ax.com> wrote: > On 13 Feb 2003 19:21:39 GMT, fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote: > > >Paul wrote: > > > >> > >>Any hetero man would be woozy at just the thought of digging through > >>Buffy's drawers! > > > >Maybe some hetero men aren't panty pervs. ;) > > > Uh...nope pretty much all of us are. Sorry. Women's underwear is only interesting if a woman is wearing it. It is like a candy wrapper. The interest is in the contents, and the fun is in the removal. -- "Like shooting flies with a laser cannon, the aims a bit tricky, but it certainly deals with the flies." - Lord Miles Vorkosigan.

2003-02-14 23:54:35+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (Al Smith <invalid@address.com>)


>>>>Any hetero man would be woozy at just the thought of digging through >>>>> >>Buffy's drawers! >>> >>>> > >>>> >Maybe some hetero men aren't panty pervs. ;) >>>> > >> >>> Uh...nope pretty much all of us are. Sorry. > > > Women's underwear is only interesting if a woman is wearing it. It is > like a candy wrapper. The interest is in the contents, and the fun is > in the removal. People with normal, ordinary sexual desires are so incredibly BOORING! I mean, do they realize how dull and tedious and predictable and average and median and regular and stupifying and sporific and numd-numbingly dull they are? Jane: Let's have sex, Albert. Albert: OK, Jane, my love. What shall we do tonight? Jane: I don't know, love, let me think. Hmmmmm, how about we do that bit where you lie on top of me and shove your little wee-wee in and out between my thighs over and over until you climax? Albert: That's sounds good. Have we done that before? Jane: Yes, we did it last night. And the night before, and the night before. Come to think of it, we've done it every night for the past 23 years. Albert: Well, we must like it then. Jane: Yes, I suppose we must.

2003-02-14 23:54:35+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (Al Smith <invalid@address.com>)


>>>>Any hetero man would be woozy at just the thought of digging through >>>>> >>Buffy's drawers! >>> >>>> > >>>> >Maybe some hetero men aren't panty pervs. ;) >>>> > >> >>> Uh...nope pretty much all of us are. Sorry. > > > Women's underwear is only interesting if a woman is wearing it. It is > like a candy wrapper. The interest is in the contents, and the fun is > in the removal. People with normal, ordinary sexual desires are so incredibly BOORING! I mean, do they realize how dull and tedious and predictable and average and median and regular and stupifying and sporific and numd-numbingly dull they are? Jane: Let's have sex, Albert. Albert: OK, Jane, my love. What shall we do tonight? Jane: I don't know, love, let me think. Hmmmmm, how about we do that bit where you lie on top of me and shove your little wee-wee in and out between my thighs over and over until you climax? Albert: That's sounds good. Have we done that before? Jane: Yes, we did it last night. And the night before, and the night before. Come to think of it, we've done it every night for the past 23 years. Albert: Well, we must like it then. Jane: Yes, I suppose we must.

2003-02-15 00:27:58-06:00 - Re: andrews gay - (Snuggles <postmaster@spamcop.net>)


In article <20030215005809.22282.00000874@mb-ca.aol.com>, sweick@aol.com (SWeick) wrote: > In article <9175994944371.NC-1.55.mathewignash@news.mi.comcast.giganews.com>, > "Mathew R. Ignash" <mathewignash@comcast.net> writes: > > >On 14 Feb 2003 19:25:43 GMT, Shawn Hill wrote: > > > >> Mathew R. Ignash <mathewignash@comcast.net> wrote: > >> : On 14 Feb 2003 00:39:09 GMT, dominicanindian@aol.com (DominicanIndian) > >wrote: > >> > >> :> << :> How does this mesh with his request for a Christina Riccibot and > >his > >> :> passionate > >> :> :> admission that "Scully so wants me!" > >> :> > >> :> : Hell, I'm gay, and I so wish Scully would want me! >> > >> :> > >> :> > >> :> even some gay men would have sex with women > >> :> > >> :> hell i'd pork rose mcgowans pale ass any day of the week > >> > >> : Okay, this is contradictory. If you would bone either sex, you are > >bisexual! > >> : That's what the freakin word MEANS! Even if you'd mostly do like to do > >the one > >> : gender, then only consider a few particularly sexy members of the > >opposite > >> : gender. > >> > >> You've got to learn to cut out the black and white extremes, and go > >> swimming in all the grey areas. > >> > >> To me, sexuality is on a spectrum. In between 100% straight and 100% gay, > >> there are all these points individuals could be on. "Mostly gay" is one > >> of them. > > > >And you seem to need to learn the english language. > > > OK, now we're getting the ball rolling! :-) > > > > "Mostly gay" translates > >to "bisexual!" > > > Actually it doesn't have to. > > See, when I said this argument is all about who gets to define > things, this is an excellent example. You can be mostly gay > and somewhat celibate/asexual. You can be mostly gay and > somewhat hetero/bisexual. You can be mostly gay and be > generally gay. > So... can I be mostly right-handed but a closet lefty? But seriously, people are right-handed, left-handed or ambidextrous. Nobody goes about saying they're 70% right-handed except for when they use felt-tipped pens and prefer to use their left hand. --

2003-02-15 00:27:58-06:00 - Re: andrews gay - (Snuggles <postmaster@spamcop.net>)


In article <20030215005809.22282.00000874@mb-ca.aol.com>, sweick@aol.com (SWeick) wrote: > In article <9175994944371.NC-1.55.mathewignash@news.mi.comcast.giganews.com>, > "Mathew R. Ignash" <mathewignash@comcast.net> writes: > > >On 14 Feb 2003 19:25:43 GMT, Shawn Hill wrote: > > > >> Mathew R. Ignash <mathewignash@comcast.net> wrote: > >> : On 14 Feb 2003 00:39:09 GMT, dominicanindian@aol.com (DominicanIndian) > >wrote: > >> > >> :> << :> How does this mesh with his request for a Christina Riccibot and > >his > >> :> passionate > >> :> :> admission that "Scully so wants me!" > >> :> > >> :> : Hell, I'm gay, and I so wish Scully would want me! >> > >> :> > >> :> > >> :> even some gay men would have sex with women > >> :> > >> :> hell i'd pork rose mcgowans pale ass any day of the week > >> > >> : Okay, this is contradictory. If you would bone either sex, you are > >bisexual! > >> : That's what the freakin word MEANS! Even if you'd mostly do like to do > >the one > >> : gender, then only consider a few particularly sexy members of the > >opposite > >> : gender. > >> > >> You've got to learn to cut out the black and white extremes, and go > >> swimming in all the grey areas. > >> > >> To me, sexuality is on a spectrum. In between 100% straight and 100% gay, > >> there are all these points individuals could be on. "Mostly gay" is one > >> of them. > > > >And you seem to need to learn the english language. > > > OK, now we're getting the ball rolling! :-) > > > > "Mostly gay" translates > >to "bisexual!" > > > Actually it doesn't have to. > > See, when I said this argument is all about who gets to define > things, this is an excellent example. You can be mostly gay > and somewhat celibate/asexual. You can be mostly gay and > somewhat hetero/bisexual. You can be mostly gay and be > generally gay. > So... can I be mostly right-handed but a closet lefty? But seriously, people are right-handed, left-handed or ambidextrous. Nobody goes about saying they're 70% right-handed except for when they use felt-tipped pens and prefer to use their left hand. --

2003-02-15 01:46:50+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (Jay <malicious.user@attbi.com>)


"C.L. Lassiter" <seaelle@unc.edu> wrote in message news:3e4d4c9f@news.unc.edu... > Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu> wrote: > > C.L. Lassiter <seaelle@unc.edu> wrote: > > > : her. (Which brings up one of my pet peeves about some straight > > : men who say stuff like "I can't tell if a man's good-looking," but that's > > :another discussion.) > > > Let's start it. > > Hey. All you straight men here. Can *you* tell when another man > is attractive? > > cl Sometimes. Gay men and straight women often have very different standards of male beauty. Some things are universal - height, build, jaw, and so on. Some things (and this is the part I get lost on) are not. -J

2003-02-15 01:46:50+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (Jay <malicious.user@attbi.com>)


"C.L. Lassiter" <seaelle@unc.edu> wrote in message news:3e4d4c9f@news.unc.edu... > Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu> wrote: > > C.L. Lassiter <seaelle@unc.edu> wrote: > > > : her. (Which brings up one of my pet peeves about some straight > > : men who say stuff like "I can't tell if a man's good-looking," but that's > > :another discussion.) > > > Let's start it. > > Hey. All you straight men here. Can *you* tell when another man > is attractive? > > cl Sometimes. Gay men and straight women often have very different standards of male beauty. Some things are universal - height, build, jaw, and so on. Some things (and this is the part I get lost on) are not. -J

2003-02-15 02:37:44+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (dominicanindian@aol.com)


<< Agreed. I would be highly suspicious of anyone who claims to be completely straight and masturbates to gay porn. This "friend" is most likely in some serious denial and probably ought to see a professional therapist of some kind to deal with whatever issues are preventing him/her from acknowledging their feelings. >> me and my friend have had huge arguments over this and i think you are seriously right! finally, people agree with me ..... this is what he said: ""im straight" which i said "so ... u masterbate to gay porn and your str8?! my ass!" him: "yes its very normal" a sad case,,, we currently arent talking cause he wont face that hes gay or bi or whatever

2003-02-15 02:37:44+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (dominicanindian@aol.com)


<< Agreed. I would be highly suspicious of anyone who claims to be completely straight and masturbates to gay porn. This "friend" is most likely in some serious denial and probably ought to see a professional therapist of some kind to deal with whatever issues are preventing him/her from acknowledging their feelings. >> me and my friend have had huge arguments over this and i think you are seriously right! finally, people agree with me ..... this is what he said: ""im straight" which i said "so ... u masterbate to gay porn and your str8?! my ass!" him: "yes its very normal" a sad case,,, we currently arent talking cause he wont face that hes gay or bi or whatever

2003-02-15 03:26:09+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (Jay <malicious.user@attbi.com>)


"Sam" wrote in message: > > Same with women. I mean, Uma Thurman has a lot of facial "flaws" (by the > > standards of conventional beauty) and yet men used to go nuts over her. > > I've really never seen the attraction to Uma Thurman myself. I had a > hell of a time swallowing "The Truth About Cats and Dogs" for the > simple reason that as far as I'm concerned, Janeane Garofalo is > tremendously more attractive than Uma... Watch her in "Henry and June" and you will think she is the sexiest woman alive. I've never seen her in anything else I liked. -J

2003-02-15 03:26:09+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (Jay <malicious.user@attbi.com>)


"Sam" wrote in message: > > Same with women. I mean, Uma Thurman has a lot of facial "flaws" (by the > > standards of conventional beauty) and yet men used to go nuts over her. > > I've really never seen the attraction to Uma Thurman myself. I had a > hell of a time swallowing "The Truth About Cats and Dogs" for the > simple reason that as far as I'm concerned, Janeane Garofalo is > tremendously more attractive than Uma... Watch her in "Henry and June" and you will think she is the sexiest woman alive. I've never seen her in anything else I liked. -J

2003-02-15 05:25:06+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


>ubject: Re: andrews gay >From: dominicanindian@aol.com (DominicanIndian) >Date: 2/14/2003 6:37 PM Pacific Standard Time >Message-id: <20030214213744.08173.00000365@mb-mt.aol.com> > > >a sad case,,, we currently arent talking cause he wont face that hes gay or >bi >or whatever > Why do you care whether he faces the fact that he's gay or bi (if he is. Maybe he just jerks off to gay porn due to the allure of the forbidden). I mean...how is it skin off your nose? Then again, why is this guy TELLing you he jerks off to gay porn? I mean really, it's too much information. Rose, who promises never to discuss her snot fetish online

2003-02-15 05:25:06+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


>ubject: Re: andrews gay >From: dominicanindian@aol.com (DominicanIndian) >Date: 2/14/2003 6:37 PM Pacific Standard Time >Message-id: <20030214213744.08173.00000365@mb-mt.aol.com> > > >a sad case,,, we currently arent talking cause he wont face that hes gay or >bi >or whatever > Why do you care whether he faces the fact that he's gay or bi (if he is. Maybe he just jerks off to gay porn due to the allure of the forbidden). I mean...how is it skin off your nose? Then again, why is this guy TELLing you he jerks off to gay porn? I mean really, it's too much information. Rose, who promises never to discuss her snot fetish online

2003-02-15 05:34:04+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (dominicanindian@aol.com)


<< >ubject: Re: andrews gay >From: dominicanindian@aol.com (DominicanIndian) >Date: 2/14/2003 6:37 PM Pacific Standard Time >Message-id: <20030214213744.08173.00000365@mb-mt.aol.com> > > >a sad case,,, we currently arent talking cause he wont face that hes gay or >bi >or whatever > Why do you care whether he faces the fact that he's gay or bi (if he is. Maybe he just jerks off to gay porn due to the allure of the forbidden). I mean...how is it skin off your nose? Then again, why is this guy TELLing you he jerks off to gay porn? I mean really, it's too much information. Rose, who promises never to discuss her snot fetish online >> i guess we were really close it bothers me because i want him to be

2003-02-15 05:34:04+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (dominicanindian@aol.com)


<< >ubject: Re: andrews gay >From: dominicanindian@aol.com (DominicanIndian) >Date: 2/14/2003 6:37 PM Pacific Standard Time >Message-id: <20030214213744.08173.00000365@mb-mt.aol.com> > > >a sad case,,, we currently arent talking cause he wont face that hes gay or >bi >or whatever > Why do you care whether he faces the fact that he's gay or bi (if he is. Maybe he just jerks off to gay porn due to the allure of the forbidden). I mean...how is it skin off your nose? Then again, why is this guy TELLing you he jerks off to gay porn? I mean really, it's too much information. Rose, who promises never to discuss her snot fetish online >> i guess we were really close it bothers me because i want him to be

2003-02-15 05:56:52-08:00 - Re: andrews gay - (rshiflet@hotmail.com)


"Bingus" <bingus@netspace.net.au-nospam-> wrote in message news:<pan.2003.02.13.08.24.27.238020@netspace.net.au-nospam->... > > I think Andrew is bi > > > > I think he's actually straight. The gay side of him has only really ever > been used for laughs, nothing serious. I would think it was great if it turned out that he was straight. Just because a man is a little effeminate and is attracted to some men, doesn't mean he is gay. Hey, if a gay person can be attracted to someone of the opposite sex and still be gay... Renee

2003-02-15 05:56:52-08:00 - Re: andrews gay - (rshiflet@hotmail.com)


"Bingus" <bingus@netspace.net.au-nospam-> wrote in message news:<pan.2003.02.13.08.24.27.238020@netspace.net.au-nospam->... > > I think Andrew is bi > > > > I think he's actually straight. The gay side of him has only really ever > been used for laughs, nothing serious. I would think it was great if it turned out that he was straight. Just because a man is a little effeminate and is attracted to some men, doesn't mean he is gay. Hey, if a gay person can be attracted to someone of the opposite sex and still be gay... Renee

2003-02-15 05:58:09+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (sweick@aol.com)


In article <9175994944371.NC-1.55.mathewignash@news.mi.comcast.giganews.com>, "Mathew R. Ignash" <mathewignash@comcast.net> writes: >On 14 Feb 2003 19:25:43 GMT, Shawn Hill wrote: > >> Mathew R. Ignash <mathewignash@comcast.net> wrote: >> : On 14 Feb 2003 00:39:09 GMT, dominicanindian@aol.com (DominicanIndian) >wrote: >> >> :> << :> How does this mesh with his request for a Christina Riccibot and >his >> :> passionate >> :> :> admission that "Scully so wants me!" >> :> >> :> : Hell, I'm gay, and I so wish Scully would want me! >> >> :> >> :> >> :> even some gay men would have sex with women >> :> >> :> hell i'd pork rose mcgowans pale ass any day of the week >> >> : Okay, this is contradictory. If you would bone either sex, you are >bisexual! >> : That's what the freakin word MEANS! Even if you'd mostly do like to do >the one >> : gender, then only consider a few particularly sexy members of the >opposite >> : gender. >> >> You've got to learn to cut out the black and white extremes, and go >> swimming in all the grey areas. >> >> To me, sexuality is on a spectrum. In between 100% straight and 100% gay, >> there are all these points individuals could be on. "Mostly gay" is one >> of them. > >And you seem to need to learn the english language. OK, now we're getting the ball rolling! :-) > "Mostly gay" translates >to "bisexual!" Actually it doesn't have to. See, when I said this argument is all about who gets to define things, this is an excellent example. You can be mostly gay and somewhat celibate/asexual. You can be mostly gay and somewhat hetero/bisexual. You can be mostly gay and be generally gay. If bisexuality is defined very strictly, damn few people could ever be bisexual, because it demands an even chance outcome of having sex with either gender. If it's too loosely defined, then there isn't a single person on earth who isn't bisexual. Andrew is more fun to argue this about because he hasn't actually been sexual. The annoying virgin has beens show to be attracted towards both genders. He tends to fit the general definition of bisexuality. I think that Willow also tends to fit this general definition of attraction towards both, with the benefit of having acted towards both. Tara and Kennedy have beens shown as strictly gay, but that's just because we've only seen that aspect of them. >Bisexual doens't mean you love both genders EQUALLY! Actually, it very well can. Yes, I realize that >means >everyone on your silly scale who isn't a 1 or a 7 is bisexual! So there are a >lot of bisexuals out there who label themseves wrong. Big whoop. But it's none of our business to argue with them on it either. OTOH, we have the total right to fight, bitch, tear each others hairs out over fictional characters. Stephen Weick The crew of Columbia went to touch the face of heaven, and have now entered that kingdom.

2003-02-15 05:58:09+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (sweick@aol.com)


In article <9175994944371.NC-1.55.mathewignash@news.mi.comcast.giganews.com>, "Mathew R. Ignash" <mathewignash@comcast.net> writes: >On 14 Feb 2003 19:25:43 GMT, Shawn Hill wrote: > >> Mathew R. Ignash <mathewignash@comcast.net> wrote: >> : On 14 Feb 2003 00:39:09 GMT, dominicanindian@aol.com (DominicanIndian) >wrote: >> >> :> << :> How does this mesh with his request for a Christina Riccibot and >his >> :> passionate >> :> :> admission that "Scully so wants me!" >> :> >> :> : Hell, I'm gay, and I so wish Scully would want me! >> >> :> >> :> >> :> even some gay men would have sex with women >> :> >> :> hell i'd pork rose mcgowans pale ass any day of the week >> >> : Okay, this is contradictory. If you would bone either sex, you are >bisexual! >> : That's what the freakin word MEANS! Even if you'd mostly do like to do >the one >> : gender, then only consider a few particularly sexy members of the >opposite >> : gender. >> >> You've got to learn to cut out the black and white extremes, and go >> swimming in all the grey areas. >> >> To me, sexuality is on a spectrum. In between 100% straight and 100% gay, >> there are all these points individuals could be on. "Mostly gay" is one >> of them. > >And you seem to need to learn the english language. OK, now we're getting the ball rolling! :-) > "Mostly gay" translates >to "bisexual!" Actually it doesn't have to. See, when I said this argument is all about who gets to define things, this is an excellent example. You can be mostly gay and somewhat celibate/asexual. You can be mostly gay and somewhat hetero/bisexual. You can be mostly gay and be generally gay. If bisexuality is defined very strictly, damn few people could ever be bisexual, because it demands an even chance outcome of having sex with either gender. If it's too loosely defined, then there isn't a single person on earth who isn't bisexual. Andrew is more fun to argue this about because he hasn't actually been sexual. The annoying virgin has beens show to be attracted towards both genders. He tends to fit the general definition of bisexuality. I think that Willow also tends to fit this general definition of attraction towards both, with the benefit of having acted towards both. Tara and Kennedy have beens shown as strictly gay, but that's just because we've only seen that aspect of them. >Bisexual doens't mean you love both genders EQUALLY! Actually, it very well can. Yes, I realize that >means >everyone on your silly scale who isn't a 1 or a 7 is bisexual! So there are a >lot of bisexuals out there who label themseves wrong. Big whoop. But it's none of our business to argue with them on it either. OTOH, we have the total right to fight, bitch, tear each others hairs out over fictional characters. Stephen Weick The crew of Columbia went to touch the face of heaven, and have now entered that kingdom.

2003-02-15 07:32:10+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu>)


Jay <malicious.user@attbi.com> wrote: :> Hey. All you straight men here. Can *you* tell when another man :> is attractive? : Sometimes. Gay men and straight women often have very different : standards of male beauty. Some things are universal - height, build, : jaw, and so on. Some things (and this is the part I get lost on) are not. This is more a case, I think, of PEOPLE having very different standards of beauty (or spectrums of what they find attractive). It's just that, as far as desiring men of WHATEVER type, gay men and straight women are the ones who will talk about it. Shawn

2003-02-15 07:32:10+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu>)


Jay <malicious.user@attbi.com> wrote: :> Hey. All you straight men here. Can *you* tell when another man :> is attractive? : Sometimes. Gay men and straight women often have very different : standards of male beauty. Some things are universal - height, build, : jaw, and so on. Some things (and this is the part I get lost on) are not. This is more a case, I think, of PEOPLE having very different standards of beauty (or spectrums of what they find attractive). It's just that, as far as desiring men of WHATEVER type, gay men and straight women are the ones who will talk about it. Shawn

2003-02-15 07:37:03+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu>)


Rose <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote: : OK, that's two different things. Women will sometimes go crazy over men who : are NOT conventionally good looking (Steven Tyler of Aerosmith) and ignore some : men who ARE (Groo on Angel was quite handsome but he didn't exactly have an : enormous female following) due to charisma and other factors. I'd follow him. I love those all black eyes. And, I've seen him on other shows, ie Queer as Folk, and thought he was cute there, too. : Same with women. I mean, Uma Thurman has a lot of facial "flaws" (by the : standards of conventional beauty) and yet men used to go nuts over her. Used to? Has her star faded? : OTOH, the issue is what is YOUR opinion about what men are good-looking, not : sexually but aesthetically? What man do you find pleasant to look at in the : way that a nice tree is pleasant to look at? Or how about just "wished you looked like?" That would certainly indicate an ability to tell the handsome and appealing from the unattractive. Are men who are unable to recognize a handsome man equally unable to identify an ugly one? : I find Buffy-era Cordelia very pleasant to look at. (Since then the various : icky hairstyles and less animated expression have soured my reaction.) Her face : is a work of art that brings me pleasure to look at...not sexual, but aesthetic : pleasure. Why can't there be a man that a straight guy would look at and say : "He has a beautiful face that I enjoy looking at, even though I would never : want to have intercourse with him." That is a very complicated thought to have when the easier response is: "he's allright I guess, I don't [read am not allowed to/can't be bothered with/don't feel comfortable trying to] think about it." :>It never even registered with me that, say, James Marsters was good :>looking until I hit the net and saw the women drooling. : Well, perhaps to you James Marsters is not good looking. No one wrote a law : stating that he is. It's just the opinion of a lot of people. OTOH, perhaps : you think D.B. Woodside is a handsome man... or that Nick Brendon is a fine : specimen of masculinity. Yes on the latter! :>It kinda sucks, actually. If I was able to discern male hotness, I :>might be able to, I dunno, do stuff with my hair or clothes or :>something that would bring me closer to the standard. :> : Here's the advice I give anyone who says that: : -- stand straight when you walk : -- dress in a way that shows you respect yourself (i.e. don't wear pants that : droop below your underwear, don't wear ripped or stained shirts in polite : company). : -- take on a manner that exudes confidence, warmth and humor. Respect yourself : without being an egotist and respect other people without grovelling. 90% of : sex appeal is what you exude from within. That's not a cliche, it's just true. : Handsome, brawny men can be unbelievably boring and unsexy, and homely balding : men with imperfect bodies can be so hot you want to jump their bones : immediately. (Neil Young leaps to mind. The sexiest man in the world, imo, : stained teeth, middle-aged belly, hair loss and all.) : James isn't sexy because he's handsome. He's sexy because he's charismatic and : intelligent and a bit vulnerable. One more word of advice: smile sometimes. And take care of your teeth. Shawn

2003-02-15 07:37:03+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu>)


Rose <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote: : OK, that's two different things. Women will sometimes go crazy over men who : are NOT conventionally good looking (Steven Tyler of Aerosmith) and ignore some : men who ARE (Groo on Angel was quite handsome but he didn't exactly have an : enormous female following) due to charisma and other factors. I'd follow him. I love those all black eyes. And, I've seen him on other shows, ie Queer as Folk, and thought he was cute there, too. : Same with women. I mean, Uma Thurman has a lot of facial "flaws" (by the : standards of conventional beauty) and yet men used to go nuts over her. Used to? Has her star faded? : OTOH, the issue is what is YOUR opinion about what men are good-looking, not : sexually but aesthetically? What man do you find pleasant to look at in the : way that a nice tree is pleasant to look at? Or how about just "wished you looked like?" That would certainly indicate an ability to tell the handsome and appealing from the unattractive. Are men who are unable to recognize a handsome man equally unable to identify an ugly one? : I find Buffy-era Cordelia very pleasant to look at. (Since then the various : icky hairstyles and less animated expression have soured my reaction.) Her face : is a work of art that brings me pleasure to look at...not sexual, but aesthetic : pleasure. Why can't there be a man that a straight guy would look at and say : "He has a beautiful face that I enjoy looking at, even though I would never : want to have intercourse with him." That is a very complicated thought to have when the easier response is: "he's allright I guess, I don't [read am not allowed to/can't be bothered with/don't feel comfortable trying to] think about it." :>It never even registered with me that, say, James Marsters was good :>looking until I hit the net and saw the women drooling. : Well, perhaps to you James Marsters is not good looking. No one wrote a law : stating that he is. It's just the opinion of a lot of people. OTOH, perhaps : you think D.B. Woodside is a handsome man... or that Nick Brendon is a fine : specimen of masculinity. Yes on the latter! :>It kinda sucks, actually. If I was able to discern male hotness, I :>might be able to, I dunno, do stuff with my hair or clothes or :>something that would bring me closer to the standard. :> : Here's the advice I give anyone who says that: : -- stand straight when you walk : -- dress in a way that shows you respect yourself (i.e. don't wear pants that : droop below your underwear, don't wear ripped or stained shirts in polite : company). : -- take on a manner that exudes confidence, warmth and humor. Respect yourself : without being an egotist and respect other people without grovelling. 90% of : sex appeal is what you exude from within. That's not a cliche, it's just true. : Handsome, brawny men can be unbelievably boring and unsexy, and homely balding : men with imperfect bodies can be so hot you want to jump their bones : immediately. (Neil Young leaps to mind. The sexiest man in the world, imo, : stained teeth, middle-aged belly, hair loss and all.) : James isn't sexy because he's handsome. He's sexy because he's charismatic and : intelligent and a bit vulnerable. One more word of advice: smile sometimes. And take care of your teeth. Shawn

2003-02-15 07:49:28+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu>)


Sam <sam_14042@yahoo.com> wrote: : Yeah, I get that. And I can pick up on charisma in guys perfectly : fine. It's what largely determines which male actors I like -- George : Clooney, for instance, practically oozes charisma. : But when I watch a movie with Clooney in it, I don't notice his looks : beyond just recognizing the guy. His mannerisms and tone and so forth, : I notice. Is there really much of a divide between the one and the other? I'd think looks might be integral to charisma. : It's just that it's not something that registers with me. I know that : sounds like the whole George Costanza "Just saying a man is attractive : doesn't make you gay!"/"It can't help." syndrome, but I don't find men : aesthetically pleasing. It's not a conscious choice -- my eye just : doesn't seem to be able to discern it. And yet you can tell you like their charisma, so ..... : In me, I think this is part of a larger issue with the fact that I'm : just not very good at discerning visual aesthetics. I have very little : artistic sense in terms of almost any purely visual medium. I don't : even get much out of paintings or sculptures. Not for lack of trying, : but while I can appreciate the work that went into it and the : principles behind it, I'm almost never struck by visual aesthetic : beauty the way I am when I read, for instance, a beautiful passage of : text or hear a great song. What about a sunset, a building, or a harmonious park? : This isn't something I consider good, believe me. But it's something : I've found seems to be true in more than one other guy I know (and it : doesn't seem to bother them nearly as much as it does me.) Visual awareness, like most things, is a skill that can be developed. : Female beauty does register with me, but I wonder if that isn't due to : the fact that sexual attraction operates on a different circuits, as : it were... Or maybe, on some level, it's just more important to you? : To be perfectly honest, until Buffy started referring to Principal : Wood as a "hot principle", his looks never even registered with me one : way or the other. My reaction the male characters on the show really : is almost entirely based on their mannerisms, vocal tones, etc. (And : what the character's written like, of course.) But what "reaction?" Like? Dislike? I want to be his friend? I'd like to punch him in the face? : fashion sense is somewhat... lacking. I'm currently trying to break : myself of my Hawiian shirt habit. That really does it for some people, though. Just buy lots of khakis and sandals, and only do it in the warm weather. And serve pina coladas. : Thanks for the advice. Most of this is stuff I pretty much considered : self-evident... My problem is more in the purely visual realm. In a : much more general sense, to be honest. There's a simple rule for both male and female beauty, and it's the same one, which is one of the reasons I find it disingenuous when people purport to be able to see the one but not the other: symmetry. Faces that are proportioned evenly, with great symmetry, seem to indicate qualities like health, harmony and balance to the people who view them. These are attractive, adaptive traits, and this is what we're wired to determine about potential partners, as well as potential friends/allies. What's their chance for survival, and your chance of relying on them as a partner and getting something back? This doesn't rule out unusual features, like wide mouths, large teeth, long noses, or even exceptions to the rule. Sophia Loren's nose is too big. Cher's face is too long. Deniro has squinty eyes, and a big nose. One of Shannen Doherty's eyes is bigger or higher than the other. But even those faces have other aspects of symmetry, and those people are all deemed attractive. So, if you meet a guy and he seems to exude health and energy, with nice skin and twinkly eyes, and he doesn't say have one big ear or an odd slant to his jaw or a strangely shaped head, he would likely be deemed attractive. Shawn

2003-02-15 07:49:28+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu>)


Sam <sam_14042@yahoo.com> wrote: : Yeah, I get that. And I can pick up on charisma in guys perfectly : fine. It's what largely determines which male actors I like -- George : Clooney, for instance, practically oozes charisma. : But when I watch a movie with Clooney in it, I don't notice his looks : beyond just recognizing the guy. His mannerisms and tone and so forth, : I notice. Is there really much of a divide between the one and the other? I'd think looks might be integral to charisma. : It's just that it's not something that registers with me. I know that : sounds like the whole George Costanza "Just saying a man is attractive : doesn't make you gay!"/"It can't help." syndrome, but I don't find men : aesthetically pleasing. It's not a conscious choice -- my eye just : doesn't seem to be able to discern it. And yet you can tell you like their charisma, so ..... : In me, I think this is part of a larger issue with the fact that I'm : just not very good at discerning visual aesthetics. I have very little : artistic sense in terms of almost any purely visual medium. I don't : even get much out of paintings or sculptures. Not for lack of trying, : but while I can appreciate the work that went into it and the : principles behind it, I'm almost never struck by visual aesthetic : beauty the way I am when I read, for instance, a beautiful passage of : text or hear a great song. What about a sunset, a building, or a harmonious park? : This isn't something I consider good, believe me. But it's something : I've found seems to be true in more than one other guy I know (and it : doesn't seem to bother them nearly as much as it does me.) Visual awareness, like most things, is a skill that can be developed. : Female beauty does register with me, but I wonder if that isn't due to : the fact that sexual attraction operates on a different circuits, as : it were... Or maybe, on some level, it's just more important to you? : To be perfectly honest, until Buffy started referring to Principal : Wood as a "hot principle", his looks never even registered with me one : way or the other. My reaction the male characters on the show really : is almost entirely based on their mannerisms, vocal tones, etc. (And : what the character's written like, of course.) But what "reaction?" Like? Dislike? I want to be his friend? I'd like to punch him in the face? : fashion sense is somewhat... lacking. I'm currently trying to break : myself of my Hawiian shirt habit. That really does it for some people, though. Just buy lots of khakis and sandals, and only do it in the warm weather. And serve pina coladas. : Thanks for the advice. Most of this is stuff I pretty much considered : self-evident... My problem is more in the purely visual realm. In a : much more general sense, to be honest. There's a simple rule for both male and female beauty, and it's the same one, which is one of the reasons I find it disingenuous when people purport to be able to see the one but not the other: symmetry. Faces that are proportioned evenly, with great symmetry, seem to indicate qualities like health, harmony and balance to the people who view them. These are attractive, adaptive traits, and this is what we're wired to determine about potential partners, as well as potential friends/allies. What's their chance for survival, and your chance of relying on them as a partner and getting something back? This doesn't rule out unusual features, like wide mouths, large teeth, long noses, or even exceptions to the rule. Sophia Loren's nose is too big. Cher's face is too long. Deniro has squinty eyes, and a big nose. One of Shannen Doherty's eyes is bigger or higher than the other. But even those faces have other aspects of symmetry, and those people are all deemed attractive. So, if you meet a guy and he seems to exude health and energy, with nice skin and twinkly eyes, and he doesn't say have one big ear or an odd slant to his jaw or a strangely shaped head, he would likely be deemed attractive. Shawn

2003-02-15 07:50:11+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


>Subject: Re: andrews gay >From: Snuggles postmaster@spamcop.net >Date: 2/14/2003 10:27 PM Pacific Standard Time >Message-id: <postmaster-62846C.00275815022003@husk.cso.niu.edu> > >In article <20030215005809.22282.00000874@mb-ca.aol.com>, > sweick@aol.com (SWeick) wrote: > >> In article ><9175994944371.NC-1.55.mathewignash@news.mi.comcast.giganews.com>, >> "Mathew R. Ignash" <mathewignash@comcast.net> writes: >> >> >On 14 Feb 2003 19:25:43 GMT, Shawn Hill wrote: >> > >> >> Mathew R. Ignash <mathewignash@comcast.net> wrote: >> >> : On 14 Feb 2003 00:39:09 GMT, dominicanindian@aol.com (DominicanIndian) >> >wrote: >> >> >> >> :> << :> How does this mesh with his request for a Christina Riccibot >and >> >his >> >> :> passionate >> >> :> :> admission that "Scully so wants me!" >> >> :> >> >> :> : Hell, I'm gay, and I so wish Scully would want me! >> >> >> :> >> >> :> >> >> :> even some gay men would have sex with women >> >> :> >> >> :> hell i'd pork rose mcgowans pale ass any day of the week >> >> >> >> : Okay, this is contradictory. If you would bone either sex, you are >> >bisexual! >> >> : That's what the freakin word MEANS! Even if you'd mostly do like to do >> >the one >> >> : gender, then only consider a few particularly sexy members of the >> >opposite >> >> : gender. >> >> >> >> You've got to learn to cut out the black and white extremes, and go >> >> swimming in all the grey areas. >> >> >> >> To me, sexuality is on a spectrum. In between 100% straight and 100% >gay, >> >> there are all these points individuals could be on. "Mostly gay" is one >> >> of them. >> > >> >And you seem to need to learn the english language. >> >> >> OK, now we're getting the ball rolling! :-) >> >> >> > "Mostly gay" translates >> >to "bisexual!" >> >> >> Actually it doesn't have to. >> >> See, when I said this argument is all about who gets to define >> things, this is an excellent example. You can be mostly gay >> and somewhat celibate/asexual. You can be mostly gay and >> somewhat hetero/bisexual. You can be mostly gay and be >> generally gay. >> > >So... can I be mostly right-handed but a closet lefty? But seriously, >people are right-handed, left-handed or ambidextrous. Nobody goes about >saying they're 70% right-handed except for when they use felt-tipped >pens and prefer to use their left hand. >-- Actually, that's not quite accurate. Some of us are pseudo-ambidextrous. For instance, I am a leftie batter and a leftie golfer but I write, throw and do other stuff rightie. > > > > > > > Rose It's not Giles

2003-02-15 07:50:11+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


>Subject: Re: andrews gay >From: Snuggles postmaster@spamcop.net >Date: 2/14/2003 10:27 PM Pacific Standard Time >Message-id: <postmaster-62846C.00275815022003@husk.cso.niu.edu> > >In article <20030215005809.22282.00000874@mb-ca.aol.com>, > sweick@aol.com (SWeick) wrote: > >> In article ><9175994944371.NC-1.55.mathewignash@news.mi.comcast.giganews.com>, >> "Mathew R. Ignash" <mathewignash@comcast.net> writes: >> >> >On 14 Feb 2003 19:25:43 GMT, Shawn Hill wrote: >> > >> >> Mathew R. Ignash <mathewignash@comcast.net> wrote: >> >> : On 14 Feb 2003 00:39:09 GMT, dominicanindian@aol.com (DominicanIndian) >> >wrote: >> >> >> >> :> << :> How does this mesh with his request for a Christina Riccibot >and >> >his >> >> :> passionate >> >> :> :> admission that "Scully so wants me!" >> >> :> >> >> :> : Hell, I'm gay, and I so wish Scully would want me! >> >> >> :> >> >> :> >> >> :> even some gay men would have sex with women >> >> :> >> >> :> hell i'd pork rose mcgowans pale ass any day of the week >> >> >> >> : Okay, this is contradictory. If you would bone either sex, you are >> >bisexual! >> >> : That's what the freakin word MEANS! Even if you'd mostly do like to do >> >the one >> >> : gender, then only consider a few particularly sexy members of the >> >opposite >> >> : gender. >> >> >> >> You've got to learn to cut out the black and white extremes, and go >> >> swimming in all the grey areas. >> >> >> >> To me, sexuality is on a spectrum. In between 100% straight and 100% >gay, >> >> there are all these points individuals could be on. "Mostly gay" is one >> >> of them. >> > >> >And you seem to need to learn the english language. >> >> >> OK, now we're getting the ball rolling! :-) >> >> >> > "Mostly gay" translates >> >to "bisexual!" >> >> >> Actually it doesn't have to. >> >> See, when I said this argument is all about who gets to define >> things, this is an excellent example. You can be mostly gay >> and somewhat celibate/asexual. You can be mostly gay and >> somewhat hetero/bisexual. You can be mostly gay and be >> generally gay. >> > >So... can I be mostly right-handed but a closet lefty? But seriously, >people are right-handed, left-handed or ambidextrous. Nobody goes about >saying they're 70% right-handed except for when they use felt-tipped >pens and prefer to use their left hand. >-- Actually, that's not quite accurate. Some of us are pseudo-ambidextrous. For instance, I am a leftie batter and a leftie golfer but I write, throw and do other stuff rightie. > > > > > > > Rose It's not Giles

2003-02-15 07:55:17+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu>)


Mathew R. Ignash <mathewignash@comcast.net> wrote: : On 14 Feb 2003 22:18:54 GMT, Shawn Hill wrote: :> I'm afraid it has to do with much more than the english language and your :> interpretation of it. Gay, Bisexual and Straight are all hard won :> political identities in this day and age : No they are not. They are WORDS. You can color them with connotations all you : want, I'm talking about their denotation. That's much too simplistic an approach to sexual identity. : A hetrosexual is someone interested sexually only in people of the opposite : gender. : A homosexual is someone interested sexually only in people of the same gender. : A bisexual is someone interested sexually in people of either gender. A bisexual is someone who identifies herself as such. Because he wants to. : Is when you say a male homosexual friend of yours would screw Rose Mcgowen, : you're contradicting yourself,if Rose is a woman and he's a man, that's opposite : gender. Even if he's only saying it, it will likely never happen, and he calls himself gay while he regularly sleeps with men? : If Andrew likes boys and girls, he's bisexual. I don't give a fig what he or : anyone calls himself when he's marching in a parade. It's not a hard won : political statement, it's a plain paper fact. It's not good, it's not evil, it : just is. I'm not insulting someone who mislabels themselves, I'm correcting : them. That's presumptuous of you, don't you think? [snipped irreleant dietary comparison] Shawn

2003-02-15 07:55:17+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu>)


Mathew R. Ignash <mathewignash@comcast.net> wrote: : On 14 Feb 2003 22:18:54 GMT, Shawn Hill wrote: :> I'm afraid it has to do with much more than the english language and your :> interpretation of it. Gay, Bisexual and Straight are all hard won :> political identities in this day and age : No they are not. They are WORDS. You can color them with connotations all you : want, I'm talking about their denotation. That's much too simplistic an approach to sexual identity. : A hetrosexual is someone interested sexually only in people of the opposite : gender. : A homosexual is someone interested sexually only in people of the same gender. : A bisexual is someone interested sexually in people of either gender. A bisexual is someone who identifies herself as such. Because he wants to. : Is when you say a male homosexual friend of yours would screw Rose Mcgowen, : you're contradicting yourself,if Rose is a woman and he's a man, that's opposite : gender. Even if he's only saying it, it will likely never happen, and he calls himself gay while he regularly sleeps with men? : If Andrew likes boys and girls, he's bisexual. I don't give a fig what he or : anyone calls himself when he's marching in a parade. It's not a hard won : political statement, it's a plain paper fact. It's not good, it's not evil, it : just is. I'm not insulting someone who mislabels themselves, I'm correcting : them. That's presumptuous of you, don't you think? [snipped irreleant dietary comparison] Shawn

2003-02-15 07:57:04+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu>)


Snuggles <postmaster@spamcop.net> wrote: : In article <20030215005809.22282.00000874@mb-ca.aol.com>, : sweick@aol.com (SWeick) wrote: :> things, this is an excellent example. You can be mostly gay :> and somewhat celibate/asexual. You can be mostly gay and :> somewhat hetero/bisexual. You can be mostly gay and be :> generally gay. : So... can I be mostly right-handed but a closet lefty? But seriously, : people are right-handed, left-handed or ambidextrous. Nobody goes about : saying they're 70% right-handed except for when they use felt-tipped : pens and prefer to use their left hand. Don't they? Why wouldn't they, if it were true? I'm right-handed, but, then again, there are things I preferentially use my left hand for, out of habit. So I'm ambidextrous, technically. But I'm also right-handed. Shawn

2003-02-15 07:57:04+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu>)


Snuggles <postmaster@spamcop.net> wrote: : In article <20030215005809.22282.00000874@mb-ca.aol.com>, : sweick@aol.com (SWeick) wrote: :> things, this is an excellent example. You can be mostly gay :> and somewhat celibate/asexual. You can be mostly gay and :> somewhat hetero/bisexual. You can be mostly gay and be :> generally gay. : So... can I be mostly right-handed but a closet lefty? But seriously, : people are right-handed, left-handed or ambidextrous. Nobody goes about : saying they're 70% right-handed except for when they use felt-tipped : pens and prefer to use their left hand. Don't they? Why wouldn't they, if it were true? I'm right-handed, but, then again, there are things I preferentially use my left hand for, out of habit. So I'm ambidextrous, technically. But I'm also right-handed. Shawn

2003-02-15 08:00:05+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu>)


Rose <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote: :>:>To me, sexuality is on a spectrum. In between 100% straight and 100% gay, :>:>there are all these points individuals could be on. "Mostly gay" is one :>:>of them. :> :>: Wouldn't it be true that whether Andrew is bi or "mostly gay" is as yet :>: undetermined? :> :>Nah, and here's why. If you're a bisexual male, you might as well be gay, :>because you've already lost the straight male privelege and uncontestable :>butch identity that this society requires of its men. :> : OK, well now you're talking about social structures. Some people include "bi" : within the term "gay". I think that in this discussion we're talking about : Andrew's true orientation, not how society views him. Well, for me, part of what I'm basing my judgement on is his effeminancy. He's thin. He's a scaredy cat. He's open about needing love, and being emotionally needy. Add that to finding Cpt. Archer hot, and I see gay. But, it's also true, as many have said, that he's sexually unformed and may just find all of his charismatic sci-fi heroes attractive. : Because the issue is whether he would be likely to fall for Dawn, or just see : her as a sister-friend. IOW, is Andrew a true homosexual, meaning interested : in the same sex only. Why does there have to be a "true" homosexual? It's the "only" word I often have a problem with. Shawn

2003-02-15 08:00:05+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu>)


Rose <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote: :>:>To me, sexuality is on a spectrum. In between 100% straight and 100% gay, :>:>there are all these points individuals could be on. "Mostly gay" is one :>:>of them. :> :>: Wouldn't it be true that whether Andrew is bi or "mostly gay" is as yet :>: undetermined? :> :>Nah, and here's why. If you're a bisexual male, you might as well be gay, :>because you've already lost the straight male privelege and uncontestable :>butch identity that this society requires of its men. :> : OK, well now you're talking about social structures. Some people include "bi" : within the term "gay". I think that in this discussion we're talking about : Andrew's true orientation, not how society views him. Well, for me, part of what I'm basing my judgement on is his effeminancy. He's thin. He's a scaredy cat. He's open about needing love, and being emotionally needy. Add that to finding Cpt. Archer hot, and I see gay. But, it's also true, as many have said, that he's sexually unformed and may just find all of his charismatic sci-fi heroes attractive. : Because the issue is whether he would be likely to fall for Dawn, or just see : her as a sister-friend. IOW, is Andrew a true homosexual, meaning interested : in the same sex only. Why does there have to be a "true" homosexual? It's the "only" word I often have a problem with. Shawn

2003-02-15 08:03:44+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu>)


Rose <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote: :>Again, the guy is mislabeling himself. I can't help it when a duck calls :>itself :>a chicken. Doesn't change what a chicken is. : Just because you fantasize about something doesn't mean you'd actually do it. : I hope. Otherwise I'm in biiiiiig trouble and not for sexual fantasies... =:o That's an interesting question. Here's another version: What if all your desires, all your fantasies, all your emotional, private, secret eroticism is about the same sex? But, you're married, you're able to perform to the extent that you've had kids which you love, you've never identified as gay, and you've never acted on these hidden passions. All your desires are gay. All your actions are straight (because doing anything else would seem wrong or evil or just scary to you, what have you). Which are you? Shawn

2003-02-15 08:03:44+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu>)


Rose <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote: :>Again, the guy is mislabeling himself. I can't help it when a duck calls :>itself :>a chicken. Doesn't change what a chicken is. : Just because you fantasize about something doesn't mean you'd actually do it. : I hope. Otherwise I'm in biiiiiig trouble and not for sexual fantasies... =:o That's an interesting question. Here's another version: What if all your desires, all your fantasies, all your emotional, private, secret eroticism is about the same sex? But, you're married, you're able to perform to the extent that you've had kids which you love, you've never identified as gay, and you've never acted on these hidden passions. All your desires are gay. All your actions are straight (because doing anything else would seem wrong or evil or just scary to you, what have you). Which are you? Shawn

2003-02-15 08:13:26-08:00 - Re: andrews gay - (dfriesen@amtsgi.bc.ca)


C.L. Lassiter <seaelle@unc.edu> wrote: > Hey. All you straight men here. Can *you* tell when another man > is attractive? I was curious as to whether I could or not, so I went to hotornot.com. I had opinions about the women, but the guys were all "Well, I guess he's okay." After a while I decided that since I was rating all the guys as medium that probably I can't tell. Sorry. Does anyone have a better experiment? -- Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of Bolen Books. Dale Friesen, Sysadmin Bolen Books, Inc Victoria, BC Canada root@bolen.bc.ca http://www.bolen.bc.ca

2003-02-15 08:13:26-08:00 - Re: andrews gay - (dfriesen@amtsgi.bc.ca)


C.L. Lassiter <seaelle@unc.edu> wrote: > Hey. All you straight men here. Can *you* tell when another man > is attractive? I was curious as to whether I could or not, so I went to hotornot.com. I had opinions about the women, but the guys were all "Well, I guess he's okay." After a while I decided that since I was rating all the guys as medium that probably I can't tell. Sorry. Does anyone have a better experiment? -- Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of Bolen Books. Dale Friesen, Sysadmin Bolen Books, Inc Victoria, BC Canada root@bolen.bc.ca http://www.bolen.bc.ca

2003-02-15 08:17:08+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (Jay <malicious.user@attbi.com>)


"Shawn Hill" <shill@fas.harvard.edu> wrote: > Jay <malicious.user@attbi.com> wrote: > > :> Hey. All you straight men here. Can *you* tell when another man > :> is attractive? > > : Sometimes. Gay men and straight women often have very different > : standards of male beauty. Some things are universal - height, build, > : jaw, and so on. Some things (and this is the part I get lost on) are not. > > This is more a case, I think, of PEOPLE having very different > standards of beauty (or spectrums of what they find attractive). It's > just that, as far as desiring men of WHATEVER type, gay men and > straight women are the ones who will talk about it. > > Shawn > Straight men don't spend a lot of time thinking about it. I can tell that the guy who plays Angel is very attractive, but his looks don't do anything for me (other than me make me wish I looked like that). I guess that sums up my method of determining if a man is attractive or not: do I wish I looked like him? -J

2003-02-15 08:17:08+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (Jay <malicious.user@attbi.com>)


"Shawn Hill" <shill@fas.harvard.edu> wrote: > Jay <malicious.user@attbi.com> wrote: > > :> Hey. All you straight men here. Can *you* tell when another man > :> is attractive? > > : Sometimes. Gay men and straight women often have very different > : standards of male beauty. Some things are universal - height, build, > : jaw, and so on. Some things (and this is the part I get lost on) are not. > > This is more a case, I think, of PEOPLE having very different > standards of beauty (or spectrums of what they find attractive). It's > just that, as far as desiring men of WHATEVER type, gay men and > straight women are the ones who will talk about it. > > Shawn > Straight men don't spend a lot of time thinking about it. I can tell that the guy who plays Angel is very attractive, but his looks don't do anything for me (other than me make me wish I looked like that). I guess that sums up my method of determining if a man is attractive or not: do I wish I looked like him? -J

2003-02-15 10:41:22-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - ("Mathew R. Ignash" <mathewignash@comcast.net>)


On 15 Feb 2003 07:55:17 GMT, Shawn Hill wrote: > : No they are not. They are WORDS. You can color them with connotations all you > : want, I'm talking about their denotation. > > That's much too simplistic an approach to sexual identity. I like to call it accurate, but if simplistic floats your boat. > : A hetrosexual is someone interested sexually only in people of the opposite > : gender. > : A homosexual is someone interested sexually only in people of the same gender. > : A bisexual is someone interested sexually in people of either gender. > > A bisexual is someone who identifies herself as such. Because he wants to. Self identification is one of the biggest loads of touchy feely crap I've ever run across, and I've heard it many times. If you say one thing and do another, it doesn't make you what you say. See my example about the guy who "doesn't eat pork", yet has ham on his pizza. It's not self identification, it's self delusion! Circular defintions are not useful in conversation, and saying a bisexual person is anyone who calls themselves bisexual is totally circular. Is a tall person anyone who says they are tall, even if they are 4' in height? Is a Christian person anyone who says they are Christian, even if they worship Buddah? Heck, if I call myself a lesbian, am I one? Even though I'm a guy? A word definition needs more to it then simply pointing to itself. So what is at the core of the meaning of bisexual? Being attracted to people of both genders would seem to be a good start to me. > : Is when you say a male homosexual friend of yours would screw Rose Mcgowen, > : you're contradicting yourself,if Rose is a woman and he's a man, that's opposite > : gender. > > Even if he's only saying it, it will likely never happen, and he calls > himself gay while he regularly sleeps with men? If he MEANS what he says (which I understand is a unusual thing) then yes, he is bisexual. > : If Andrew likes boys and girls, he's bisexual. I don't give a fig what he or > : anyone calls himself when he's marching in a parade. It's not a hard won > : political statement, it's a plain paper fact. It's not good, it's not evil, it > : just is. I'm not insulting someone who mislabels themselves, I'm correcting > : them. > > That's presumptuous of you, don't you think? You mean actually having definitions for words which are consistant and rational and using them when I speak? I'm just wacky that way. Back on topic though, Andrew has never called himself "gay" or "bisexual", so any arguement about self identification vs. erternal identification is pointless. He's never identified himself as ANYTHING, which leaves only us arguing his identification externally based on observations of his actions. The only person he ever tried to have sex with was Katrina Silber, and he failed at that miserably and didn't seem too enthusiastic about it anyway. Maybe Andrew doesn't have a sexual orientation at all? -- Mathew Homepage - http://mathew.fcpages.com/ Angel web site - http://angel.fcpages.com/

2003-02-15 10:41:22-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - ("Mathew R. Ignash" <mathewignash@comcast.net>)


On 15 Feb 2003 07:55:17 GMT, Shawn Hill wrote: > : No they are not. They are WORDS. You can color them with connotations all you > : want, I'm talking about their denotation. > > That's much too simplistic an approach to sexual identity. I like to call it accurate, but if simplistic floats your boat. > : A hetrosexual is someone interested sexually only in people of the opposite > : gender. > : A homosexual is someone interested sexually only in people of the same gender. > : A bisexual is someone interested sexually in people of either gender. > > A bisexual is someone who identifies herself as such. Because he wants to. Self identification is one of the biggest loads of touchy feely crap I've ever run across, and I've heard it many times. If you say one thing and do another, it doesn't make you what you say. See my example about the guy who "doesn't eat pork", yet has ham on his pizza. It's not self identification, it's self delusion! Circular defintions are not useful in conversation, and saying a bisexual person is anyone who calls themselves bisexual is totally circular. Is a tall person anyone who says they are tall, even if they are 4' in height? Is a Christian person anyone who says they are Christian, even if they worship Buddah? Heck, if I call myself a lesbian, am I one? Even though I'm a guy? A word definition needs more to it then simply pointing to itself. So what is at the core of the meaning of bisexual? Being attracted to people of both genders would seem to be a good start to me. > : Is when you say a male homosexual friend of yours would screw Rose Mcgowen, > : you're contradicting yourself,if Rose is a woman and he's a man, that's opposite > : gender. > > Even if he's only saying it, it will likely never happen, and he calls > himself gay while he regularly sleeps with men? If he MEANS what he says (which I understand is a unusual thing) then yes, he is bisexual. > : If Andrew likes boys and girls, he's bisexual. I don't give a fig what he or > : anyone calls himself when he's marching in a parade. It's not a hard won > : political statement, it's a plain paper fact. It's not good, it's not evil, it > : just is. I'm not insulting someone who mislabels themselves, I'm correcting > : them. > > That's presumptuous of you, don't you think? You mean actually having definitions for words which are consistant and rational and using them when I speak? I'm just wacky that way. Back on topic though, Andrew has never called himself "gay" or "bisexual", so any arguement about self identification vs. erternal identification is pointless. He's never identified himself as ANYTHING, which leaves only us arguing his identification externally based on observations of his actions. The only person he ever tried to have sex with was Katrina Silber, and he failed at that miserably and didn't seem too enthusiastic about it anyway. Maybe Andrew doesn't have a sexual orientation at all? -- Mathew Homepage - http://mathew.fcpages.com/ Angel web site - http://angel.fcpages.com/

2003-02-15 13:34:18-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - (David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com>)


On Fri, 14 Feb 2003 18:53:55 -0500, Rowan Hawthorn wrote: > "C.L. Lassiter" <seaelle@unc.edu> wrote in message > news:3e4d4c9f@news.unc.edu... >> Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu> wrote: >> > C.L. Lassiter <seaelle@unc.edu> wrote: >> >> > : her. (Which brings up one of my pet peeves about some straight men > who >> > : say stuff like "I can't tell if a man's good-looking," but that's > another >> > : discussion.) >> >> > Let's start it. >> >> Hey. All you straight men here. Can *you* tell when another man is >> attractive? >> >> cl > > > Nope, I give up. I look at the guys who most women go weak over, and I > have *no* clue what the attraction is. (Of course, I'm not sure what my > wife saw in me, either, so I'm probably just a lousy judge, but...) > > Of course, you know this brings up the question: "Attractive to whom, > and in what way?" That's the way I am. I can tell look at someone and say what the most attractive man is that he looks like (Pretend that sentence made sense.), but I have no clue what the *rules* are. I can say someone looks kinda like a young Harrison Ford, but I don't know what's so great about him. For example, I have no idea why, to pick an example, Marsters is considered good-looking. It seems to me it's his *image* as Spike more than his actual looks...if I were going solely by looks, I'd pick season 1-4 Xander, or Riley, depending on how muscled you like your guys. (See, look, I'm secure in my sexuality.) The problem, I think, is that women are good-looking based, almost entirely, their looks. That's why men call someone good-looking. Whereas men are judged by various other things, like charisma, wealth, masculinity, height, lots of other stuff. But men don't judge people's looks by that, and so when we're asked if another man is good-looking we just resort to 'Well, his haircut seems okay, his face is symmetrical, he's not fat, his clothes fit...' which isn't how women (and gay men) judge male 'beauty' at all. So eventually we just start saying 'we don't know', because no matter how we judge their looks, we'll always hit someone that women say is 'good-looking' that is *way* outside the rules, like Russel Crowe. So while *some* of it is being insecure in sexuality, there are a lot of us who *aren't* insecure, but we're just always *wrong*. There's also the problem that men and women have different ideas about what is important to pay attention to. Men do not pay attention to other men, whereas women do pay attention to other women. Often times, when a man is ask 'Do you think he's cute?' when walking through the mall, the man has honestly never had that thought enter his head...why should *he* care about the looks of a random guy walking near him? He glanced at the guy, filed him under 'unknown unthreating male', check a mental map to make sure they weren't going to walk into each other, and dismissed him. Twenty seconds later, he couldn't even tell you the approximate age of the guy or his race, because he simply wasn't paying any attention. It's just 'unknown unthreating male over there'. The stalling isn't because we're embarrassed, it's because we're having to sit there and figure it out right then, and we know we're not very good at it, so we just end up giving a non-committal answer, or, like I do, saying 'He looks kinda like Joey, from Friends.', which seems to be an acceptable answer. We can pattern match men just fine, it's that we have no idea what we're supposed to match to. And it's the same problem when asked about friends. We've never even considered how good-looking they are, we don't even think about how they look. Whereas women can tell you if another women is good-looking if they're spent a mere five minutes talking to them. Saying that men can, and do, do exactly what women do, and are embarrassed to do it, is simply 'sexual equality' run amuck. We don't do that automatically, we have to do it manually, and we're not too sure of the rules, it's not because we're insecure. Men and women's brain function differently in many ways, and this is one of them. -- David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com> NOYFB, P

2003-02-15 13:34:18-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - (David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com>)


On Fri, 14 Feb 2003 18:53:55 -0500, Rowan Hawthorn wrote: > "C.L. Lassiter" <seaelle@unc.edu> wrote in message > news:3e4d4c9f@news.unc.edu... >> Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu> wrote: >> > C.L. Lassiter <seaelle@unc.edu> wrote: >> >> > : her. (Which brings up one of my pet peeves about some straight men > who >> > : say stuff like "I can't tell if a man's good-looking," but that's > another >> > : discussion.) >> >> > Let's start it. >> >> Hey. All you straight men here. Can *you* tell when another man is >> attractive? >> >> cl > > > Nope, I give up. I look at the guys who most women go weak over, and I > have *no* clue what the attraction is. (Of course, I'm not sure what my > wife saw in me, either, so I'm probably just a lousy judge, but...) > > Of course, you know this brings up the question: "Attractive to whom, > and in what way?" That's the way I am. I can tell look at someone and say what the most attractive man is that he looks like (Pretend that sentence made sense.), but I have no clue what the *rules* are. I can say someone looks kinda like a young Harrison Ford, but I don't know what's so great about him. For example, I have no idea why, to pick an example, Marsters is considered good-looking. It seems to me it's his *image* as Spike more than his actual looks...if I were going solely by looks, I'd pick season 1-4 Xander, or Riley, depending on how muscled you like your guys. (See, look, I'm secure in my sexuality.) The problem, I think, is that women are good-looking based, almost entirely, their looks. That's why men call someone good-looking. Whereas men are judged by various other things, like charisma, wealth, masculinity, height, lots of other stuff. But men don't judge people's looks by that, and so when we're asked if another man is good-looking we just resort to 'Well, his haircut seems okay, his face is symmetrical, he's not fat, his clothes fit...' which isn't how women (and gay men) judge male 'beauty' at all. So eventually we just start saying 'we don't know', because no matter how we judge their looks, we'll always hit someone that women say is 'good-looking' that is *way* outside the rules, like Russel Crowe. So while *some* of it is being insecure in sexuality, there are a lot of us who *aren't* insecure, but we're just always *wrong*. There's also the problem that men and women have different ideas about what is important to pay attention to. Men do not pay attention to other men, whereas women do pay attention to other women. Often times, when a man is ask 'Do you think he's cute?' when walking through the mall, the man has honestly never had that thought enter his head...why should *he* care about the looks of a random guy walking near him? He glanced at the guy, filed him under 'unknown unthreating male', check a mental map to make sure they weren't going to walk into each other, and dismissed him. Twenty seconds later, he couldn't even tell you the approximate age of the guy or his race, because he simply wasn't paying any attention. It's just 'unknown unthreating male over there'. The stalling isn't because we're embarrassed, it's because we're having to sit there and figure it out right then, and we know we're not very good at it, so we just end up giving a non-committal answer, or, like I do, saying 'He looks kinda like Joey, from Friends.', which seems to be an acceptable answer. We can pattern match men just fine, it's that we have no idea what we're supposed to match to. And it's the same problem when asked about friends. We've never even considered how good-looking they are, we don't even think about how they look. Whereas women can tell you if another women is good-looking if they're spent a mere five minutes talking to them. Saying that men can, and do, do exactly what women do, and are embarrassed to do it, is simply 'sexual equality' run amuck. We don't do that automatically, we have to do it manually, and we're not too sure of the rules, it's not because we're insecure. Men and women's brain function differently in many ways, and this is one of them. -- David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com> NOYFB, P

2003-02-15 13:44:27-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - (David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com>)


On Sat, 15 Feb 2003 15:52:43 +0000, SWeick wrote: > Let's assume there is a genetic element (duh!) to dominant hand use. Actually, there isn't. Left-handedness does not normally run in families. It appears to be due to fetal development oddness. -- David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com> NOYFB, P

2003-02-15 13:44:27-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - (David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com>)


On Sat, 15 Feb 2003 15:52:43 +0000, SWeick wrote: > Let's assume there is a genetic element (duh!) to dominant hand use. Actually, there isn't. Left-handedness does not normally run in families. It appears to be due to fetal development oddness. -- David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com> NOYFB, P

2003-02-15 13:56:20-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - (David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com>)


On Sat, 15 Feb 2003 07:50:11 +0000, Rose wrote: >>Subject: Re: andrews gay >>From: Snuggles postmaster@spamcop.net Date: 2/14/2003 10:27 PM Pacific >>Standard Time Message-id: >><postmaster-62846C.00275815022003@husk.cso.niu.edu> >> >>In article <20030215005809.22282.00000874@mb-ca.aol.com>, >> sweick@aol.com (SWeick) wrote: >> >>> In article >><9175994944371.NC-1.55.mathewignash@news.mi.comcast.giganews.com>, >>> "Mathew R. Ignash" <mathewignash@comcast.net> writes: >>> >>> >On 14 Feb 2003 19:25:43 GMT, Shawn Hill wrote: >>> > >>> >> Mathew R. Ignash <mathewignash@comcast.net> wrote: >>> >> : On 14 Feb 2003 00:39:09 GMT, dominicanindian@aol.com >>> >> : (DominicanIndian) >>> >wrote: >>> >> >>> >> :> << :> How does this mesh with his request for a Christina >>> >> :> Riccibot >>and >>> >his >>> >> :> passionate >>> >> :> :> admission that "Scully so wants me!" >>> >> :> >>> >> :> : Hell, I'm gay, and I so wish Scully would want me! >> >>> >> :> >>> >> :> >>> >> :> even some gay men would have sex with women >>> >> :> >>> >> :> hell i'd pork rose mcgowans pale ass any day of the week >>> >> >>> >> : Okay, this is contradictory. If you would bone either sex, you >>> >> : are >>> >bisexual! >>> >> : That's what the freakin word MEANS! Even if you'd mostly do like >>> >> : to do >>> >the one >>> >> : gender, then only consider a few particularly sexy members of the >>> >opposite >>> >> : gender. >>> >> >>> >> You've got to learn to cut out the black and white extremes, and go >>> >> swimming in all the grey areas. >>> >> >>> >> To me, sexuality is on a spectrum. In between 100% straight and >>> >> 100% >>gay, >>> >> there are all these points individuals could be on. "Mostly gay" is >>> >> one of them. >>> > >>> >And you seem to need to learn the english language. >>> >>> >>> OK, now we're getting the ball rolling! :-) >>> >>> >>> > "Mostly gay" translates >>> >to "bisexual!" >>> >>> >>> Actually it doesn't have to. >>> >>> See, when I said this argument is all about who gets to define things, >>> this is an excellent example. You can be mostly gay and somewhat >>> celibate/asexual. You can be mostly gay and somewhat hetero/bisexual. >>> You can be mostly gay and be generally gay. >>> >>> >>So... can I be mostly right-handed but a closet lefty? But seriously, >>people are right-handed, left-handed or ambidextrous. Nobody goes about >>saying they're 70% right-handed except for when they use felt-tipped >>pens and prefer to use their left hand. -- > > Actually, that's not quite accurate. Some of us are > pseudo-ambidextrous. For instance, I am a leftie batter and a leftie > golfer but I write, throw and do other stuff rightie. That's not pseudo-ambidextrous, that's just normal ambidextrous. It's near impossible to be perfectly capable with both hands at everything. It sounds like you've either learned one way, or just are better at fine motor control with your right hand and power with your left hand. And, yes, handedness just like sexuality. Some people are attracted to most men, and a few women, and they are bisexual, just like if you do everything except write with your left hand you are are ambidextrous, not left-handed. Because the majority of people are *only* be able to do things with one hand, just like the majority are *only* to be attracted to one gender. It sounds crazy to say someone with 99% gay and 1% straight attractions are 'bisexual', but they are. You are like a bisexual who likes one type of men, and an entirely different type of women. ;) -- David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com> NOYFB, P

2003-02-15 13:56:20-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - (David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com>)


On Sat, 15 Feb 2003 07:50:11 +0000, Rose wrote: >>Subject: Re: andrews gay >>From: Snuggles postmaster@spamcop.net Date: 2/14/2003 10:27 PM Pacific >>Standard Time Message-id: >><postmaster-62846C.00275815022003@husk.cso.niu.edu> >> >>In article <20030215005809.22282.00000874@mb-ca.aol.com>, >> sweick@aol.com (SWeick) wrote: >> >>> In article >><9175994944371.NC-1.55.mathewignash@news.mi.comcast.giganews.com>, >>> "Mathew R. Ignash" <mathewignash@comcast.net> writes: >>> >>> >On 14 Feb 2003 19:25:43 GMT, Shawn Hill wrote: >>> > >>> >> Mathew R. Ignash <mathewignash@comcast.net> wrote: >>> >> : On 14 Feb 2003 00:39:09 GMT, dominicanindian@aol.com >>> >> : (DominicanIndian) >>> >wrote: >>> >> >>> >> :> << :> How does this mesh with his request for a Christina >>> >> :> Riccibot >>and >>> >his >>> >> :> passionate >>> >> :> :> admission that "Scully so wants me!" >>> >> :> >>> >> :> : Hell, I'm gay, and I so wish Scully would want me! >> >>> >> :> >>> >> :> >>> >> :> even some gay men would have sex with women >>> >> :> >>> >> :> hell i'd pork rose mcgowans pale ass any day of the week >>> >> >>> >> : Okay, this is contradictory. If you would bone either sex, you >>> >> : are >>> >bisexual! >>> >> : That's what the freakin word MEANS! Even if you'd mostly do like >>> >> : to do >>> >the one >>> >> : gender, then only consider a few particularly sexy members of the >>> >opposite >>> >> : gender. >>> >> >>> >> You've got to learn to cut out the black and white extremes, and go >>> >> swimming in all the grey areas. >>> >> >>> >> To me, sexuality is on a spectrum. In between 100% straight and >>> >> 100% >>gay, >>> >> there are all these points individuals could be on. "Mostly gay" is >>> >> one of them. >>> > >>> >And you seem to need to learn the english language. >>> >>> >>> OK, now we're getting the ball rolling! :-) >>> >>> >>> > "Mostly gay" translates >>> >to "bisexual!" >>> >>> >>> Actually it doesn't have to. >>> >>> See, when I said this argument is all about who gets to define things, >>> this is an excellent example. You can be mostly gay and somewhat >>> celibate/asexual. You can be mostly gay and somewhat hetero/bisexual. >>> You can be mostly gay and be generally gay. >>> >>> >>So... can I be mostly right-handed but a closet lefty? But seriously, >>people are right-handed, left-handed or ambidextrous. Nobody goes about >>saying they're 70% right-handed except for when they use felt-tipped >>pens and prefer to use their left hand. -- > > Actually, that's not quite accurate. Some of us are > pseudo-ambidextrous. For instance, I am a leftie batter and a leftie > golfer but I write, throw and do other stuff rightie. That's not pseudo-ambidextrous, that's just normal ambidextrous. It's near impossible to be perfectly capable with both hands at everything. It sounds like you've either learned one way, or just are better at fine motor control with your right hand and power with your left hand. And, yes, handedness just like sexuality. Some people are attracted to most men, and a few women, and they are bisexual, just like if you do everything except write with your left hand you are are ambidextrous, not left-handed. Because the majority of people are *only* be able to do things with one hand, just like the majority are *only* to be attracted to one gender. It sounds crazy to say someone with 99% gay and 1% straight attractions are 'bisexual', but they are. You are like a bisexual who likes one type of men, and an entirely different type of women. ;) -- David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com> NOYFB, P

2003-02-15 15:52:43+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (sweick@aol.com)


In article <postmaster-62846C.00275815022003@husk.cso.niu.edu>, Snuggles <postmaster@spamcop.net> writes: >In article <20030215005809.22282.00000874@mb-ca.aol.com>, > sweick@aol.com (SWeick) wrote: > >> In article ><9175994944371.NC-1.55.mathewignash@news.mi.comcast.giganews.com>, >> "Mathew R. Ignash" <mathewignash@comcast.net> writes: >> >> >On 14 Feb 2003 19:25:43 GMT, Shawn Hill wrote: >> > >> >> To me, sexuality is on a spectrum. In between 100% straight and 100% >gay, >> >> there are all these points individuals could be on. "Mostly gay" is one >> >> of them. >> > >> >And you seem to need to learn the english language. >> >> >> OK, now we're getting the ball rolling! :-) >> >> >> > "Mostly gay" translates >> >to "bisexual!" >> >> >> Actually it doesn't have to. >> >> See, when I said this argument is all about who gets to define >> things, this is an excellent example. You can be mostly gay >> and somewhat celibate/asexual. You can be mostly gay and >> somewhat hetero/bisexual. You can be mostly gay and be >> generally gay. >> > >So... can I be mostly right-handed but a closet lefty? You obviously never heard of Catholic school upbringing in the 50's. The answer is obviously yes. But seriously, >people are right-handed, left-handed or ambidextrous. Really? Are they? You mean anytime I use my left hand, it means I'm ambi? :-) Let's assume there is a genetic element (duh!) to dominant hand use. Say someone writes with their right hand. They do most things right handed. But genetically they have the coding to be left handed. What are they? If you then insist that they are lefthanded when they've only ever used their right hand, enjoy using their right hand, and consider themselves right handed, what business is it of you to insist they are right handed? OTOH, you'd be right to say they were genetically coded to be left handed. But then are they ambi because they have the capability to use either hand by practice and by trait? Nobody goes about >saying they're 70% right-handed except for when they use felt-tipped >pens and prefer to use their left hand. People due to all sorts of reasons are forced to use their opposite hand. Does that make them ambi since they've used their other hand once or a few times? See, here we get into the definition question. Say someone is genetically coded to be ambi. They were raised to be right handed. If they later discover they are ambi and come out ambi, then they are ambi. If they decide they prefer to be left handed, then they are left handed, even though they were raised right handed. If they decide that their ability to use the other hand is freakish and never use it again, they are right handed. That is if you define people by their actions. Or you can define them by their genetic coding. Or you can let people self define. And what you decide is the definition of X-handed also sets how you/others/themselves define them. The English language isn't a hard coded programming language. The meaning of a term is in its use and understanding. Some would define bisexual as a person who can have sex with both genders at the same time. Some would define it as finding each gender sexually attractive. Some would define it as having had sex with each gender even once. And each of those definitions is found wanting. And let's not go Bill Clinton in defining what sex is. For example, say a guy get drunk and goes to an orgy. After spending time giving attention to different women, he discover that the person currently giving him some "attention" has a male mouth instead of a female one. You now have had sex with both genders. So obviously you are bi, right? No? Mutual masterbation with a person of the same gender means you're gay or bi, right? No? Yes? Maybe? When you try to simplify something as complex as human sexuality by a simple label, you're destined to fail to get it right. Stephen Weick The crew of Columbia went to touch the face of heaven, and have now entered that kingdom.

2003-02-15 15:52:43+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (sweick@aol.com)


In article <postmaster-62846C.00275815022003@husk.cso.niu.edu>, Snuggles <postmaster@spamcop.net> writes: >In article <20030215005809.22282.00000874@mb-ca.aol.com>, > sweick@aol.com (SWeick) wrote: > >> In article ><9175994944371.NC-1.55.mathewignash@news.mi.comcast.giganews.com>, >> "Mathew R. Ignash" <mathewignash@comcast.net> writes: >> >> >On 14 Feb 2003 19:25:43 GMT, Shawn Hill wrote: >> > >> >> To me, sexuality is on a spectrum. In between 100% straight and 100% >gay, >> >> there are all these points individuals could be on. "Mostly gay" is one >> >> of them. >> > >> >And you seem to need to learn the english language. >> >> >> OK, now we're getting the ball rolling! :-) >> >> >> > "Mostly gay" translates >> >to "bisexual!" >> >> >> Actually it doesn't have to. >> >> See, when I said this argument is all about who gets to define >> things, this is an excellent example. You can be mostly gay >> and somewhat celibate/asexual. You can be mostly gay and >> somewhat hetero/bisexual. You can be mostly gay and be >> generally gay. >> > >So... can I be mostly right-handed but a closet lefty? You obviously never heard of Catholic school upbringing in the 50's. The answer is obviously yes. But seriously, >people are right-handed, left-handed or ambidextrous. Really? Are they? You mean anytime I use my left hand, it means I'm ambi? :-) Let's assume there is a genetic element (duh!) to dominant hand use. Say someone writes with their right hand. They do most things right handed. But genetically they have the coding to be left handed. What are they? If you then insist that they are lefthanded when they've only ever used their right hand, enjoy using their right hand, and consider themselves right handed, what business is it of you to insist they are right handed? OTOH, you'd be right to say they were genetically coded to be left handed. But then are they ambi because they have the capability to use either hand by practice and by trait? Nobody goes about >saying they're 70% right-handed except for when they use felt-tipped >pens and prefer to use their left hand. People due to all sorts of reasons are forced to use their opposite hand. Does that make them ambi since they've used their other hand once or a few times? See, here we get into the definition question. Say someone is genetically coded to be ambi. They were raised to be right handed. If they later discover they are ambi and come out ambi, then they are ambi. If they decide they prefer to be left handed, then they are left handed, even though they were raised right handed. If they decide that their ability to use the other hand is freakish and never use it again, they are right handed. That is if you define people by their actions. Or you can define them by their genetic coding. Or you can let people self define. And what you decide is the definition of X-handed also sets how you/others/themselves define them. The English language isn't a hard coded programming language. The meaning of a term is in its use and understanding. Some would define bisexual as a person who can have sex with both genders at the same time. Some would define it as finding each gender sexually attractive. Some would define it as having had sex with each gender even once. And each of those definitions is found wanting. And let's not go Bill Clinton in defining what sex is. For example, say a guy get drunk and goes to an orgy. After spending time giving attention to different women, he discover that the person currently giving him some "attention" has a male mouth instead of a female one. You now have had sex with both genders. So obviously you are bi, right? No? Mutual masterbation with a person of the same gender means you're gay or bi, right? No? Yes? Maybe? When you try to simplify something as complex as human sexuality by a simple label, you're destined to fail to get it right. Stephen Weick The crew of Columbia went to touch the face of heaven, and have now entered that kingdom.

2003-02-15 18:56:13-06:00 - Re: andrews gay - (drifter <nowhere@all>)


"C.L. Lassiter" <seaelle@unc.edu> wrote in message news:3e4d4c9f@news.unc.edu... > Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu> wrote: > > C.L. Lassiter <seaelle@unc.edu> wrote: > > > : her. (Which brings up one of my pet peeves about some straight men who > > : say stuff like "I can't tell if a man's good-looking," but that's another > > : discussion.) > > > Let's start it. > > Hey. All you straight men here. Can *you* tell when another man > is attractive? > > cl My sister is nuts about Jon Bon Jovi, but to me he just looks kinda like a corpse. I wouldn't want to look like him. She also thinks Brad Pitt is all that, but he looks feminine to me. I also think that JM in vamp face has a peculiarly long chin, for some reason (might be the teeth), but he isn't exactly ugly. All this should prove that I'm truly no judge of male beauty. In fact, the only guy I can think of that I actually think IS handsome, and is just what I would like to look like if I didn't look like myself, is Tom Selleck. That there is one good looking man. Even as a straight man, I'm not afraid to say that. -- Kel _________________________________________________ "Oh, Buffy. You really need to have every square inch of your ass licked." Darth Willow, kinda gay.

2003-02-15 18:56:13-06:00 - Re: andrews gay - (drifter <nowhere@all>)


"C.L. Lassiter" <seaelle@unc.edu> wrote in message news:3e4d4c9f@news.unc.edu... > Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu> wrote: > > C.L. Lassiter <seaelle@unc.edu> wrote: > > > : her. (Which brings up one of my pet peeves about some straight men who > > : say stuff like "I can't tell if a man's good-looking," but that's another > > : discussion.) > > > Let's start it. > > Hey. All you straight men here. Can *you* tell when another man > is attractive? > > cl My sister is nuts about Jon Bon Jovi, but to me he just looks kinda like a corpse. I wouldn't want to look like him. She also thinks Brad Pitt is all that, but he looks feminine to me. I also think that JM in vamp face has a peculiarly long chin, for some reason (might be the teeth), but he isn't exactly ugly. All this should prove that I'm truly no judge of male beauty. In fact, the only guy I can think of that I actually think IS handsome, and is just what I would like to look like if I didn't look like myself, is Tom Selleck. That there is one good looking man. Even as a straight man, I'm not afraid to say that. -- Kel _________________________________________________ "Oh, Buffy. You really need to have every square inch of your ass licked." Darth Willow, kinda gay.

2003-02-15 20:39:20-06:00 - Re: andrews gay - (drifter <nowhere@all>)


"Rose" <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote in message news:20030215025011.03775.00000255@mb-cp.aol.com... > >Subject: Re: andrews gay > >From: Snuggles postmaster@spamcop.net > >Date: 2/14/2003 10:27 PM Pacific Standard Time /snip/ > >So... can I be mostly right-handed but a closet lefty? But seriously, > >people are right-handed, left-handed or ambidextrous. Nobody goes about > >saying they're 70% right-handed except for when they use felt-tipped > >pens and prefer to use their left hand. > >-- > > Actually, that's not quite accurate. Some of us are pseudo-ambidextrous. For > instance, I am a leftie batter and a leftie golfer but I write, throw and do > other stuff rightie. > I throw right-handed, shoot pistols right-handed, shoot rifles left-handed, am a left-handed archer, shoot pool better right than left-handed, and throw darts equally well (actually, very well) with either hand. But I'm right-handed. > Rose > It's not Giles True. It's Miss Kitty Fantastico. The Real Big Bad. Pissed about being ignored for so long. That litter box is in danger of becoming a new Hell Mouth by now. -- Kel _________________________________________________ "Oh, Buffy. You really need to have every square inch of your ass licked." Darth Willow, kinda gay.

2003-02-15 20:39:20-06:00 - Re: andrews gay - (drifter <nowhere@all>)


"Rose" <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote in message news:20030215025011.03775.00000255@mb-cp.aol.com... > >Subject: Re: andrews gay > >From: Snuggles postmaster@spamcop.net > >Date: 2/14/2003 10:27 PM Pacific Standard Time /snip/ > >So... can I be mostly right-handed but a closet lefty? But seriously, > >people are right-handed, left-handed or ambidextrous. Nobody goes about > >saying they're 70% right-handed except for when they use felt-tipped > >pens and prefer to use their left hand. > >-- > > Actually, that's not quite accurate. Some of us are pseudo-ambidextrous. For > instance, I am a leftie batter and a leftie golfer but I write, throw and do > other stuff rightie. > I throw right-handed, shoot pistols right-handed, shoot rifles left-handed, am a left-handed archer, shoot pool better right than left-handed, and throw darts equally well (actually, very well) with either hand. But I'm right-handed. > Rose > It's not Giles True. It's Miss Kitty Fantastico. The Real Big Bad. Pissed about being ignored for so long. That litter box is in danger of becoming a new Hell Mouth by now. -- Kel _________________________________________________ "Oh, Buffy. You really need to have every square inch of your ass licked." Darth Willow, kinda gay.

2003-02-15 20:46:41-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - (The Babaloughesian <me@privacy.net>)


"DominicanIndian" <dominicanindian@aol.com> wrote in message news:20030214213744.08173.00000365@mb-mt.aol.com... > << Agreed. I would be highly suspicious of anyone who claims to be completely > straight and masturbates to gay porn. This "friend" is most likely in some > serious denial and probably ought to see a professional therapist of some > kind to deal with whatever issues are preventing him/her from acknowledging > their feelings. >> > > > me and my friend have had huge arguments over this and i think you are > seriously right! finally, people agree with me ..... this is what he said: > > ""im straight" > > which i said > > "so ... u masterbate to gay porn and your str8?! my ass!" > > him: "yes its very normal" He actually used the word "very"? LOL! > > a sad case,,, we currently arent talking cause he wont face that hes gay or bi > or whatever LOL

2003-02-15 20:46:41-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - (The Babaloughesian <me@privacy.net>)


"DominicanIndian" <dominicanindian@aol.com> wrote in message news:20030214213744.08173.00000365@mb-mt.aol.com... > << Agreed. I would be highly suspicious of anyone who claims to be completely > straight and masturbates to gay porn. This "friend" is most likely in some > serious denial and probably ought to see a professional therapist of some > kind to deal with whatever issues are preventing him/her from acknowledging > their feelings. >> > > > me and my friend have had huge arguments over this and i think you are > seriously right! finally, people agree with me ..... this is what he said: > > ""im straight" > > which i said > > "so ... u masterbate to gay porn and your str8?! my ass!" > > him: "yes its very normal" He actually used the word "very"? LOL! > > a sad case,,, we currently arent talking cause he wont face that hes gay or bi > or whatever LOL

2003-02-15 20:55:37-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - (The Babaloughesian <me@privacy.net>)


"C.L. Lassiter" <seaelle@unc.edu> wrote in message news:3e4d4c9f@news.unc.edu... > Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu> wrote: > > C.L. Lassiter <seaelle@unc.edu> wrote: > > > : her. (Which brings up one of my pet peeves about some straight men who > > : say stuff like "I can't tell if a man's good-looking," but that's another > > : discussion.) > > > Let's start it. > > Hey. All you straight men here. Can *you* tell when another man > is attractive? > > cl Geez, I used to think so, but I'm not so sure now that I've tried to classify the male cast of either show and came up with Oz and Xander as the only male characters who weren't attractive in some way, and with Xander, that really only applies for the seasons after his cheeks puffed up. Is there like, an answer key?

2003-02-15 20:55:37-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - (The Babaloughesian <me@privacy.net>)


"C.L. Lassiter" <seaelle@unc.edu> wrote in message news:3e4d4c9f@news.unc.edu... > Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu> wrote: > > C.L. Lassiter <seaelle@unc.edu> wrote: > > > : her. (Which brings up one of my pet peeves about some straight men who > > : say stuff like "I can't tell if a man's good-looking," but that's another > > : discussion.) > > > Let's start it. > > Hey. All you straight men here. Can *you* tell when another man > is attractive? > > cl Geez, I used to think so, but I'm not so sure now that I've tried to classify the male cast of either show and came up with Oz and Xander as the only male characters who weren't attractive in some way, and with Xander, that really only applies for the seasons after his cheeks puffed up. Is there like, an answer key?

2003-02-15 21:43:27+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (dominicanindian@aol.com)


<< I would think it was great if it turned out that he was straight. Just because a man is a little effeminate and is attracted to some men, doesn't mean he is gay. Hey, if a gay person can be attracted to someone of the opposite sex and still be gay... >> you are talking about the straight gay men.. the straight gay men are a line of hetero males with suh gay qualities..... OR could be in denial.... and a gay-straight man is just a gay man who acts atraight and u could never tell....

2003-02-15 21:43:27+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (dominicanindian@aol.com)


<< I would think it was great if it turned out that he was straight. Just because a man is a little effeminate and is attracted to some men, doesn't mean he is gay. Hey, if a gay person can be attracted to someone of the opposite sex and still be gay... >> you are talking about the straight gay men.. the straight gay men are a line of hetero males with suh gay qualities..... OR could be in denial.... and a gay-straight man is just a gay man who acts atraight and u could never tell....

2003-02-15 21:44:38+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (dominicanindian@aol.com)


<< > Hey. All you straight men here. Can *you* tell when another man > is attractive? I was curious as to whether I could or not, so I went to hotornot.com. I had opinions about the women, but the guys were all "Well, I guess he's okay." After a while I decided that since I was rating all the guys as medium that probably I can't tell. Sorry. Does anyone have a better experiment? >> yes dale, have sex with a man Lol

2003-02-15 21:44:38+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (dominicanindian@aol.com)


<< > Hey. All you straight men here. Can *you* tell when another man > is attractive? I was curious as to whether I could or not, so I went to hotornot.com. I had opinions about the women, but the guys were all "Well, I guess he's okay." After a while I decided that since I was rating all the guys as medium that probably I can't tell. Sorry. Does anyone have a better experiment? >> yes dale, have sex with a man Lol

2003-02-15 21:46:08+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (dominicanindian@aol.com)


when a straight girl says "that girl is cute" its fine... but when a straight man says "that guy is really cute", it doesnt fit... so unfair

2003-02-15 21:46:08+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (dominicanindian@aol.com)


when a straight girl says "that girl is cute" its fine... but when a straight man says "that guy is really cute", it doesnt fit... so unfair

2003-02-15 23:29:13-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - (David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com>)


On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 03:06:26 +0000, Shawn Hill wrote: > David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com> wrote: > : On Fri, 14 Feb 2003 18:53:55 -0500, Rowan Hawthorn wrote: > > : For example, I have no idea why, to pick an example, Marsters is > : considered good-looking. It seems to me it's his *image* as Spike more > > Strong cheek bones. Unusual hair. Slender, muscular build. Sure, > attitude is a big part of it, but he also has pleasing features. I've never understood checkbones. Although, hey, I have unusual hair. Woo-hoo. > : than his actual looks...if I were going solely by looks, I'd pick > : season 1-4 Xander, or Riley, depending on how muscled you like your > : guys. (See, look, I'm secure in my sexuality.) > > Xander's face is a little long, with close-together-eyes and sort of a > wacky smile. Much more character actor than leading man. *shrug* > : The problem, I think, is that women are good-looking based, almost > : entirely, their looks. That's why men call someone good-looking. > > Is it? Nothing to do with her clothes, her taste, her posture, whether > she has cute little glasses, whether she looks tacky or authentic, > whether she looks sophisticated or is a hick, whether she seems hard or > vulnerable? Those *are* looks. Looks are what you see looking at someone. > : Whereas men are judged by various other things, like charisma, wealth, > : masculinity, height, lots of other stuff. > > This is exactly the sexist double standard I'm talking about. It's > something we made up; why can't we change it, dispense with it, or > configure it for personal use? Hey, don't blame me, I'm explaining, not making rules or even saying they are good. > : just start saying 'we don't know', because no matter how we judge > : their looks, we'll always hit someone that women say is 'good-looking' > : that is *way* outside the rules, like Russel Crowe. > > Broad shoulders, baby face, good head of hair, kind eyes. He fits the > rules, until you get to his personality. Hey, I have broad shoulders. I like these rules. > : So while *some* of it is being insecure in sexuality, there are a lot > : of us who *aren't* insecure, but we're just always *wrong*. > > Practice makes perfect! :) > > : There's also the problem that men and women have different ideas about > : what is important to pay attention to. Men do not pay attention to > : other men, whereas women do pay attention to other women. > > Don't they? Not even in the locker room? Not even on the basketball > court? Not even to the point of: I wish I had that suit? I wish I looked > like that? Damn, I need to get to a gym, look at how fit that guy is? I have never said to myself 'I wish I had that suit.', and the only time I notice how fit a guy is is when he's doing something that requires fitness. Although I will notice very obviously unfit people. And I'm not sure what you mean by 'in the locker room'. No, men aren't more likely to notice other men there. (They're slightly more likely to notice women there, though. ;) ) > : other, and dismissed him. Twenty seconds later, he couldn't even tell > : you the approximate age of the guy or his race, because he simply > : wasn't paying any attention. It's just 'unknown unthreating male over > : there'. > > This is a scary way to view the world. Are women automatically > unthreatening? Even the drunk one careening towards you who obviously > hasn't bathed for several days? I didn't say that all women were under unthreatening. That's simply the first thing you do, you first match 'human being', then 'people you know', and then 'people who are threatening'. Or maybe the last two should be flipped, I don't know. Women get rated the same, although women are judged threats less often...which could be considered sexist, but women are generally less aggressive, and less of the threat when they are. Until they knee you in the groin, of course, which even the most aggressive male will hesitate before doing, or subconciously spoil his aim or pull his punch. And if it's a woman of the right age range, they get 'attractive' or 'unattractive', and perhaps more attention. > : 'He looks kinda like Joey, from Friends.', which seems to be an > : acceptable answer. We can pattern match men just fine, it's that we > : have no idea what we're supposed to match to. > > Similarity is good, that's why it's an acceptable answer. And she > presumably knows how she feels about Joey, from Friends, already, so she > can be taken in by your desperate conversational gambit. Very smooth > move. Plus, if you have no idea what the question is about, you can always just make up some random guy, like 'He looks like that guy from that movie about the giant rabbits.'. > : And it's the same problem when asked about friends. We've never even > : considered how good-looking they are, we don't even think about how > : they look. > > I just think that's a little unlikely. Surely you've noticed if they're > healthy, well-groomed, have good hygeine, etc. It's more the other way around. I notice if they are noticably not healthy, badly groomed, or poor hygeine. But that's akin to saying you can comment on the surface of a random road you've driven on because you would notice potholes. The fact you would notice extreme negative qualities doesn't mean you've ever noticed positive ones. > : Whereas women can tell you if another women is good-looking if they're > : spent a mere five minutes talking to them. > > It doesn't take five minutes, even. Probably not. > : Saying that men can, and do, do exactly what women do, and are > : embarrassed to do it, is simply 'sexual equality' run amuck. We don't > : do that automatically, we have to do it manually, and we're not too > : sure of the rules, it's not because we're insecure. > > That is well put, if not very convincing. It's always hard to be convincing when you list reasons you *aren't* insecure. ;) But I'm serious. It's expecting men and women to be identical in all social and interpersonal aspects, and they *aren't*. I don't consider other men's attractiveness until I'm explictedly asked about it, and it's not cause I'm homophobic or insecure or anything, it's much the same reason I couldn't tell you the brand of piano that my mother has owned since before I was born, and if you asked me I'd have to drive to her house and look. > : Men and women's brain function differently in many ways, and this is > : one of them. > > Well, Men are From Mars, Women are From Venus still does sell well, > doesn't it? Politically unpopular as it might be. > > I don't think it's brain function, though. I think it's training. Well, that's always a big debate, but it's not really important. Men simply do not automatically do that. Men who are sexual attracted to other men may do it, I don't know, but all that proves is that it's 'men do not judge the attractiveness of genders they are not attracted to'. I've always considered asking random women to mentally undress other women and see what happens. Hey, guys do it more or less automatically, I don't see why women should have difficulties with it. ;) -- David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com> NOYFB, P

2003-02-15 23:29:13-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - (David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com>)


On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 03:06:26 +0000, Shawn Hill wrote: > David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com> wrote: > : On Fri, 14 Feb 2003 18:53:55 -0500, Rowan Hawthorn wrote: > > : For example, I have no idea why, to pick an example, Marsters is > : considered good-looking. It seems to me it's his *image* as Spike more > > Strong cheek bones. Unusual hair. Slender, muscular build. Sure, > attitude is a big part of it, but he also has pleasing features. I've never understood checkbones. Although, hey, I have unusual hair. Woo-hoo. > : than his actual looks...if I were going solely by looks, I'd pick > : season 1-4 Xander, or Riley, depending on how muscled you like your > : guys. (See, look, I'm secure in my sexuality.) > > Xander's face is a little long, with close-together-eyes and sort of a > wacky smile. Much more character actor than leading man. *shrug* > : The problem, I think, is that women are good-looking based, almost > : entirely, their looks. That's why men call someone good-looking. > > Is it? Nothing to do with her clothes, her taste, her posture, whether > she has cute little glasses, whether she looks tacky or authentic, > whether she looks sophisticated or is a hick, whether she seems hard or > vulnerable? Those *are* looks. Looks are what you see looking at someone. > : Whereas men are judged by various other things, like charisma, wealth, > : masculinity, height, lots of other stuff. > > This is exactly the sexist double standard I'm talking about. It's > something we made up; why can't we change it, dispense with it, or > configure it for personal use? Hey, don't blame me, I'm explaining, not making rules or even saying they are good. > : just start saying 'we don't know', because no matter how we judge > : their looks, we'll always hit someone that women say is 'good-looking' > : that is *way* outside the rules, like Russel Crowe. > > Broad shoulders, baby face, good head of hair, kind eyes. He fits the > rules, until you get to his personality. Hey, I have broad shoulders. I like these rules. > : So while *some* of it is being insecure in sexuality, there are a lot > : of us who *aren't* insecure, but we're just always *wrong*. > > Practice makes perfect! :) > > : There's also the problem that men and women have different ideas about > : what is important to pay attention to. Men do not pay attention to > : other men, whereas women do pay attention to other women. > > Don't they? Not even in the locker room? Not even on the basketball > court? Not even to the point of: I wish I had that suit? I wish I looked > like that? Damn, I need to get to a gym, look at how fit that guy is? I have never said to myself 'I wish I had that suit.', and the only time I notice how fit a guy is is when he's doing something that requires fitness. Although I will notice very obviously unfit people. And I'm not sure what you mean by 'in the locker room'. No, men aren't more likely to notice other men there. (They're slightly more likely to notice women there, though. ;) ) > : other, and dismissed him. Twenty seconds later, he couldn't even tell > : you the approximate age of the guy or his race, because he simply > : wasn't paying any attention. It's just 'unknown unthreating male over > : there'. > > This is a scary way to view the world. Are women automatically > unthreatening? Even the drunk one careening towards you who obviously > hasn't bathed for several days? I didn't say that all women were under unthreatening. That's simply the first thing you do, you first match 'human being', then 'people you know', and then 'people who are threatening'. Or maybe the last two should be flipped, I don't know. Women get rated the same, although women are judged threats less often...which could be considered sexist, but women are generally less aggressive, and less of the threat when they are. Until they knee you in the groin, of course, which even the most aggressive male will hesitate before doing, or subconciously spoil his aim or pull his punch. And if it's a woman of the right age range, they get 'attractive' or 'unattractive', and perhaps more attention. > : 'He looks kinda like Joey, from Friends.', which seems to be an > : acceptable answer. We can pattern match men just fine, it's that we > : have no idea what we're supposed to match to. > > Similarity is good, that's why it's an acceptable answer. And she > presumably knows how she feels about Joey, from Friends, already, so she > can be taken in by your desperate conversational gambit. Very smooth > move. Plus, if you have no idea what the question is about, you can always just make up some random guy, like 'He looks like that guy from that movie about the giant rabbits.'. > : And it's the same problem when asked about friends. We've never even > : considered how good-looking they are, we don't even think about how > : they look. > > I just think that's a little unlikely. Surely you've noticed if they're > healthy, well-groomed, have good hygeine, etc. It's more the other way around. I notice if they are noticably not healthy, badly groomed, or poor hygeine. But that's akin to saying you can comment on the surface of a random road you've driven on because you would notice potholes. The fact you would notice extreme negative qualities doesn't mean you've ever noticed positive ones. > : Whereas women can tell you if another women is good-looking if they're > : spent a mere five minutes talking to them. > > It doesn't take five minutes, even. Probably not. > : Saying that men can, and do, do exactly what women do, and are > : embarrassed to do it, is simply 'sexual equality' run amuck. We don't > : do that automatically, we have to do it manually, and we're not too > : sure of the rules, it's not because we're insecure. > > That is well put, if not very convincing. It's always hard to be convincing when you list reasons you *aren't* insecure. ;) But I'm serious. It's expecting men and women to be identical in all social and interpersonal aspects, and they *aren't*. I don't consider other men's attractiveness until I'm explictedly asked about it, and it's not cause I'm homophobic or insecure or anything, it's much the same reason I couldn't tell you the brand of piano that my mother has owned since before I was born, and if you asked me I'd have to drive to her house and look. > : Men and women's brain function differently in many ways, and this is > : one of them. > > Well, Men are From Mars, Women are From Venus still does sell well, > doesn't it? Politically unpopular as it might be. > > I don't think it's brain function, though. I think it's training. Well, that's always a big debate, but it's not really important. Men simply do not automatically do that. Men who are sexual attracted to other men may do it, I don't know, but all that proves is that it's 'men do not judge the attractiveness of genders they are not attracted to'. I've always considered asking random women to mentally undress other women and see what happens. Hey, guys do it more or less automatically, I don't see why women should have difficulties with it. ;) -- David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com> NOYFB, P

2003-02-16 03:06:26+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu>)


David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com> wrote: : On Fri, 14 Feb 2003 18:53:55 -0500, Rowan Hawthorn wrote: : For example, I have no idea why, to pick an example, Marsters is : considered good-looking. It seems to me it's his *image* as Spike more Strong cheek bones. Unusual hair. Slender, muscular build. Sure, attitude is a big part of it, but he also has pleasing features. : than his actual looks...if I were going solely by looks, I'd pick season : 1-4 Xander, or Riley, depending on how muscled you like your guys. (See, : look, I'm secure in my sexuality.) Xander's face is a little long, with close-together-eyes and sort of a wacky smile. Much more character actor than leading man. : The problem, I think, is that women are good-looking based, almost : entirely, their looks. That's why men call someone good-looking. Is it? Nothing to do with her clothes, her taste, her posture, whether she has cute little glasses, whether she looks tacky or authentic, whether she looks sophisticated or is a hick, whether she seems hard or vulnerable? : Whereas men are judged by various other things, like charisma, wealth, : masculinity, height, lots of other stuff. This is exactly the sexist double standard I'm talking about. It's something we made up; why can't we change it, dispense with it, or configure it for personal use? : just start saying 'we don't know', because no matter how we judge their : looks, we'll always hit someone that women say is 'good-looking' that is : *way* outside the rules, like Russel Crowe. Broad shoulders, baby face, good head of hair, kind eyes. He fits the rules, until you get to his personality. : So while *some* of it is being insecure in sexuality, there are a lot of : us who *aren't* insecure, but we're just always *wrong*. Practice makes perfect! :) : There's also the problem that men and women have different ideas about : what is important to pay attention to. Men do not pay attention to other : men, whereas women do pay attention to other women. Don't they? Not even in the locker room? Not even on the basketball court? Not even to the point of: I wish I had that suit? I wish I looked like that? Damn, I need to get to a gym, look at how fit that guy is? : other, and dismissed him. Twenty seconds later, he couldn't even tell you : the approximate age of the guy or his race, because he simply wasn't : paying any attention. It's just 'unknown unthreating male over there'. This is a scary way to view the world. Are women automatically unthreatening? Even the drunk one careening towards you who obviously hasn't bathed for several days? : 'He looks kinda like Joey, from Friends.', which seems to be an acceptable : answer. We can pattern match men just fine, it's that we have no idea what : we're supposed to match to. Similarity is good, that's why it's an acceptable answer. And she presumably knows how she feels about Joey, from Friends, already, so she can be taken in by your desperate conversational gambit. Very smooth move. : And it's the same problem when asked about friends. We've never even : considered how good-looking they are, we don't even think about how they : look. I just think that's a little unlikely. Surely you've noticed if they're healthy, well-groomed, have good hygeine, etc. : Whereas women can tell you if another women is good-looking if they're : spent a mere five minutes talking to them. It doesn't take five minutes, even. : Saying that men can, and do, do exactly what women do, and are embarrassed : to do it, is simply 'sexual equality' run amuck. We don't do that : automatically, we have to do it manually, and we're not too sure of the : rules, it's not because we're insecure. That is well put, if not very convincing. : Men and women's brain function differently in many ways, and this is one : of them. Well, Men are From Mars, Women are From Venus still does sell well, doesn't it? Politically unpopular as it might be. I don't think it's brain function, though. I think it's training. Shawn

2003-02-16 03:06:26+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu>)


David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com> wrote: : On Fri, 14 Feb 2003 18:53:55 -0500, Rowan Hawthorn wrote: : For example, I have no idea why, to pick an example, Marsters is : considered good-looking. It seems to me it's his *image* as Spike more Strong cheek bones. Unusual hair. Slender, muscular build. Sure, attitude is a big part of it, but he also has pleasing features. : than his actual looks...if I were going solely by looks, I'd pick season : 1-4 Xander, or Riley, depending on how muscled you like your guys. (See, : look, I'm secure in my sexuality.) Xander's face is a little long, with close-together-eyes and sort of a wacky smile. Much more character actor than leading man. : The problem, I think, is that women are good-looking based, almost : entirely, their looks. That's why men call someone good-looking. Is it? Nothing to do with her clothes, her taste, her posture, whether she has cute little glasses, whether she looks tacky or authentic, whether she looks sophisticated or is a hick, whether she seems hard or vulnerable? : Whereas men are judged by various other things, like charisma, wealth, : masculinity, height, lots of other stuff. This is exactly the sexist double standard I'm talking about. It's something we made up; why can't we change it, dispense with it, or configure it for personal use? : just start saying 'we don't know', because no matter how we judge their : looks, we'll always hit someone that women say is 'good-looking' that is : *way* outside the rules, like Russel Crowe. Broad shoulders, baby face, good head of hair, kind eyes. He fits the rules, until you get to his personality. : So while *some* of it is being insecure in sexuality, there are a lot of : us who *aren't* insecure, but we're just always *wrong*. Practice makes perfect! :) : There's also the problem that men and women have different ideas about : what is important to pay attention to. Men do not pay attention to other : men, whereas women do pay attention to other women. Don't they? Not even in the locker room? Not even on the basketball court? Not even to the point of: I wish I had that suit? I wish I looked like that? Damn, I need to get to a gym, look at how fit that guy is? : other, and dismissed him. Twenty seconds later, he couldn't even tell you : the approximate age of the guy or his race, because he simply wasn't : paying any attention. It's just 'unknown unthreating male over there'. This is a scary way to view the world. Are women automatically unthreatening? Even the drunk one careening towards you who obviously hasn't bathed for several days? : 'He looks kinda like Joey, from Friends.', which seems to be an acceptable : answer. We can pattern match men just fine, it's that we have no idea what : we're supposed to match to. Similarity is good, that's why it's an acceptable answer. And she presumably knows how she feels about Joey, from Friends, already, so she can be taken in by your desperate conversational gambit. Very smooth move. : And it's the same problem when asked about friends. We've never even : considered how good-looking they are, we don't even think about how they : look. I just think that's a little unlikely. Surely you've noticed if they're healthy, well-groomed, have good hygeine, etc. : Whereas women can tell you if another women is good-looking if they're : spent a mere five minutes talking to them. It doesn't take five minutes, even. : Saying that men can, and do, do exactly what women do, and are embarrassed : to do it, is simply 'sexual equality' run amuck. We don't do that : automatically, we have to do it manually, and we're not too sure of the : rules, it's not because we're insecure. That is well put, if not very convincing. : Men and women's brain function differently in many ways, and this is one : of them. Well, Men are From Mars, Women are From Venus still does sell well, doesn't it? Politically unpopular as it might be. I don't think it's brain function, though. I think it's training. Shawn

2003-02-16 03:07:41+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu>)


Jay <malicious.user@attbi.com> wrote: :> : Sometimes. Gay men and straight women often have very different :> : standards of male beauty. Some things are universal - height, build, :> : jaw, and so on. Some things (and this is the part I get lost on) are not. :> :> This is more a case, I think, of PEOPLE having very different :> standards of beauty (or spectrums of what they find attractive). It's :> just that, as far as desiring men of WHATEVER type, gay men and :> straight women are the ones who will talk about it. : Straight men don't spend a lot of time thinking about it. I can tell : that the guy who plays Angel is very attractive, but his looks don't : do anything for me (other than me make me wish I looked like that). : I guess that sums up my method of determining if a man is attractive : or not: do I wish I looked like him? I think that's a great indicator. The best one, actually. Shawn

2003-02-16 03:07:41+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu>)


Jay <malicious.user@attbi.com> wrote: :> : Sometimes. Gay men and straight women often have very different :> : standards of male beauty. Some things are universal - height, build, :> : jaw, and so on. Some things (and this is the part I get lost on) are not. :> :> This is more a case, I think, of PEOPLE having very different :> standards of beauty (or spectrums of what they find attractive). It's :> just that, as far as desiring men of WHATEVER type, gay men and :> straight women are the ones who will talk about it. : Straight men don't spend a lot of time thinking about it. I can tell : that the guy who plays Angel is very attractive, but his looks don't : do anything for me (other than me make me wish I looked like that). : I guess that sums up my method of determining if a man is attractive : or not: do I wish I looked like him? I think that's a great indicator. The best one, actually. Shawn

2003-02-16 03:09:20+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu>)


The Babaloughesian <me@privacy.net> wrote: : "C.L. Lassiter" <seaelle@unc.edu> wrote in message : news:3e4d4c9f@news.unc.edu... :> Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu> wrote: :> > C.L. Lassiter <seaelle@unc.edu> wrote: :> :> > : her. (Which brings up one of my pet peeves about some straight men : who :> > : say stuff like "I can't tell if a man's good-looking," but that's : another :> > : discussion.) :> :> > Let's start it. :> :> Hey. All you straight men here. Can *you* tell when another man :> is attractive? :> :> cl : Geez, I used to think so, but I'm not so sure now that I've tried to : classify the male cast of either show and came up with Oz and Xander as the : only male characters who weren't attractive in some way, and with Xander, : that really only applies for the seasons after his cheeks puffed up. Is : there like, an answer key? Oz and Xander are both very attractive, just not in the conventional heroic mold like Angel, Spike or (sort of) Riley. Shawn

2003-02-16 03:09:20+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu>)


The Babaloughesian <me@privacy.net> wrote: : "C.L. Lassiter" <seaelle@unc.edu> wrote in message : news:3e4d4c9f@news.unc.edu... :> Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu> wrote: :> > C.L. Lassiter <seaelle@unc.edu> wrote: :> :> > : her. (Which brings up one of my pet peeves about some straight men : who :> > : say stuff like "I can't tell if a man's good-looking," but that's : another :> > : discussion.) :> :> > Let's start it. :> :> Hey. All you straight men here. Can *you* tell when another man :> is attractive? :> :> cl : Geez, I used to think so, but I'm not so sure now that I've tried to : classify the male cast of either show and came up with Oz and Xander as the : only male characters who weren't attractive in some way, and with Xander, : that really only applies for the seasons after his cheeks puffed up. Is : there like, an answer key? Oz and Xander are both very attractive, just not in the conventional heroic mold like Angel, Spike or (sort of) Riley. Shawn

2003-02-16 03:13:00+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu>)


Mathew R. Ignash <mathewignash@comcast.net> wrote: : Circular defintions are not useful in conversation, and saying a bisexual person : is anyone who calls themselves bisexual is totally circular. Is a tall person : anyone who says they are tall, even if they are 4' in height? Is a Christian : person anyone who says they are Christian, even if they worship Buddah? Heck, if Your Christian example is the most relevant. Yes, there are many Christians who also have other belief systems mixed in with their version of the main one. : I call myself a lesbian, am I one? Even though I'm a guy? A word definition If you think you relate to other women the way a woman-desiring woman would, why not? : needs more to it then simply pointing to itself. So what is at the core of the : meaning of bisexual? Being attracted to people of both genders would seem to be : a good start to me. It's just not that simple. You're not talking about physical traits. You're talking about sexual identities. :> Even if he's only saying it, it will likely never happen, and he calls :> himself gay while he regularly sleeps with men? : If he MEANS what he says (which I understand is a unusual thing) then yes, he : is bisexual. So then desire is more important than activity? :> That's presumptuous of you, don't you think? : You mean actually having definitions for words which are consistant and rational : and using them when I speak? I'm just wacky that way. No, I mean actually thinking you need to correct others about something as personal as their sexuality. : Back on topic though, Andrew has never called himself "gay" or "bisexual", so : any arguement about self identification vs. erternal identification is : pointless. He's never identified himself as ANYTHING, which leaves only us : arguing his identification externally based on observations of his actions. The : only person he ever tried to have sex with was Katrina Silber, and he failed at : that miserably and didn't seem too enthusiastic about it anyway. Maybe Andrew : doesn't have a sexual orientation at all? Well, at least he's not a rapist. Shawn

2003-02-16 03:13:00+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu>)


Mathew R. Ignash <mathewignash@comcast.net> wrote: : Circular defintions are not useful in conversation, and saying a bisexual person : is anyone who calls themselves bisexual is totally circular. Is a tall person : anyone who says they are tall, even if they are 4' in height? Is a Christian : person anyone who says they are Christian, even if they worship Buddah? Heck, if Your Christian example is the most relevant. Yes, there are many Christians who also have other belief systems mixed in with their version of the main one. : I call myself a lesbian, am I one? Even though I'm a guy? A word definition If you think you relate to other women the way a woman-desiring woman would, why not? : needs more to it then simply pointing to itself. So what is at the core of the : meaning of bisexual? Being attracted to people of both genders would seem to be : a good start to me. It's just not that simple. You're not talking about physical traits. You're talking about sexual identities. :> Even if he's only saying it, it will likely never happen, and he calls :> himself gay while he regularly sleeps with men? : If he MEANS what he says (which I understand is a unusual thing) then yes, he : is bisexual. So then desire is more important than activity? :> That's presumptuous of you, don't you think? : You mean actually having definitions for words which are consistant and rational : and using them when I speak? I'm just wacky that way. No, I mean actually thinking you need to correct others about something as personal as their sexuality. : Back on topic though, Andrew has never called himself "gay" or "bisexual", so : any arguement about self identification vs. erternal identification is : pointless. He's never identified himself as ANYTHING, which leaves only us : arguing his identification externally based on observations of his actions. The : only person he ever tried to have sex with was Katrina Silber, and he failed at : that miserably and didn't seem too enthusiastic about it anyway. Maybe Andrew : doesn't have a sexual orientation at all? Well, at least he's not a rapist. Shawn

2003-02-16 04:39:14-08:00 - Re: andrews gay - (tiger1i1y@hotmail.com)


dominicanindian@aol.com (DominicanIndian) wrote in message news:<20030214163411.29584.00000344@mb-cd.aol.com>... > > > > I never liked labels........ "straight" "gay" "bisexual" "omnisexual" > "Omnisexual"??? Isn't that the same as bisexual? I mean, there are only two genders, so bi covers them all, no?

2003-02-16 04:39:14-08:00 - Re: andrews gay - (tiger1i1y@hotmail.com)


dominicanindian@aol.com (DominicanIndian) wrote in message news:<20030214163411.29584.00000344@mb-cd.aol.com>... > > > > I never liked labels........ "straight" "gay" "bisexual" "omnisexual" > "Omnisexual"??? Isn't that the same as bisexual? I mean, there are only two genders, so bi covers them all, no?

2003-02-16 06:11:55+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu>)


David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com> wrote: :> Is it? Nothing to do with her clothes, her taste, her posture, whether :> she has cute little glasses, whether she looks tacky or authentic, :> whether she looks sophisticated or is a hick, whether she seems hard or :> vulnerable? : Those *are* looks. Looks are what you see looking at someone. So you'd notice details of clothing, attire, including things like class and taste, on a woman but not on a man? :> Don't they? Not even in the locker room? Not even on the basketball :> court? Not even to the point of: I wish I had that suit? I wish I looked :> like that? Damn, I need to get to a gym, look at how fit that guy is? : I have never said to myself 'I wish I had that suit.', and the only time I : notice how fit a guy is is when he's doing something that requires : fitness. Although I will notice very obviously unfit people. : And I'm not sure what you mean by 'in the locker room'. No, men aren't : more likely to notice other men there. (They're slightly more likely to : notice women there, though. ;) ) In the locker room, where you're naked, you see more. Men aren't literally invisible to each other, are they? :> This is a scary way to view the world. Are women automatically :> unthreatening? Even the drunk one careening towards you who obviously :> hasn't bathed for several days? : And if it's a woman of the right age range, they get 'attractive' or : 'unattractive', and perhaps more attention. Yeah, I can see that. :> Similarity is good, that's why it's an acceptable answer. And she :> presumably knows how she feels about Joey, from Friends, already, so she :> can be taken in by your desperate conversational gambit. Very smooth :> move. : Plus, if you have no idea what the question is about, you can always just : make up some random guy, like 'He looks like that guy from that movie : about the giant rabbits.'. Wow. Clever. Keep the conversation going, but leave gaps for her to fill in. Hmmmmmm. :> : And it's the same problem when asked about friends. We've never even :> : considered how good-looking they are, we don't even think about how :> : they look. :> :> I just think that's a little unlikely. Surely you've noticed if they're :> healthy, well-groomed, have good hygeine, etc. : It's more the other way around. I notice if they are noticably not : healthy, badly groomed, or poor hygeine. So, as long as they're not excessively pungent, dirty, scuffed or ragged, they're simply not accorded any attention? : But that's akin to saying you can comment on the surface of a random road : you've driven on because you would notice potholes. The fact you would : notice extreme negative qualities doesn't mean you've ever noticed : positive ones. But is there really an environment you've been in, or driven through, you haven't rated somewhere on the scale from nice to awful? : But I'm serious. It's expecting men and women to be identical in all : social and interpersonal aspects, and they *aren't*. I don't consider : other men's attractiveness until I'm explictedly asked about it, and it's : not cause I'm homophobic or insecure or anything, it's much the same : reason I couldn't tell you the brand of piano that my mother has owned : since before I was born, and if you asked me I'd have to drive to her : house and look. I'm getting what you're saying, I think. But it's sort of amounting not to an inability to discern male beauty, but a disinterest in doing so. I don't expect all men or all women (even just sticking to the straight ones) to be in the same place on that skill/interest, however. :> I don't think it's brain function, though. I think it's training. : Well, that's always a big debate, but it's not really important. Men : simply do not automatically do that. Men who are sexual attracted to other : men may do it, I don't know, but all that proves is that it's 'men do not : judge the attractiveness of genders they are not attracted to'. But then there's the other argument, of how visual men are. If, as you say, women seem to evaluate a whole bunch of qualities when determining a man's appeal, while men focus primarily on how a woman looks ..... that leads me to conclude that men place a lot of stress on surface appearance, and consider that when presenting themselves to the world and when going for bright, shiny cars, etc. If they've got that much skill in assessing how women look, how is it they have none at all when seeing a man? So little that they can't even tell if he's good looking? : I've always considered asking random women to mentally undress other women : and see what happens. Hey, guys do it more or less automatically, I don't : see why women should have difficulties with it. ;) I think women do it more or less automatically, too, though more along the lines of "I'm sure her boobs are fake" or "I bet her butt is really firm under that tight skirt." I also think they'd have an easier time copping to the practice than straight men noticing the appeal of other men. Shawn

2003-02-16 06:11:55+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu>)


David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com> wrote: :> Is it? Nothing to do with her clothes, her taste, her posture, whether :> she has cute little glasses, whether she looks tacky or authentic, :> whether she looks sophisticated or is a hick, whether she seems hard or :> vulnerable? : Those *are* looks. Looks are what you see looking at someone. So you'd notice details of clothing, attire, including things like class and taste, on a woman but not on a man? :> Don't they? Not even in the locker room? Not even on the basketball :> court? Not even to the point of: I wish I had that suit? I wish I looked :> like that? Damn, I need to get to a gym, look at how fit that guy is? : I have never said to myself 'I wish I had that suit.', and the only time I : notice how fit a guy is is when he's doing something that requires : fitness. Although I will notice very obviously unfit people. : And I'm not sure what you mean by 'in the locker room'. No, men aren't : more likely to notice other men there. (They're slightly more likely to : notice women there, though. ;) ) In the locker room, where you're naked, you see more. Men aren't literally invisible to each other, are they? :> This is a scary way to view the world. Are women automatically :> unthreatening? Even the drunk one careening towards you who obviously :> hasn't bathed for several days? : And if it's a woman of the right age range, they get 'attractive' or : 'unattractive', and perhaps more attention. Yeah, I can see that. :> Similarity is good, that's why it's an acceptable answer. And she :> presumably knows how she feels about Joey, from Friends, already, so she :> can be taken in by your desperate conversational gambit. Very smooth :> move. : Plus, if you have no idea what the question is about, you can always just : make up some random guy, like 'He looks like that guy from that movie : about the giant rabbits.'. Wow. Clever. Keep the conversation going, but leave gaps for her to fill in. Hmmmmmm. :> : And it's the same problem when asked about friends. We've never even :> : considered how good-looking they are, we don't even think about how :> : they look. :> :> I just think that's a little unlikely. Surely you've noticed if they're :> healthy, well-groomed, have good hygeine, etc. : It's more the other way around. I notice if they are noticably not : healthy, badly groomed, or poor hygeine. So, as long as they're not excessively pungent, dirty, scuffed or ragged, they're simply not accorded any attention? : But that's akin to saying you can comment on the surface of a random road : you've driven on because you would notice potholes. The fact you would : notice extreme negative qualities doesn't mean you've ever noticed : positive ones. But is there really an environment you've been in, or driven through, you haven't rated somewhere on the scale from nice to awful? : But I'm serious. It's expecting men and women to be identical in all : social and interpersonal aspects, and they *aren't*. I don't consider : other men's attractiveness until I'm explictedly asked about it, and it's : not cause I'm homophobic or insecure or anything, it's much the same : reason I couldn't tell you the brand of piano that my mother has owned : since before I was born, and if you asked me I'd have to drive to her : house and look. I'm getting what you're saying, I think. But it's sort of amounting not to an inability to discern male beauty, but a disinterest in doing so. I don't expect all men or all women (even just sticking to the straight ones) to be in the same place on that skill/interest, however. :> I don't think it's brain function, though. I think it's training. : Well, that's always a big debate, but it's not really important. Men : simply do not automatically do that. Men who are sexual attracted to other : men may do it, I don't know, but all that proves is that it's 'men do not : judge the attractiveness of genders they are not attracted to'. But then there's the other argument, of how visual men are. If, as you say, women seem to evaluate a whole bunch of qualities when determining a man's appeal, while men focus primarily on how a woman looks ..... that leads me to conclude that men place a lot of stress on surface appearance, and consider that when presenting themselves to the world and when going for bright, shiny cars, etc. If they've got that much skill in assessing how women look, how is it they have none at all when seeing a man? So little that they can't even tell if he's good looking? : I've always considered asking random women to mentally undress other women : and see what happens. Hey, guys do it more or less automatically, I don't : see why women should have difficulties with it. ;) I think women do it more or less automatically, too, though more along the lines of "I'm sure her boobs are fake" or "I bet her butt is really firm under that tight skirt." I also think they'd have an easier time copping to the practice than straight men noticing the appeal of other men. Shawn

2003-02-16 06:12:36-08:00 - Re: andrews gay - (rshiflet@hotmail.com)


> The problem, I think, is that women are good-looking based, almost > entirely, their looks. That's why men call someone good-looking. > > Whereas men are judged by various other things, like charisma, wealth, > masculinity, height, lots of other stuff. > This makes sense in an evolutionary way. A man can go around impregnating many women at once, whereas a woman can only have one pregnancy at a time. She has to make sure the father's genes are good, plus find a man that can provide for her and increase her chances that the offspring will survive. So, women will be attracted to other qualities besides looks, where men may not be. Of course, it's more complex then that. Since some men will want to make sure their offspring survives by choosing a woman that will guarentee that can provide for her offspring, though most of this is from looks (has enough fat for pregnancy and breastfeeding, thus the attraction to big breasts and curvy hips). There is also the theory that women will find a mate to take care of her offspring, but secretly mate with another male. So women are attracted to looks, too. Renee

2003-02-16 06:12:36-08:00 - Re: andrews gay - (rshiflet@hotmail.com)


> The problem, I think, is that women are good-looking based, almost > entirely, their looks. That's why men call someone good-looking. > > Whereas men are judged by various other things, like charisma, wealth, > masculinity, height, lots of other stuff. > This makes sense in an evolutionary way. A man can go around impregnating many women at once, whereas a woman can only have one pregnancy at a time. She has to make sure the father's genes are good, plus find a man that can provide for her and increase her chances that the offspring will survive. So, women will be attracted to other qualities besides looks, where men may not be. Of course, it's more complex then that. Since some men will want to make sure their offspring survives by choosing a woman that will guarentee that can provide for her offspring, though most of this is from looks (has enough fat for pregnancy and breastfeeding, thus the attraction to big breasts and curvy hips). There is also the theory that women will find a mate to take care of her offspring, but secretly mate with another male. So women are attracted to looks, too. Renee

2003-02-16 08:42:04-08:00 - Re: andrews gay - (rshiflet@hotmail.com)


fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote in message news:<20030216045956.23875.00000487@mb-fz.aol.com>... > Mathew wrote: > > >A word definition > >needs more to it then simply pointing to >itself. > > I agree. > > > So what is at the core of > >the > >meaning of bisexual? Being attracted to people of both genders would seem to > >be > >a good start to me. > > I'd say a bisexual is someone who is attracted enough to both sexes to be > willing to have sex, and is capable of enjoying sex, with someone of either > gender. I think attraction to both sexes is perhaps indicative of "leanings", > i.e. a "potential" for being bisexual, but I wouldn't say that mere attraction > goes far enough to say someone IS bisexual in the way that most people use the > word. What a person thinks about and what they would actually enjoy doing are > two different things. I mean, if we were all inclined to DO what we sometimes > think we might like to do or sometimes fantasize about, then this would be a > bajillion times more violent world than it is.... I think someone could be capable of enjoying sex with anybody if they were desparate enough. If a straight person was trapped on a deserted island with someone of the same sex (or the opposite sex, if they were gay), I think eventually they would have sex out of comfort, loneliness, hornyness, etc. Renee

2003-02-16 08:42:04-08:00 - Re: andrews gay - (rshiflet@hotmail.com)


fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote in message news:<20030216045956.23875.00000487@mb-fz.aol.com>... > Mathew wrote: > > >A word definition > >needs more to it then simply pointing to >itself. > > I agree. > > > So what is at the core of > >the > >meaning of bisexual? Being attracted to people of both genders would seem to > >be > >a good start to me. > > I'd say a bisexual is someone who is attracted enough to both sexes to be > willing to have sex, and is capable of enjoying sex, with someone of either > gender. I think attraction to both sexes is perhaps indicative of "leanings", > i.e. a "potential" for being bisexual, but I wouldn't say that mere attraction > goes far enough to say someone IS bisexual in the way that most people use the > word. What a person thinks about and what they would actually enjoy doing are > two different things. I mean, if we were all inclined to DO what we sometimes > think we might like to do or sometimes fantasize about, then this would be a > bajillion times more violent world than it is.... I think someone could be capable of enjoying sex with anybody if they were desparate enough. If a straight person was trapped on a deserted island with someone of the same sex (or the opposite sex, if they were gay), I think eventually they would have sex out of comfort, loneliness, hornyness, etc. Renee

2003-02-16 09:11:36-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - (The Babaloughesian <me@privacy.net>)


"Tigerlily" <tiger1i1y@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:723a5556.0302160439.101010c0@posting.google.com... > dominicanindian@aol.com (DominicanIndian) wrote in message news:<20030214163411.29584.00000344@mb-cd.aol.com>... > > > > > > > I never liked labels........ "straight" "gay" "bisexual" "omnisexual" > > > > "Omnisexual"??? Isn't that the same as bisexual? I mean, there are > only two genders, so bi covers them all, no? Does it cover hermaphrodites, animals, corpses, etc.?

2003-02-16 09:11:36-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - (The Babaloughesian <me@privacy.net>)


"Tigerlily" <tiger1i1y@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:723a5556.0302160439.101010c0@posting.google.com... > dominicanindian@aol.com (DominicanIndian) wrote in message news:<20030214163411.29584.00000344@mb-cd.aol.com>... > > > > > > > I never liked labels........ "straight" "gay" "bisexual" "omnisexual" > > > > "Omnisexual"??? Isn't that the same as bisexual? I mean, there are > only two genders, so bi covers them all, no? Does it cover hermaphrodites, animals, corpses, etc.?

2003-02-16 09:48:18+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


>Subject: Re: andrews gay >From: Shawn Hill shill@fas.harvard.edu >Date: 2/14/2003 11:55 PM Pacific Standard Time >Message-id: <b2krp5$9nm$2@news.fas.harvard.edu> > >Mathew R. Ignash <mathewignash@comcast.net> wrote: >: On 14 Feb 2003 22:18:54 GMT, Shawn Hill wrote: > >:> I'm afraid it has to do with much more than the english language and your >:> interpretation of it. Gay, Bisexual and Straight are all hard won >:> political identities in this day and age > >: No they are not. They are WORDS. You can color them with connotations all >you >: want, I'm talking about their denotation. > >That's much too simplistic an approach to sexual identity. > >: A hetrosexual is someone interested sexually only in people of the opposite >: gender. >: A homosexual is someone interested sexually only in people of the same >gender. >: A bisexual is someone interested sexually in people of either gender. > >A bisexual is someone who identifies herself as such. Because he wants to. > >: Is when you say a male homosexual friend of yours would screw Rose Mcgowen, >: you're contradicting yourself,if Rose is a woman and he's a man, that's >opposite >: gender. > >Even if he's only saying it, it will likely never happen, and he calls >himself gay while he regularly sleeps with men? > I agree with you in this instance, Shawn, but how does that compare to Dominican's example of a man who identifies himself as straight (and perhaps only sleeps with women, if anyone) and yet wanks to gay porn? nearly the >: If Andrew likes boys and girls, he's bisexual. I don't give a fig what he >or >: anyone calls himself when he's marching in a parade. It's not a hard won >: political statement, it's a plain paper fact. It's not good, it's not evil, >it >: just is. I'm not insulting someone who mislabels themselves, I'm correcting >: them. > >That's presumptuous of you, don't you think? > While I agree with you about the guy who is gay and yet is attracted to Rose McGowan, I don't think it's presumptious to think a word ought to have meaning beyond "I call myself that because I want to." The dictionary doesn't define "bisexual" as "a person who calls himself bisexual". Rose It's not Giles

2003-02-16 09:48:18+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


>Subject: Re: andrews gay >From: Shawn Hill shill@fas.harvard.edu >Date: 2/14/2003 11:55 PM Pacific Standard Time >Message-id: <b2krp5$9nm$2@news.fas.harvard.edu> > >Mathew R. Ignash <mathewignash@comcast.net> wrote: >: On 14 Feb 2003 22:18:54 GMT, Shawn Hill wrote: > >:> I'm afraid it has to do with much more than the english language and your >:> interpretation of it. Gay, Bisexual and Straight are all hard won >:> political identities in this day and age > >: No they are not. They are WORDS. You can color them with connotations all >you >: want, I'm talking about their denotation. > >That's much too simplistic an approach to sexual identity. > >: A hetrosexual is someone interested sexually only in people of the opposite >: gender. >: A homosexual is someone interested sexually only in people of the same >gender. >: A bisexual is someone interested sexually in people of either gender. > >A bisexual is someone who identifies herself as such. Because he wants to. > >: Is when you say a male homosexual friend of yours would screw Rose Mcgowen, >: you're contradicting yourself,if Rose is a woman and he's a man, that's >opposite >: gender. > >Even if he's only saying it, it will likely never happen, and he calls >himself gay while he regularly sleeps with men? > I agree with you in this instance, Shawn, but how does that compare to Dominican's example of a man who identifies himself as straight (and perhaps only sleeps with women, if anyone) and yet wanks to gay porn? nearly the >: If Andrew likes boys and girls, he's bisexual. I don't give a fig what he >or >: anyone calls himself when he's marching in a parade. It's not a hard won >: political statement, it's a plain paper fact. It's not good, it's not evil, >it >: just is. I'm not insulting someone who mislabels themselves, I'm correcting >: them. > >That's presumptuous of you, don't you think? > While I agree with you about the guy who is gay and yet is attracted to Rose McGowan, I don't think it's presumptious to think a word ought to have meaning beyond "I call myself that because I want to." The dictionary doesn't define "bisexual" as "a person who calls himself bisexual". Rose It's not Giles

2003-02-16 09:59:56+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


Mathew wrote: >A word definition >needs more to it then simply pointing to >itself. I agree. > So what is at the core of >the >meaning of bisexual? Being attracted to people of both genders would seem to >be >a good start to me. I'd say a bisexual is someone who is attracted enough to both sexes to be willing to have sex, and is capable of enjoying sex, with someone of either gender. I think attraction to both sexes is perhaps indicative of "leanings", i.e. a "potential" for being bisexual, but I wouldn't say that mere attraction goes far enough to say someone IS bisexual in the way that most people use the word. What a person thinks about and what they would actually enjoy doing are two different things. I mean, if we were all inclined to DO what we sometimes think we might like to do or sometimes fantasize about, then this would be a bajillion times more violent world than it is.... I mean, if a self-described homosexual man only refrains from having sex with all three of the hot female babes in his apartment building becuase he's in a monogamous relationship with a man, I'd consider him a bisexual no matter what he calls himself. If this man, however, is somewhat attracted to the hot female babes but only ever follows through on his sexual urges with men, I'd say he's homosexual but maybe with some bi leanings, or maybe he just likes to have some variety in his fantasty life. Here's an interesting question. Boy George said of a woman he was involved with: "I can say I am bisexual, but obviously I have a preference. I liked so-and-so because she looked like a boy." Would we think of Boy George as bisexual who prefers men... or a homosexual who was willing to step outside of the box if a girl was masculine enough? Rose It's not Giles

2003-02-16 09:59:56+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


Mathew wrote: >A word definition >needs more to it then simply pointing to >itself. I agree. > So what is at the core of >the >meaning of bisexual? Being attracted to people of both genders would seem to >be >a good start to me. I'd say a bisexual is someone who is attracted enough to both sexes to be willing to have sex, and is capable of enjoying sex, with someone of either gender. I think attraction to both sexes is perhaps indicative of "leanings", i.e. a "potential" for being bisexual, but I wouldn't say that mere attraction goes far enough to say someone IS bisexual in the way that most people use the word. What a person thinks about and what they would actually enjoy doing are two different things. I mean, if we were all inclined to DO what we sometimes think we might like to do or sometimes fantasize about, then this would be a bajillion times more violent world than it is.... I mean, if a self-described homosexual man only refrains from having sex with all three of the hot female babes in his apartment building becuase he's in a monogamous relationship with a man, I'd consider him a bisexual no matter what he calls himself. If this man, however, is somewhat attracted to the hot female babes but only ever follows through on his sexual urges with men, I'd say he's homosexual but maybe with some bi leanings, or maybe he just likes to have some variety in his fantasty life. Here's an interesting question. Boy George said of a woman he was involved with: "I can say I am bisexual, but obviously I have a preference. I liked so-and-so because she looked like a boy." Would we think of Boy George as bisexual who prefers men... or a homosexual who was willing to step outside of the box if a girl was masculine enough? Rose It's not Giles

2003-02-16 10:18:50+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


>Subject: Re: andrews gay >From: "David Cheatham" david@creeknet.com >Date: 2/15/2003 10:34 AM Pacific Standard Time >Message-id: <pan.2003.02.15.18.34.07.140829@creeknet.com> > >On Fri, 14 Feb 2003 18:53:55 -0500, Rowan Hawthorn wrote: > > >> "C.L. Lassiter" <seaelle@unc.edu> wrote in message >> news:3e4d4c9f@news.unc.edu... >>> Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu> wrote: >>> > C.L. Lassiter <seaelle@unc.edu> wrote: >>> >>> > : her. (Which brings up one of my pet peeves about some straight men >> who >>> > : say stuff like "I can't tell if a man's good-looking," but that's >> another >>> > : discussion.) >>> >>> > Let's start it. >>> >>> Hey. All you straight men here. Can *you* tell when another man is >>> attractive? >>> >>> cl >> >> >> Nope, I give up. I look at the guys who most women go weak over, and I >> have *no* clue what the attraction is. (Of course, I'm not sure what my >> wife saw in me, either, so I'm probably just a lousy judge, but...) >> >> Of course, you know this brings up the question: "Attractive to whom, >> and in what way?" > >That's the way I am. I can tell look at someone and say what the most >attractive man is that he looks like (Pretend that sentence made sense.), >but I have no clue what the *rules* are. I can say someone looks kinda >like a young Harrison Ford, but I don't know what's so great about him. > >For example, I have no idea why, to pick an example, Marsters is >considered good-looking. Let's be as objective as possible. 1. No facial flaws glaring enough to cancel out the "good" facial features. 2. High cheekbones, considered a desirable trait in both men and women. 3. Well shaped, expressive eyes. 4. Straight nose in good proportion to the rest of the face (i.e. neither too large nor too small). 5. Fairly full mouth, considered sensual in both men and women (though Hannigan is proof that thin lipped people are much prized, too). 6. Good physique (well-proportioned, muscular without looking like he's on steroids). Although his physique doesn't appeal to me when he's on the Calista Flockhart Diet Plan. Which thankfully, this year, he's not. > It seems to me it's his *image* as Spike more >than his actual looks...if I were going solely by looks, I'd pick season >1-4 Xander, or Riley, depending on how muscled you like your guys. (See, >look, I'm secure in my sexuality.) Blucas and Brendon are both good looking men, although I prefer Marsters' facial features. I'd say that of the three, S2-S3 era Brendon had the best physique. Blucas was a bit too much in terms of the brawniness for my taste. I've also gotta put in a good word here for Adam Busch. I'm a sucker for a nose like that on a guy who wears it with confidence. I find it sexy. He's not handsome but when he's not doing a scene where he's being a total prick, he's appealing. > > >The problem, I think, is that women are good-looking based, almost >entirely, their looks. That's why men call someone good-looking. > I gotta say I don't 100% agree. I've seen enough women with conventionally pretty facial features get ignored, and enough girls with facial features usually regarded by society as imperfect, fussed over by men, to believe that charisma and je ne sais quois has a lot to do with female appeal, too. I think women tend to be a little more flexible than men when it comes to finding plain or homely members of the opposite sex attractive, but it's not a hard and fast rule. >Whereas men are judged by various other things, like charisma, wealth, >masculinity, height, lots of other stuff. > Wealth is not a factor in judging a man's looks. Desirability as a mate, yes. For that matter, it's easier for rich girls to get dates than girls with little money. >But men don't judge people's looks by that, and so when we're asked if >another man is good-looking we just resort to 'Well, his haircut seems >okay, his face is symmetrical, he's not fat, his clothes fit...' which >isn't how women (and gay men) judge male 'beauty' at all. A good haircut, a symmetrical face and clothes that fit sure do help, David. So eventually we >just start saying 'we don't know', because no matter how we judge their >looks, we'll always hit someone that women say is 'good-looking' that is >*way* outside the rules, like Russel Crowe. > Russell Crowe is pretty conventionally good looking. He doesn't have strongly defined bone structure, though, so with hair and makeup he can be made to look plain or goofy. >So while *some* of it is being insecure in sexuality, there are a lot of >us who *aren't* insecure, but we're just always *wrong*. > You may be wrong about what is sexy to women, but you're not wrong about what you think is good looking. Rose It's not Giles

2003-02-16 10:18:50+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


>Subject: Re: andrews gay >From: "David Cheatham" david@creeknet.com >Date: 2/15/2003 10:34 AM Pacific Standard Time >Message-id: <pan.2003.02.15.18.34.07.140829@creeknet.com> > >On Fri, 14 Feb 2003 18:53:55 -0500, Rowan Hawthorn wrote: > > >> "C.L. Lassiter" <seaelle@unc.edu> wrote in message >> news:3e4d4c9f@news.unc.edu... >>> Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu> wrote: >>> > C.L. Lassiter <seaelle@unc.edu> wrote: >>> >>> > : her. (Which brings up one of my pet peeves about some straight men >> who >>> > : say stuff like "I can't tell if a man's good-looking," but that's >> another >>> > : discussion.) >>> >>> > Let's start it. >>> >>> Hey. All you straight men here. Can *you* tell when another man is >>> attractive? >>> >>> cl >> >> >> Nope, I give up. I look at the guys who most women go weak over, and I >> have *no* clue what the attraction is. (Of course, I'm not sure what my >> wife saw in me, either, so I'm probably just a lousy judge, but...) >> >> Of course, you know this brings up the question: "Attractive to whom, >> and in what way?" > >That's the way I am. I can tell look at someone and say what the most >attractive man is that he looks like (Pretend that sentence made sense.), >but I have no clue what the *rules* are. I can say someone looks kinda >like a young Harrison Ford, but I don't know what's so great about him. > >For example, I have no idea why, to pick an example, Marsters is >considered good-looking. Let's be as objective as possible. 1. No facial flaws glaring enough to cancel out the "good" facial features. 2. High cheekbones, considered a desirable trait in both men and women. 3. Well shaped, expressive eyes. 4. Straight nose in good proportion to the rest of the face (i.e. neither too large nor too small). 5. Fairly full mouth, considered sensual in both men and women (though Hannigan is proof that thin lipped people are much prized, too). 6. Good physique (well-proportioned, muscular without looking like he's on steroids). Although his physique doesn't appeal to me when he's on the Calista Flockhart Diet Plan. Which thankfully, this year, he's not. > It seems to me it's his *image* as Spike more >than his actual looks...if I were going solely by looks, I'd pick season >1-4 Xander, or Riley, depending on how muscled you like your guys. (See, >look, I'm secure in my sexuality.) Blucas and Brendon are both good looking men, although I prefer Marsters' facial features. I'd say that of the three, S2-S3 era Brendon had the best physique. Blucas was a bit too much in terms of the brawniness for my taste. I've also gotta put in a good word here for Adam Busch. I'm a sucker for a nose like that on a guy who wears it with confidence. I find it sexy. He's not handsome but when he's not doing a scene where he's being a total prick, he's appealing. > > >The problem, I think, is that women are good-looking based, almost >entirely, their looks. That's why men call someone good-looking. > I gotta say I don't 100% agree. I've seen enough women with conventionally pretty facial features get ignored, and enough girls with facial features usually regarded by society as imperfect, fussed over by men, to believe that charisma and je ne sais quois has a lot to do with female appeal, too. I think women tend to be a little more flexible than men when it comes to finding plain or homely members of the opposite sex attractive, but it's not a hard and fast rule. >Whereas men are judged by various other things, like charisma, wealth, >masculinity, height, lots of other stuff. > Wealth is not a factor in judging a man's looks. Desirability as a mate, yes. For that matter, it's easier for rich girls to get dates than girls with little money. >But men don't judge people's looks by that, and so when we're asked if >another man is good-looking we just resort to 'Well, his haircut seems >okay, his face is symmetrical, he's not fat, his clothes fit...' which >isn't how women (and gay men) judge male 'beauty' at all. A good haircut, a symmetrical face and clothes that fit sure do help, David. So eventually we >just start saying 'we don't know', because no matter how we judge their >looks, we'll always hit someone that women say is 'good-looking' that is >*way* outside the rules, like Russel Crowe. > Russell Crowe is pretty conventionally good looking. He doesn't have strongly defined bone structure, though, so with hair and makeup he can be made to look plain or goofy. >So while *some* of it is being insecure in sexuality, there are a lot of >us who *aren't* insecure, but we're just always *wrong*. > You may be wrong about what is sexy to women, but you're not wrong about what you think is good looking. Rose It's not Giles

2003-02-16 10:21:58+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


> > >Well, at least he's not a rapist. > >Shawn He's as close as dammit. He colluded with Warren and Jonathan in kidnapping a girl for the purpose of rape. I don't give him points just because Warren killed her before his turn came. Rose It's not Giles

2003-02-16 10:21:58+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


> > >Well, at least he's not a rapist. > >Shawn He's as close as dammit. He colluded with Warren and Jonathan in kidnapping a girl for the purpose of rape. I don't give him points just because Warren killed her before his turn came. Rose It's not Giles

2003-02-16 10:24:19+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


>So, if you meet a guy and he seems to exude health and energy, with nice >skin and twinkly eyes, and he doesn't say have one big ear or an odd slant >to his jaw or a strangely shaped head, he would likely be deemed >attractive. > >Shawn > Marsters has an asymmetrical jawline. Sorry, but it's true...the camera tends to show his "good" side, the side where his jaw is more angular and MANly. Rose It's not Giles

2003-02-16 10:24:19+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


>So, if you meet a guy and he seems to exude health and energy, with nice >skin and twinkly eyes, and he doesn't say have one big ear or an odd slant >to his jaw or a strangely shaped head, he would likely be deemed >attractive. > >Shawn > Marsters has an asymmetrical jawline. Sorry, but it's true...the camera tends to show his "good" side, the side where his jaw is more angular and MANly. Rose It's not Giles

2003-02-16 10:27:28+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


Shawn wrote: > >Used to? Has her star faded? I don't hear fellas gush over Uma anymore. Maybe it's just the company I keep. Rose It's not Giles

2003-02-16 10:27:28+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


Shawn wrote: > >Used to? Has her star faded? I don't hear fellas gush over Uma anymore. Maybe it's just the company I keep. Rose It's not Giles

2003-02-16 10:31:36+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


>Subject: Re: andrews gay >From: Shawn Hill shill@fas.harvard.edu >Date: 2/15/2003 12:03 AM Pacific Standard Time >Message-id: <b2ks90$9nm$5@news.fas.harvard.edu> > >Rose <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote: > >:>Again, the guy is mislabeling himself. I can't help it when a duck calls >:>itself >:>a chicken. Doesn't change what a chicken is. > >: Just because you fantasize about something doesn't mean you'd actually do >it. > >: I hope. Otherwise I'm in biiiiiig trouble and not for sexual fantasies... >=:o > >That's an interesting question. Here's another version: > >What if all your desires, all your fantasies, all your emotional, private, >secret eroticism is about the same sex? But, you're married, you're able >to perform to the extent that you've had kids which you love, you've never >identified as gay, and you've never acted on these hidden passions. > >All your desires are gay. All your actions are straight (because doing >anything else would seem wrong or evil or just scary to you, what have >you). Which are you? > A repressed homosexual, I'd say. Or there's a small possiblity something else is at work. You didn't say whether the person in question enjoys sex with the wife. If so, maybe he's a bisexual who only fantasizes about the same sex because he's already GOT the girl, so he's dreaming of what he doesn't have? See, the reason I used to think of Willow as bisexual is that I got the impression she relished her sex life with Oz. Would a homosexual woman be able to relish sex with a man? Then again, maybe Willow didn't relish the sex per se, she merely enjoyed the closeness and the attention. Rose It's not Giles

2003-02-16 10:31:36+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


>Subject: Re: andrews gay >From: Shawn Hill shill@fas.harvard.edu >Date: 2/15/2003 12:03 AM Pacific Standard Time >Message-id: <b2ks90$9nm$5@news.fas.harvard.edu> > >Rose <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote: > >:>Again, the guy is mislabeling himself. I can't help it when a duck calls >:>itself >:>a chicken. Doesn't change what a chicken is. > >: Just because you fantasize about something doesn't mean you'd actually do >it. > >: I hope. Otherwise I'm in biiiiiig trouble and not for sexual fantasies... >=:o > >That's an interesting question. Here's another version: > >What if all your desires, all your fantasies, all your emotional, private, >secret eroticism is about the same sex? But, you're married, you're able >to perform to the extent that you've had kids which you love, you've never >identified as gay, and you've never acted on these hidden passions. > >All your desires are gay. All your actions are straight (because doing >anything else would seem wrong or evil or just scary to you, what have >you). Which are you? > A repressed homosexual, I'd say. Or there's a small possiblity something else is at work. You didn't say whether the person in question enjoys sex with the wife. If so, maybe he's a bisexual who only fantasizes about the same sex because he's already GOT the girl, so he's dreaming of what he doesn't have? See, the reason I used to think of Willow as bisexual is that I got the impression she relished her sex life with Oz. Would a homosexual woman be able to relish sex with a man? Then again, maybe Willow didn't relish the sex per se, she merely enjoyed the closeness and the attention. Rose It's not Giles

2003-02-16 10:35:45+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


>Subject: Re: andrews gay >From: Shawn Hill shill@fas.harvard.edu >Date: 2/15/2003 12:00 AM Pacific Standard Time >Message-id: <b2ks25$9nm$4@news.fas.harvard.edu> > >Rose <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote: > >:>:>To me, sexuality is on a spectrum. In between 100% straight and 100% gay, > >:>:>there are all these points individuals could be on. "Mostly gay" is one >:>:>of them. >:> >:>: Wouldn't it be true that whether Andrew is bi or "mostly gay" is as yet >:>: undetermined? >:> >:>Nah, and here's why. If you're a bisexual male, you might as well be gay, >:>because you've already lost the straight male privelege and uncontestable >:>butch identity that this society requires of its men. >:> > >: OK, well now you're talking about social structures. Some people include >"bi" >: within the term "gay". I think that in this discussion we're talking about >: Andrew's true orientation, not how society views him. > >Well, for me, part of what I'm basing my judgement on is his effeminancy. >He's thin. He's a scaredy cat. He's open about needing love, and being >emotionally needy. Add that to finding Cpt. Archer hot, and I see gay. > >But, it's also true, as many have said, that he's sexually unformed and >may just find all of his charismatic sci-fi heroes attractive. > >: Because the issue is whether he would be likely to fall for Dawn, or just >see >: her as a sister-friend. IOW, is Andrew a true homosexual, meaning >interested >: in the same sex only. > >Why does there have to be a "true" homosexual? > I'm a linguist at heart. "Homo" means "same". "Bi" means "two." Ergo, I think of a homosexual as someone who likes ONLY the same sex, no ifs ands or buts. But I realize you're right, there are gradations between 100% homosexual (like a particular male friend of mine who regards as icky the very *idea* of sex with women and refrains from judging the attractiveness of women the way most straight men refrain from judging the attractiveness of men) and bisexual, and between bisexual and 100% straight. Rose It's not Giles

2003-02-16 10:35:45+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


>Subject: Re: andrews gay >From: Shawn Hill shill@fas.harvard.edu >Date: 2/15/2003 12:00 AM Pacific Standard Time >Message-id: <b2ks25$9nm$4@news.fas.harvard.edu> > >Rose <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote: > >:>:>To me, sexuality is on a spectrum. In between 100% straight and 100% gay, > >:>:>there are all these points individuals could be on. "Mostly gay" is one >:>:>of them. >:> >:>: Wouldn't it be true that whether Andrew is bi or "mostly gay" is as yet >:>: undetermined? >:> >:>Nah, and here's why. If you're a bisexual male, you might as well be gay, >:>because you've already lost the straight male privelege and uncontestable >:>butch identity that this society requires of its men. >:> > >: OK, well now you're talking about social structures. Some people include >"bi" >: within the term "gay". I think that in this discussion we're talking about >: Andrew's true orientation, not how society views him. > >Well, for me, part of what I'm basing my judgement on is his effeminancy. >He's thin. He's a scaredy cat. He's open about needing love, and being >emotionally needy. Add that to finding Cpt. Archer hot, and I see gay. > >But, it's also true, as many have said, that he's sexually unformed and >may just find all of his charismatic sci-fi heroes attractive. > >: Because the issue is whether he would be likely to fall for Dawn, or just >see >: her as a sister-friend. IOW, is Andrew a true homosexual, meaning >interested >: in the same sex only. > >Why does there have to be a "true" homosexual? > I'm a linguist at heart. "Homo" means "same". "Bi" means "two." Ergo, I think of a homosexual as someone who likes ONLY the same sex, no ifs ands or buts. But I realize you're right, there are gradations between 100% homosexual (like a particular male friend of mine who regards as icky the very *idea* of sex with women and refrains from judging the attractiveness of women the way most straight men refrain from judging the attractiveness of men) and bisexual, and between bisexual and 100% straight. Rose It's not Giles

2003-02-16 10:37:42+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


Nowhere wrote: > >I throw right-handed, shoot pistols right-handed, shoot >rifles left-handed, am a left-handed >archer, Hey me too! :) I play guitar leftie too. Except I don't play guitar. But those few times I do, it's leftie. Rose It's not Giles

2003-02-16 10:37:42+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


Nowhere wrote: > >I throw right-handed, shoot pistols right-handed, shoot >rifles left-handed, am a left-handed >archer, Hey me too! :) I play guitar leftie too. Except I don't play guitar. But those few times I do, it's leftie. Rose It's not Giles

2003-02-16 12:37:52-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - ("Mathew R. Ignash" <mathewignash@comcast.net>)


On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 13:48:42 -0000, "John Briggs" wrote: > > Here's an interesting question. Boy George said of a woman he was > > involved with: "I can say I am bisexual, but obviously I have a > > preference. I liked so-and-so because she looked like a boy." Would we > > think of Boy George as bisexual who prefers men... or a homosexual who > > was willing to step outside of the box if a girl was masculine enough? > > > > He claims to be bisexual, but monogamous (which confuses people, for some > reason). Just like Willow. She's bisexual, but she dated a lesbian, so many people are confused about her thinking she must be a lesbian too. She's not of course, but she's monogamous as all get go. I mean did you see her turning down a totally hot woman in Smashed? -- Mathew Homepage - http://mathew.fcpages.com/ Angel web site - http://angel.fcpages.com/

2003-02-16 12:37:52-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - ("Mathew R. Ignash" <mathewignash@comcast.net>)


On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 13:48:42 -0000, "John Briggs" wrote: > > Here's an interesting question. Boy George said of a woman he was > > involved with: "I can say I am bisexual, but obviously I have a > > preference. I liked so-and-so because she looked like a boy." Would we > > think of Boy George as bisexual who prefers men... or a homosexual who > > was willing to step outside of the box if a girl was masculine enough? > > > > He claims to be bisexual, but monogamous (which confuses people, for some > reason). Just like Willow. She's bisexual, but she dated a lesbian, so many people are confused about her thinking she must be a lesbian too. She's not of course, but she's monogamous as all get go. I mean did you see her turning down a totally hot woman in Smashed? -- Mathew Homepage - http://mathew.fcpages.com/ Angel web site - http://angel.fcpages.com/

2003-02-16 13:41:12-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - ("Mathew R. Ignash" <mathewignash@comcast.net>)


On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 17:47:10 GMT, sillyman@famous.com wrote: > On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 09:11:36 -0500, "The Babaloughesian" > <me@privacy.net> wrote: > > > >> "Omnisexual"??? Isn't that the same as bisexual? I mean, there are > >> only two genders, so bi covers them all, no? > > > >Does it cover hermaphrodites, animals, corpses, etc.? > > I'm pretty sure most people wouldn't include animals or corpses in the > bisexual def, but sure. Animals and corpses are still either one sex > or the other. And hermaphrodites have qualities of both sexes. They > aren't a third sex, they're like a blending of the other two. > > It's amazing how tangential these discussions become. Well, Omni doesn't mean three or more, it means ANY, one the other, neither, both. I think that would include genderless things. -- Mathew Homepage - http://mathew.fcpages.com/ Angel web site - http://angel.fcpages.com/

2003-02-16 13:41:12-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - ("Mathew R. Ignash" <mathewignash@comcast.net>)


On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 17:47:10 GMT, sillyman@famous.com wrote: > On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 09:11:36 -0500, "The Babaloughesian" > <me@privacy.net> wrote: > > > >> "Omnisexual"??? Isn't that the same as bisexual? I mean, there are > >> only two genders, so bi covers them all, no? > > > >Does it cover hermaphrodites, animals, corpses, etc.? > > I'm pretty sure most people wouldn't include animals or corpses in the > bisexual def, but sure. Animals and corpses are still either one sex > or the other. And hermaphrodites have qualities of both sexes. They > aren't a third sex, they're like a blending of the other two. > > It's amazing how tangential these discussions become. Well, Omni doesn't mean three or more, it means ANY, one the other, neither, both. I think that would include genderless things. -- Mathew Homepage - http://mathew.fcpages.com/ Angel web site - http://angel.fcpages.com/

2003-02-16 13:48:42+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (John Briggs <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com>)


Rose wrote: > Mathew wrote: > >> A word definition >> needs more to it then simply pointing to >itself. > > I agree. > >> So what is at the core of >> the >> meaning of bisexual? Being attracted to people of both genders would >> seem to be >> a good start to me. > > I'd say a bisexual is someone who is attracted enough to both sexes to be > willing to have sex, and is capable of enjoying sex, with someone of > either gender. I think attraction to both sexes is perhaps indicative of > "leanings", i.e. a "potential" for being bisexual, but I wouldn't say > that mere attraction goes far enough to say someone IS bisexual in the > way that most people use the word. What a person thinks about and what > they would actually enjoy doing are two different things. I mean, if we > were all inclined to DO what we sometimes think we might like to do or > sometimes fantasize about, then this would be a bajillion times more > violent world than it is.... > > I mean, if a self-described homosexual man only refrains from having sex > with all three of the hot female babes in his apartment building becuase > he's in a monogamous relationship with a man, I'd consider him a > bisexual no matter what he calls himself. If this man, however, is > somewhat attracted to the hot female babes but only ever follows through > on his sexual urges with men, I'd say he's homosexual but maybe with some > bi leanings, or maybe he just likes to have some variety in his fantasty > life. > > Here's an interesting question. Boy George said of a woman he was > involved with: "I can say I am bisexual, but obviously I have a > preference. I liked so-and-so because she looked like a boy." Would we > think of Boy George as bisexual who prefers men... or a homosexual who > was willing to step outside of the box if a girl was masculine enough? > He claims to be bisexual, but monogamous (which confuses people, for some reason). John Briggs

2003-02-16 13:48:42+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (John Briggs <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com>)


Rose wrote: > Mathew wrote: > >> A word definition >> needs more to it then simply pointing to >itself. > > I agree. > >> So what is at the core of >> the >> meaning of bisexual? Being attracted to people of both genders would >> seem to be >> a good start to me. > > I'd say a bisexual is someone who is attracted enough to both sexes to be > willing to have sex, and is capable of enjoying sex, with someone of > either gender. I think attraction to both sexes is perhaps indicative of > "leanings", i.e. a "potential" for being bisexual, but I wouldn't say > that mere attraction goes far enough to say someone IS bisexual in the > way that most people use the word. What a person thinks about and what > they would actually enjoy doing are two different things. I mean, if we > were all inclined to DO what we sometimes think we might like to do or > sometimes fantasize about, then this would be a bajillion times more > violent world than it is.... > > I mean, if a self-described homosexual man only refrains from having sex > with all three of the hot female babes in his apartment building becuase > he's in a monogamous relationship with a man, I'd consider him a > bisexual no matter what he calls himself. If this man, however, is > somewhat attracted to the hot female babes but only ever follows through > on his sexual urges with men, I'd say he's homosexual but maybe with some > bi leanings, or maybe he just likes to have some variety in his fantasty > life. > > Here's an interesting question. Boy George said of a woman he was > involved with: "I can say I am bisexual, but obviously I have a > preference. I liked so-and-so because she looked like a boy." Would we > think of Boy George as bisexual who prefers men... or a homosexual who > was willing to step outside of the box if a girl was masculine enough? > He claims to be bisexual, but monogamous (which confuses people, for some reason). John Briggs

2003-02-16 14:03:04+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (John Briggs <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com>)


Rose wrote: > Nowhere wrote: > >> >> I throw right-handed, shoot pistols right-handed, shoot >> rifles left-handed, am a left-handed >archer, > > Hey me too! :) I play guitar leftie too. Except I don't play guitar. > But those few times I do, it's leftie. > Ah, but do you play a left-handed guitar or a right-handed guitar upside down? Jimi Hendrix played a right-handed Fender Stratocaster upside down, but it was strung left-handed. The Chicago blues guitarist Otis Rush can afford a left-handed Stratocaster, but if you look closely it is strung right-handed. He obviously started off playing a right-handed guitar upside down. As did Bob Geldof. I'm not sure about Paul McCartney - but he certainly played a left-handed bass. John Briggs

2003-02-16 14:03:04+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (John Briggs <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com>)


Rose wrote: > Nowhere wrote: > >> >> I throw right-handed, shoot pistols right-handed, shoot >> rifles left-handed, am a left-handed >archer, > > Hey me too! :) I play guitar leftie too. Except I don't play guitar. > But those few times I do, it's leftie. > Ah, but do you play a left-handed guitar or a right-handed guitar upside down? Jimi Hendrix played a right-handed Fender Stratocaster upside down, but it was strung left-handed. The Chicago blues guitarist Otis Rush can afford a left-handed Stratocaster, but if you look closely it is strung right-handed. He obviously started off playing a right-handed guitar upside down. As did Bob Geldof. I'm not sure about Paul McCartney - but he certainly played a left-handed bass. John Briggs

2003-02-16 14:08:49+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (John Briggs <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com>)


Rose wrote: >> Subject: Re: andrews gay >> From: Shawn Hill shill@fas.harvard.edu >> Date: 2/15/2003 12:00 AM Pacific Standard Time >> Message-id: <b2ks25$9nm$4@news.fas.harvard.edu> >> >> Rose <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote: >> >>>>>> To me, sexuality is on a spectrum. In between 100% straight and 100% >>>>>> gay, >> >>>>>> there are all these points individuals could be on. "Mostly gay" is >>>>>> one of them. >>>> >>>>> Wouldn't it be true that whether Andrew is bi or "mostly gay" is as >>>>> yet undetermined? >>>> >>>> Nah, and here's why. If you're a bisexual male, you might as well be >>>> gay, because you've already lost the straight male privelege and >>>> uncontestable butch identity that this society requires of its men. >>>> >> >>> OK, well now you're talking about social structures. Some people >>> include "bi" within the term "gay". I think that in this discussion >>> we're talking about Andrew's true orientation, not how society views >>> him. >> >> Well, for me, part of what I'm basing my judgement on is his effeminancy. >> He's thin. He's a scaredy cat. He's open about needing love, and being >> emotionally needy. Add that to finding Cpt. Archer hot, and I see gay. >> >> But, it's also true, as many have said, that he's sexually unformed and >> may just find all of his charismatic sci-fi heroes attractive. >> >>> Because the issue is whether he would be likely to fall for Dawn, or >>> just see her as a sister-friend. IOW, is Andrew a true homosexual, >>> meaning interested in the same sex only. >> >> Why does there have to be a "true" homosexual? >> > > I'm a linguist at heart. "Homo" means "same". "Bi" means "two." Ergo, I > think of a homosexual as someone who likes ONLY the same sex, no ifs ands > or buts. But I realize you're right, there are gradations between 100% > homosexual (like a particular male friend of mine who regards as icky the > very *idea* of sex with women and refrains from judging the > attractiveness of women the way most straight men refrain from judging > the attractiveness of men) and bisexual, and between bisexual and 100% > straight. > Well, as a linguist what do you think of the mixture of Greek and Latin elements? Like "television", I suppose. One of the earliest recorded uses is Oscar Wilde saying he hadn't invented the word! No, not "television", the other one... John Briggs

2003-02-16 14:08:49+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (John Briggs <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com>)


Rose wrote: >> Subject: Re: andrews gay >> From: Shawn Hill shill@fas.harvard.edu >> Date: 2/15/2003 12:00 AM Pacific Standard Time >> Message-id: <b2ks25$9nm$4@news.fas.harvard.edu> >> >> Rose <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote: >> >>>>>> To me, sexuality is on a spectrum. In between 100% straight and 100% >>>>>> gay, >> >>>>>> there are all these points individuals could be on. "Mostly gay" is >>>>>> one of them. >>>> >>>>> Wouldn't it be true that whether Andrew is bi or "mostly gay" is as >>>>> yet undetermined? >>>> >>>> Nah, and here's why. If you're a bisexual male, you might as well be >>>> gay, because you've already lost the straight male privelege and >>>> uncontestable butch identity that this society requires of its men. >>>> >> >>> OK, well now you're talking about social structures. Some people >>> include "bi" within the term "gay". I think that in this discussion >>> we're talking about Andrew's true orientation, not how society views >>> him. >> >> Well, for me, part of what I'm basing my judgement on is his effeminancy. >> He's thin. He's a scaredy cat. He's open about needing love, and being >> emotionally needy. Add that to finding Cpt. Archer hot, and I see gay. >> >> But, it's also true, as many have said, that he's sexually unformed and >> may just find all of his charismatic sci-fi heroes attractive. >> >>> Because the issue is whether he would be likely to fall for Dawn, or >>> just see her as a sister-friend. IOW, is Andrew a true homosexual, >>> meaning interested in the same sex only. >> >> Why does there have to be a "true" homosexual? >> > > I'm a linguist at heart. "Homo" means "same". "Bi" means "two." Ergo, I > think of a homosexual as someone who likes ONLY the same sex, no ifs ands > or buts. But I realize you're right, there are gradations between 100% > homosexual (like a particular male friend of mine who regards as icky the > very *idea* of sex with women and refrains from judging the > attractiveness of women the way most straight men refrain from judging > the attractiveness of men) and bisexual, and between bisexual and 100% > straight. > Well, as a linguist what do you think of the mixture of Greek and Latin elements? Like "television", I suppose. One of the earliest recorded uses is Oscar Wilde saying he hadn't invented the word! No, not "television", the other one... John Briggs

2003-02-16 17:47:10+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (sillyman@famous.com)


On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 09:11:36 -0500, "The Babaloughesian" <me@privacy.net> wrote: >> "Omnisexual"??? Isn't that the same as bisexual? I mean, there are >> only two genders, so bi covers them all, no? > >Does it cover hermaphrodites, animals, corpses, etc.? I'm pretty sure most people wouldn't include animals or corpses in the bisexual def, but sure. Animals and corpses are still either one sex or the other. And hermaphrodites have qualities of both sexes. They aren't a third sex, they're like a blending of the other two. It's amazing how tangential these discussions become.

2003-02-16 17:47:10+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (sillyman@famous.com)


On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 09:11:36 -0500, "The Babaloughesian" <me@privacy.net> wrote: >> "Omnisexual"??? Isn't that the same as bisexual? I mean, there are >> only two genders, so bi covers them all, no? > >Does it cover hermaphrodites, animals, corpses, etc.? I'm pretty sure most people wouldn't include animals or corpses in the bisexual def, but sure. Animals and corpses are still either one sex or the other. And hermaphrodites have qualities of both sexes. They aren't a third sex, they're like a blending of the other two. It's amazing how tangential these discussions become.

2003-02-16 18:09:41-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - (Tom Breton <tehom@REMOVEpanNOSPAMix.com>)


fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) writes: > Here's an interesting question. Boy George said of a woman he was involved > with: "I can say I am bisexual, but obviously I have a preference. I liked > so-and-so because she looked like a boy." Would we think of Boy George as > bisexual who prefers men... or a homosexual who was willing to step outside of > the box if a girl was masculine enough? First, I'm not sure I'm reading the same contrast you're trying to make. In particular, "willing to step outside of the box" doesn't say anything descriptive to me; it seems like rhetoric one would hear in academia. But if the contrast is between "bi" and "gay", definitely "bi". Straight guys will not "step outside the box" just as long as a man is effeminate enough. If that were the case, straight guys would go for (identifiable) drag queens, but in fact it's quite the opposite. It doesn't matter that the qualities Boy George likes in a girl are masculine or that he thinks them to be. I myself appreciate certain qualities one might call masculine, but I am by no means gay. For instance (ObBuffy) when SMG came out against Feminism, I felt that was not only ideologically nice, but also attractive (Despite her harsh picture accompanying the article, but that's another topic). Her subsequent dithering not-quite-retraction was not. Around S2 when she gained some notoriety for non-stop work (IKWYDLS, BTVS, Scream 2), that was attractive too. Her slobbering over Hillary Clinton was not. So does that answer your question? -- Tom Breton at panix.com, username tehom. http://www.panix.com/~tehom

2003-02-16 18:09:41-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - (Tom Breton <tehom@REMOVEpanNOSPAMix.com>)


fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) writes: > Here's an interesting question. Boy George said of a woman he was involved > with: "I can say I am bisexual, but obviously I have a preference. I liked > so-and-so because she looked like a boy." Would we think of Boy George as > bisexual who prefers men... or a homosexual who was willing to step outside of > the box if a girl was masculine enough? First, I'm not sure I'm reading the same contrast you're trying to make. In particular, "willing to step outside of the box" doesn't say anything descriptive to me; it seems like rhetoric one would hear in academia. But if the contrast is between "bi" and "gay", definitely "bi". Straight guys will not "step outside the box" just as long as a man is effeminate enough. If that were the case, straight guys would go for (identifiable) drag queens, but in fact it's quite the opposite. It doesn't matter that the qualities Boy George likes in a girl are masculine or that he thinks them to be. I myself appreciate certain qualities one might call masculine, but I am by no means gay. For instance (ObBuffy) when SMG came out against Feminism, I felt that was not only ideologically nice, but also attractive (Despite her harsh picture accompanying the article, but that's another topic). Her subsequent dithering not-quite-retraction was not. Around S2 when she gained some notoriety for non-stop work (IKWYDLS, BTVS, Scream 2), that was attractive too. Her slobbering over Hillary Clinton was not. So does that answer your question? -- Tom Breton at panix.com, username tehom. http://www.panix.com/~tehom

2003-02-16 18:22:07-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - (Tom Breton <tehom@REMOVEpanNOSPAMix.com>)


fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) writes: > >Subject: Re: andrews gay > >From: "David Cheatham" david@creeknet.com > >Date: 2/15/2003 10:34 AM Pacific Standard Time > >Message-id: <pan.2003.02.15.18.34.07.140829@creeknet.com> > > > > > >The problem, I think, is that women are good-looking based, almost > >entirely, their looks. That's why men call someone good-looking. > > > > I gotta say I don't 100% agree. I've seen enough women with conventionally > pretty facial features get ignored, and enough girls with facial features > usually regarded by society as imperfect, fussed over by men, to believe that > charisma and je ne sais quois has a lot to do with female appeal, > too. And you are absolutely right. > >Whereas men are judged by various other things, like charisma, wealth, > >masculinity, height, lots of other stuff. > > > > Wealth is not a factor in judging a man's looks. Sure it is. _Joe Millionaire_. OK, the guy was rumoredly a model, but judging by the other unlikely things the women praised about him just because he was rich, I expect they'd have called him handsome if he were half a notch above Scarface. > Desirability as a mate, yes. Yup, _Joe Millionaire_ squared. Everyone - man, women, Fox, viewers - knows it will make an enormous difference. > For that matter, it's easier for rich girls to get dates than girls > with little > money. Doesn't seem that way to me. -- Tom Breton at panix.com, username tehom. http://www.panix.com/~tehom

2003-02-16 18:22:07-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - (Tom Breton <tehom@REMOVEpanNOSPAMix.com>)


fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) writes: > >Subject: Re: andrews gay > >From: "David Cheatham" david@creeknet.com > >Date: 2/15/2003 10:34 AM Pacific Standard Time > >Message-id: <pan.2003.02.15.18.34.07.140829@creeknet.com> > > > > > >The problem, I think, is that women are good-looking based, almost > >entirely, their looks. That's why men call someone good-looking. > > > > I gotta say I don't 100% agree. I've seen enough women with conventionally > pretty facial features get ignored, and enough girls with facial features > usually regarded by society as imperfect, fussed over by men, to believe that > charisma and je ne sais quois has a lot to do with female appeal, > too. And you are absolutely right. > >Whereas men are judged by various other things, like charisma, wealth, > >masculinity, height, lots of other stuff. > > > > Wealth is not a factor in judging a man's looks. Sure it is. _Joe Millionaire_. OK, the guy was rumoredly a model, but judging by the other unlikely things the women praised about him just because he was rich, I expect they'd have called him handsome if he were half a notch above Scarface. > Desirability as a mate, yes. Yup, _Joe Millionaire_ squared. Everyone - man, women, Fox, viewers - knows it will make an enormous difference. > For that matter, it's easier for rich girls to get dates than girls > with little > money. Doesn't seem that way to me. -- Tom Breton at panix.com, username tehom. http://www.panix.com/~tehom

2003-02-16 19:20:47-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - (David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com>)


On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 06:11:55 +0000, Shawn Hill wrote: > David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com> wrote: > > :> Is it? Nothing to do with her clothes, her taste, her posture, whether > :> she has cute little glasses, whether she looks tacky or authentic, > :> whether she looks sophisticated or is a hick, whether she seems hard or > :> vulnerable? > > : Those *are* looks. Looks are what you see looking at someone. > > So you'd notice details of clothing, attire, including things like class > and taste, on a woman but not on a man? Broad details are noticed, sure. I'll notice a guy is wearing a suit if no one else is, or a guy wearing a tee-shirt when everyone else is wearing suits. If all men are wearing roughly the same thing, no, not really. > :> Don't they? Not even in the locker room? Not even on the basketball > :> court? Not even to the point of: I wish I had that suit? I wish I > :> looked like that? Damn, I need to get to a gym, look at how fit that > :> guy is? > > : I have never said to myself 'I wish I had that suit.', and the only time > : I notice how fit a guy is is when he's doing something that requires > : fitness. Although I will notice very obviously unfit people. > > : And I'm not sure what you mean by 'in the locker room'. No, men aren't > : more likely to notice other men there. (They're slightly more likely to > : notice women there, though. ;) ) > > In the locker room, where you're naked, you see more. Men aren't literally > invisible to each other, are they? I have no idea, I haven't been in a locker room in almost ten years. But, no, back in high school gym, I never noticed who was buff, or, at least, didn't pay any attention. In fact, now that I'm thinking about it, the only reason I even consider some guys 'athletic' is that they were on track. I have no idea how buff (I keep typing Buffy there.) they actually were. > :> This is a scary way to view the world. Are women automatically > :> unthreatening? Even the drunk one careening towards you who obviously > :> hasn't bathed for several days? > > : And if it's a woman of the right age range, they get 'attractive' or > : 'unattractive', and perhaps more attention. > > Yeah, I can see that. > > :> Similarity is good, that's why it's an acceptable answer. And she > :> presumably knows how she feels about Joey, from Friends, already, so > :> she can be taken in by your desperate conversational gambit. Very > :> smooth move. > > : Plus, if you have no idea what the question is about, you can always > : just make up some random guy, like 'He looks like that guy from that > : movie about the giant rabbits.'. > > Wow. Clever. Keep the conversation going, but leave gaps for her to fill > in. Hmmmmmm. Oh, I'm smooth once I get started. It's starting the converstations that's the problem. > :> : And it's the same problem when asked about friends. We've never even > :> : considered how good-looking they are, we don't even think about how > :> : they look. > :> > :> I just think that's a little unlikely. Surely you've noticed if they're > :> healthy, well-groomed, have good hygeine, etc. > > : It's more the other way around. I notice if they are noticably not > : healthy, badly groomed, or poor hygeine. > > So, as long as they're not excessively pungent, dirty, scuffed or ragged, > they're simply not accorded any attention? Right. Unless they're holding an ax or someone I know. > : But that's akin to saying you can comment on the surface of a random > : road you've driven on because you would notice potholes. The fact you > : would notice extreme negative qualities doesn't mean you've ever noticed > : positive ones. > > But is there really an environment you've been in, or driven through, you > haven't rated somewhere on the scale from nice to awful? What, specific parts of the road? No, not really. I mean, I know what's *there*, but I don't even consider if it's good or bad unless it's an obvious place, like that speed trap I got caught in once. > : But I'm serious. It's expecting men and women to be identical in all > : social and interpersonal aspects, and they *aren't*. I don't consider > : other men's attractiveness until I'm explictedly asked about it, and > : it's not cause I'm homophobic or insecure or anything, it's much the > : same reason I couldn't tell you the brand of piano that my mother has > : owned since before I was born, and if you asked me I'd have to drive to > : her house and look. > > I'm getting what you're saying, I think. But it's sort of amounting not to > an inability to discern male beauty, but a disinterest in doing so. I > don't expect all men or all women (even just sticking to the straight > ones) to be in the same place on that skill/interest, however. Oh, I'm sure it's a disinterest, not inability. It's rather like women keep handing men an accordian and asking them to play it, and men have no interest in learning to play the accordian, and never try, while all women are accomplished accordian players. (That sentence ended up in a different place than it started.) > :> I don't think it's brain function, though. I think it's training. > > : Well, that's always a big debate, but it's not really important. Men > : simply do not automatically do that. Men who are sexual attracted to > : other men may do it, I don't know, but all that proves is that it's 'men > : do not judge the attractiveness of genders they are not attracted to'. > > But then there's the other argument, of how visual men are. If, as you > say, women seem to evaluate a whole bunch of qualities when determining a > man's appeal, while men focus primarily on how a woman looks ..... that > leads me to conclude that men place a lot of stress on surface appearance, > and consider that when presenting themselves to the world and when going > for bright, shiny cars, etc. I'll go with that. > If they've got that much skill in assessing how women look, how is it they > have none at all when seeing a man? So little that they can't even tell if > he's good looking? The problem, like I said, is two-fold...one that men, if they had a concept of 'an attractive man', they could easily figure out if another man was attractive...but they don't. Male attractiveness is judged differently. The second is that men don't even judge them at all automatically. 'Do you think that guy is good looking?' (Huh? What guy? That guy over there?) > : I've always considered asking random women to mentally undress other > : women and see what happens. Hey, guys do it more or less automatically, > : I don't see why women should have difficulties with it. ;) > > I think women do it more or less automatically, too, though more along the > lines of "I'm sure her boobs are fake" or "I bet her butt is really firm > under that tight skirt." > > I also think they'd have an easier time copping to the practice than > straight men noticing the appeal of other men. It's really not a problem copping to it....I mean, I'll tell you if a guy is attractive or not, I just need a few minutes to think about it. -- David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com> NOYFB, P

2003-02-16 19:20:47-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - (David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com>)


On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 06:11:55 +0000, Shawn Hill wrote: > David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com> wrote: > > :> Is it? Nothing to do with her clothes, her taste, her posture, whether > :> she has cute little glasses, whether she looks tacky or authentic, > :> whether she looks sophisticated or is a hick, whether she seems hard or > :> vulnerable? > > : Those *are* looks. Looks are what you see looking at someone. > > So you'd notice details of clothing, attire, including things like class > and taste, on a woman but not on a man? Broad details are noticed, sure. I'll notice a guy is wearing a suit if no one else is, or a guy wearing a tee-shirt when everyone else is wearing suits. If all men are wearing roughly the same thing, no, not really. > :> Don't they? Not even in the locker room? Not even on the basketball > :> court? Not even to the point of: I wish I had that suit? I wish I > :> looked like that? Damn, I need to get to a gym, look at how fit that > :> guy is? > > : I have never said to myself 'I wish I had that suit.', and the only time > : I notice how fit a guy is is when he's doing something that requires > : fitness. Although I will notice very obviously unfit people. > > : And I'm not sure what you mean by 'in the locker room'. No, men aren't > : more likely to notice other men there. (They're slightly more likely to > : notice women there, though. ;) ) > > In the locker room, where you're naked, you see more. Men aren't literally > invisible to each other, are they? I have no idea, I haven't been in a locker room in almost ten years. But, no, back in high school gym, I never noticed who was buff, or, at least, didn't pay any attention. In fact, now that I'm thinking about it, the only reason I even consider some guys 'athletic' is that they were on track. I have no idea how buff (I keep typing Buffy there.) they actually were. > :> This is a scary way to view the world. Are women automatically > :> unthreatening? Even the drunk one careening towards you who obviously > :> hasn't bathed for several days? > > : And if it's a woman of the right age range, they get 'attractive' or > : 'unattractive', and perhaps more attention. > > Yeah, I can see that. > > :> Similarity is good, that's why it's an acceptable answer. And she > :> presumably knows how she feels about Joey, from Friends, already, so > :> she can be taken in by your desperate conversational gambit. Very > :> smooth move. > > : Plus, if you have no idea what the question is about, you can always > : just make up some random guy, like 'He looks like that guy from that > : movie about the giant rabbits.'. > > Wow. Clever. Keep the conversation going, but leave gaps for her to fill > in. Hmmmmmm. Oh, I'm smooth once I get started. It's starting the converstations that's the problem. > :> : And it's the same problem when asked about friends. We've never even > :> : considered how good-looking they are, we don't even think about how > :> : they look. > :> > :> I just think that's a little unlikely. Surely you've noticed if they're > :> healthy, well-groomed, have good hygeine, etc. > > : It's more the other way around. I notice if they are noticably not > : healthy, badly groomed, or poor hygeine. > > So, as long as they're not excessively pungent, dirty, scuffed or ragged, > they're simply not accorded any attention? Right. Unless they're holding an ax or someone I know. > : But that's akin to saying you can comment on the surface of a random > : road you've driven on because you would notice potholes. The fact you > : would notice extreme negative qualities doesn't mean you've ever noticed > : positive ones. > > But is there really an environment you've been in, or driven through, you > haven't rated somewhere on the scale from nice to awful? What, specific parts of the road? No, not really. I mean, I know what's *there*, but I don't even consider if it's good or bad unless it's an obvious place, like that speed trap I got caught in once. > : But I'm serious. It's expecting men and women to be identical in all > : social and interpersonal aspects, and they *aren't*. I don't consider > : other men's attractiveness until I'm explictedly asked about it, and > : it's not cause I'm homophobic or insecure or anything, it's much the > : same reason I couldn't tell you the brand of piano that my mother has > : owned since before I was born, and if you asked me I'd have to drive to > : her house and look. > > I'm getting what you're saying, I think. But it's sort of amounting not to > an inability to discern male beauty, but a disinterest in doing so. I > don't expect all men or all women (even just sticking to the straight > ones) to be in the same place on that skill/interest, however. Oh, I'm sure it's a disinterest, not inability. It's rather like women keep handing men an accordian and asking them to play it, and men have no interest in learning to play the accordian, and never try, while all women are accomplished accordian players. (That sentence ended up in a different place than it started.) > :> I don't think it's brain function, though. I think it's training. > > : Well, that's always a big debate, but it's not really important. Men > : simply do not automatically do that. Men who are sexual attracted to > : other men may do it, I don't know, but all that proves is that it's 'men > : do not judge the attractiveness of genders they are not attracted to'. > > But then there's the other argument, of how visual men are. If, as you > say, women seem to evaluate a whole bunch of qualities when determining a > man's appeal, while men focus primarily on how a woman looks ..... that > leads me to conclude that men place a lot of stress on surface appearance, > and consider that when presenting themselves to the world and when going > for bright, shiny cars, etc. I'll go with that. > If they've got that much skill in assessing how women look, how is it they > have none at all when seeing a man? So little that they can't even tell if > he's good looking? The problem, like I said, is two-fold...one that men, if they had a concept of 'an attractive man', they could easily figure out if another man was attractive...but they don't. Male attractiveness is judged differently. The second is that men don't even judge them at all automatically. 'Do you think that guy is good looking?' (Huh? What guy? That guy over there?) > : I've always considered asking random women to mentally undress other > : women and see what happens. Hey, guys do it more or less automatically, > : I don't see why women should have difficulties with it. ;) > > I think women do it more or less automatically, too, though more along the > lines of "I'm sure her boobs are fake" or "I bet her butt is really firm > under that tight skirt." > > I also think they'd have an easier time copping to the practice than > straight men noticing the appeal of other men. It's really not a problem copping to it....I mean, I'll tell you if a guy is attractive or not, I just need a few minutes to think about it. -- David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com> NOYFB, P

2003-02-16 19:34:16-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - (David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com>)


On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 10:18:50 +0000, Rose wrote: >>From: "David Cheatham" david@creeknet.com Date: 2/15/2003 10:34 AM >>So while *some* of it is being insecure in sexuality, there are a lot of >>us who *aren't* insecure, but we're just always *wrong*. >> >> > You may be wrong about what is sexy to women, but you're not wrong about > what you think is good looking. Well, there's part of the problem right there. I don't really think any guys are good looking. They have icky facial hair, and their faces are too blocky, and their shoulders are too broad, and their legs are hairy... If I picked out the best looking man by *my* standards, it would be the most feminine one. Whch obviously isn't what's intended. It's supposed to be against the standard of beauty that society has set for men, not against my personal standard of beauty which only applies to women. And before anyone suggests it, no, I can't use the 'would I like to look like that guy?' test. I'd like to look exactly like me minus a few flaws, not some other random person. -- David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com> NOYFB, P

2003-02-16 19:34:16-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - (David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com>)


On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 10:18:50 +0000, Rose wrote: >>From: "David Cheatham" david@creeknet.com Date: 2/15/2003 10:34 AM >>So while *some* of it is being insecure in sexuality, there are a lot of >>us who *aren't* insecure, but we're just always *wrong*. >> >> > You may be wrong about what is sexy to women, but you're not wrong about > what you think is good looking. Well, there's part of the problem right there. I don't really think any guys are good looking. They have icky facial hair, and their faces are too blocky, and their shoulders are too broad, and their legs are hairy... If I picked out the best looking man by *my* standards, it would be the most feminine one. Whch obviously isn't what's intended. It's supposed to be against the standard of beauty that society has set for men, not against my personal standard of beauty which only applies to women. And before anyone suggests it, no, I can't use the 'would I like to look like that guy?' test. I'd like to look exactly like me minus a few flaws, not some other random person. -- David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com> NOYFB, P

2003-02-16 19:44:39-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - (David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com>)


On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 06:12:36 -0800, Renee wrote: >> The problem, I think, is that women are good-looking based, almost >> entirely, their looks. That's why men call someone good-looking. >> >> Whereas men are judged by various other things, like charisma, wealth, >> masculinity, height, lots of other stuff. >> >> > This makes sense in an evolutionary way. A man can go around > impregnating many women at once, whereas a woman can only have one > pregnancy at a time. She has to make sure the father's genes are good, > plus find a man that can provide for her and increase her chances that > the offspring will survive. So, women will be attracted to other > qualities besides looks, where men may not be. Of course, it's more > complex then that. Since some men will want to make sure their offspring > survives by choosing a woman that will guarentee that can provide for > her offspring, though most of this is from looks (has enough fat for > pregnancy and breastfeeding, thus the attraction to big breasts and > curvy hips). There is also the theory that women will find a mate to > take care of her offspring, but secretly mate with another male. So > women are attracted to looks, too. Oh, yes, it's certainly something to do with evolution, or at least history. (It could have just been taught for a *really* long time, though, and not be genetic.) Men simply pick someone to have sex with that have body that can handle childbirth. (Of course, this has gotten rather skewed over the years. Has anyone ever heard the theory that breasts evolved from butts? That is, man is one of the only animals that has sex front to front, and while other primates are attracted to big rears, human females started growing larger breasts to attract men from the front. Interesting theory, eh?) Whereas women are looking for someone to support them and their child, not to have sex with. If anyone doubts this, consider the interesting effect putting on a tuxedo has. Why exactly is that sexy? Because it's expensive, that's about the only reason. Humanity has a lot of interesting societal effects that can be traced back a really long time, that people don't even realize is there. Nowdays, women can support themselves, and there are laws to protect them, and men's purpose in life is not to impregant as many women as possible, but the effects are still there. -- David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com> NOYFB, P

2003-02-16 19:44:39-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - (David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com>)


On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 06:12:36 -0800, Renee wrote: >> The problem, I think, is that women are good-looking based, almost >> entirely, their looks. That's why men call someone good-looking. >> >> Whereas men are judged by various other things, like charisma, wealth, >> masculinity, height, lots of other stuff. >> >> > This makes sense in an evolutionary way. A man can go around > impregnating many women at once, whereas a woman can only have one > pregnancy at a time. She has to make sure the father's genes are good, > plus find a man that can provide for her and increase her chances that > the offspring will survive. So, women will be attracted to other > qualities besides looks, where men may not be. Of course, it's more > complex then that. Since some men will want to make sure their offspring > survives by choosing a woman that will guarentee that can provide for > her offspring, though most of this is from looks (has enough fat for > pregnancy and breastfeeding, thus the attraction to big breasts and > curvy hips). There is also the theory that women will find a mate to > take care of her offspring, but secretly mate with another male. So > women are attracted to looks, too. Oh, yes, it's certainly something to do with evolution, or at least history. (It could have just been taught for a *really* long time, though, and not be genetic.) Men simply pick someone to have sex with that have body that can handle childbirth. (Of course, this has gotten rather skewed over the years. Has anyone ever heard the theory that breasts evolved from butts? That is, man is one of the only animals that has sex front to front, and while other primates are attracted to big rears, human females started growing larger breasts to attract men from the front. Interesting theory, eh?) Whereas women are looking for someone to support them and their child, not to have sex with. If anyone doubts this, consider the interesting effect putting on a tuxedo has. Why exactly is that sexy? Because it's expensive, that's about the only reason. Humanity has a lot of interesting societal effects that can be traced back a really long time, that people don't even realize is there. Nowdays, women can support themselves, and there are laws to protect them, and men's purpose in life is not to impregant as many women as possible, but the effects are still there. -- David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com> NOYFB, P

2003-02-16 19:45:20+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (sillyman@famous.com)


On 16 Feb 2003 13:41:12 -0500, "Mathew R. Ignash" <mathewignash@comcast.net> wrote: > >Well, Omni doesn't mean three or more, it means ANY, one the other, neither, >both. I think that would include genderless things. Well, actually, omni means all. As in omnipotent, or omniscient. Genderless things don't have a sex, almost by definition (gender being a function of grammar, not anatomy). Since there are only two sexes, omnisexual and bisexual would have the same meaning. Omnisexual then would not be any clearer or more precise than bisexual. Go ahead and use it if you like, but I think you'll be more easily understood using the standard form.

2003-02-16 19:45:20+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (sillyman@famous.com)


On 16 Feb 2003 13:41:12 -0500, "Mathew R. Ignash" <mathewignash@comcast.net> wrote: > >Well, Omni doesn't mean three or more, it means ANY, one the other, neither, >both. I think that would include genderless things. Well, actually, omni means all. As in omnipotent, or omniscient. Genderless things don't have a sex, almost by definition (gender being a function of grammar, not anatomy). Since there are only two sexes, omnisexual and bisexual would have the same meaning. Omnisexual then would not be any clearer or more precise than bisexual. Go ahead and use it if you like, but I think you'll be more easily understood using the standard form.

2003-02-16 19:53:05-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - (David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com>)


On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 17:47:10 +0000, sillyma wrote: > On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 09:11:36 -0500, "The Babaloughesian" <me@privacy.net> > wrote: > > >>> "Omnisexual"??? Isn't that the same as bisexual? I mean, there are only >>> two genders, so bi covers them all, no? >> >>Does it cover hermaphrodites, animals, corpses, etc.? > > I'm pretty sure most people wouldn't include animals or corpses in the > bisexual def, but sure. Animals and corpses are still either one sex or > the other. And hermaphrodites have qualities of both sexes. They aren't a > third sex, they're like a blending of the other two. > > It's amazing how tangential these discussions become. This isn't tangential at all. Did you just get to Usenet or something? ;) I'm waiting for us to start talking about the orgin of homosexuality or homosexuality in Ancient Rome, then transitition into the portryal of homosexuality in Firefly and how much there was in the actual wild west. Then we'll start talking about digital watches for no apparent reason. -- David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com> NOYFB, P

2003-02-16 19:53:05-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - (David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com>)


On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 17:47:10 +0000, sillyma wrote: > On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 09:11:36 -0500, "The Babaloughesian" <me@privacy.net> > wrote: > > >>> "Omnisexual"??? Isn't that the same as bisexual? I mean, there are only >>> two genders, so bi covers them all, no? >> >>Does it cover hermaphrodites, animals, corpses, etc.? > > I'm pretty sure most people wouldn't include animals or corpses in the > bisexual def, but sure. Animals and corpses are still either one sex or > the other. And hermaphrodites have qualities of both sexes. They aren't a > third sex, they're like a blending of the other two. > > It's amazing how tangential these discussions become. This isn't tangential at all. Did you just get to Usenet or something? ;) I'm waiting for us to start talking about the orgin of homosexuality or homosexuality in Ancient Rome, then transitition into the portryal of homosexuality in Firefly and how much there was in the actual wild west. Then we'll start talking about digital watches for no apparent reason. -- David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com> NOYFB, P

2003-02-16 20:29:42-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - (David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com>)


On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 19:45:20 +0000, sillyma wrote: > On 16 Feb 2003 13:41:12 -0500, "Mathew R. Ignash" > <mathewignash@comcast.net> wrote: > > > >>Well, Omni doesn't mean three or more, it means ANY, one the other, >>neither, both. I think that would include genderless things. > > Well, actually, omni means all. As in omnipotent, or omniscient. > Genderless things don't have a sex, almost by definition (gender being a > function of grammar, not anatomy). Since there are only two sexes, > omnisexual and bisexual would have the same meaning. Omnisexual then > would not be any clearer or more precise than bisexual. Go ahead and use > it if you like, but I think you'll be more easily understood using the > standard form. Okay, let's get some rules here. Your sex is what you physically are. (Hence 'transexuals' are crossing between two sexes.) Your gender is what you mentally are, or where you fit in society. You can be physically male yet a female in gender. Many other societies in history recognize people who differ in sex and gender...there are examples of women who were treated in every aspect as male, even to the point of marrying women. Various Native American societies did this. They were not 'lesbians', they were 'men who lack a penis'. (I don't know how they became this way, but I suspect it was something to do with physical abilities.) I don't know at what level this was happening...men were assumed to have sex with their wives and have children, that was presumable the whole point, did society just 'forget' they didn't have the equipment? What if the wife got pregnant? It sounds like some weird denial to us, but it really wasn't. Anyway, back to the point, to be without a sex is to be sans primary (and possibly secondary) sexual characteristics. Whether this should be a sex or not is debatable...at what point does random modifications to the genitalia and body count as a seperate 'sex'? Best to just stick with the two nature gave us, and say that such a person scores a 0 on the male and a 0 on the female scale. This also gives us an easy way to classify hermaphrodites. Most sexless people probably *have* a gender, the one they started out with, or were simply assigned 'female' at birth, or post-accident if they were young enough...and they're probably on hormones anyway, so aren't really sexless, they're just genitalia-less. They look like men or women, talk like men or women, act like men or women, they have a gender. However, there's no reason why people cannot be genderless, and that *could* logically be a gender, as a gender is position in society. (Some day I have to tell everyone my theory that sexual orientation is actually the same thing as 'gender', or, stated better, that they are just aspects of the same thing.) If people regularly were sexless, we'd probably end up with a 'genderless' gender (damn you, English), but they aren't, so it's not really a gender yet. -- David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com> NOYFB, P

2003-02-16 20:29:42-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - (David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com>)


On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 19:45:20 +0000, sillyma wrote: > On 16 Feb 2003 13:41:12 -0500, "Mathew R. Ignash" > <mathewignash@comcast.net> wrote: > > > >>Well, Omni doesn't mean three or more, it means ANY, one the other, >>neither, both. I think that would include genderless things. > > Well, actually, omni means all. As in omnipotent, or omniscient. > Genderless things don't have a sex, almost by definition (gender being a > function of grammar, not anatomy). Since there are only two sexes, > omnisexual and bisexual would have the same meaning. Omnisexual then > would not be any clearer or more precise than bisexual. Go ahead and use > it if you like, but I think you'll be more easily understood using the > standard form. Okay, let's get some rules here. Your sex is what you physically are. (Hence 'transexuals' are crossing between two sexes.) Your gender is what you mentally are, or where you fit in society. You can be physically male yet a female in gender. Many other societies in history recognize people who differ in sex and gender...there are examples of women who were treated in every aspect as male, even to the point of marrying women. Various Native American societies did this. They were not 'lesbians', they were 'men who lack a penis'. (I don't know how they became this way, but I suspect it was something to do with physical abilities.) I don't know at what level this was happening...men were assumed to have sex with their wives and have children, that was presumable the whole point, did society just 'forget' they didn't have the equipment? What if the wife got pregnant? It sounds like some weird denial to us, but it really wasn't. Anyway, back to the point, to be without a sex is to be sans primary (and possibly secondary) sexual characteristics. Whether this should be a sex or not is debatable...at what point does random modifications to the genitalia and body count as a seperate 'sex'? Best to just stick with the two nature gave us, and say that such a person scores a 0 on the male and a 0 on the female scale. This also gives us an easy way to classify hermaphrodites. Most sexless people probably *have* a gender, the one they started out with, or were simply assigned 'female' at birth, or post-accident if they were young enough...and they're probably on hormones anyway, so aren't really sexless, they're just genitalia-less. They look like men or women, talk like men or women, act like men or women, they have a gender. However, there's no reason why people cannot be genderless, and that *could* logically be a gender, as a gender is position in society. (Some day I have to tell everyone my theory that sexual orientation is actually the same thing as 'gender', or, stated better, that they are just aspects of the same thing.) If people regularly were sexless, we'd probably end up with a 'genderless' gender (damn you, English), but they aren't, so it's not really a gender yet. -- David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com> NOYFB, P

2003-02-16 22:58:36-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - ("Mathew R. Ignash" <mathewignash@comcast.net>)


On 17 Feb 2003 03:35:14 GMT, fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote: > >Subject: Re: andrews gay > >From: "Mathew R. Ignash" mathewignash@comcast.net > >Date: 2/16/2003 9:37 AM Pacific Standard Time > >Message-id: > ><91777571416487.NC-1.55.mathewignash@news.mi.comcast.giganews.com> > > > >On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 13:48:42 -0000, "John Briggs" wrote: > >> > Here's an interesting question. Boy George said of a woman he was > >> > involved with: "I can say I am bisexual, but obviously I have a > >> > preference. I liked so-and-so because she looked like a boy." Would we > >> > think of Boy George as bisexual who prefers men... or a homosexual who > >> > was willing to step outside of the box if a girl was masculine enough? > >> > > >> > >> He claims to be bisexual, but monogamous (which confuses people, for some > >> reason). > > > >Just like Willow. She's bisexual, but she dated a lesbian, so many people are > >confused about her thinking she must be >a lesbian too. > > Willow has made it very clear that she thinks penises are icky and she has eyes > only for women now. Do you remember in the episode The Gift, when Anya suggests ways to stop Glory, and Xander said "smart women are so sexy"? What was Willow's response? Was it "well, glad you didn't figure that out in high school, because I don't like sex with men!" No, she said "you couldn' thave figured that out in high school?" She clearly wants to ride Xander till he pops, even in season 5! -- Mathew Homepage - http://mathew.fcpages.com/ Angel web site - http://angel.fcpages.com/

2003-02-16 22:58:36-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - ("Mathew R. Ignash" <mathewignash@comcast.net>)


On 17 Feb 2003 03:35:14 GMT, fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote: > >Subject: Re: andrews gay > >From: "Mathew R. Ignash" mathewignash@comcast.net > >Date: 2/16/2003 9:37 AM Pacific Standard Time > >Message-id: > ><91777571416487.NC-1.55.mathewignash@news.mi.comcast.giganews.com> > > > >On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 13:48:42 -0000, "John Briggs" wrote: > >> > Here's an interesting question. Boy George said of a woman he was > >> > involved with: "I can say I am bisexual, but obviously I have a > >> > preference. I liked so-and-so because she looked like a boy." Would we > >> > think of Boy George as bisexual who prefers men... or a homosexual who > >> > was willing to step outside of the box if a girl was masculine enough? > >> > > >> > >> He claims to be bisexual, but monogamous (which confuses people, for some > >> reason). > > > >Just like Willow. She's bisexual, but she dated a lesbian, so many people are > >confused about her thinking she must be >a lesbian too. > > Willow has made it very clear that she thinks penises are icky and she has eyes > only for women now. Do you remember in the episode The Gift, when Anya suggests ways to stop Glory, and Xander said "smart women are so sexy"? What was Willow's response? Was it "well, glad you didn't figure that out in high school, because I don't like sex with men!" No, she said "you couldn' thave figured that out in high school?" She clearly wants to ride Xander till he pops, even in season 5! -- Mathew Homepage - http://mathew.fcpages.com/ Angel web site - http://angel.fcpages.com/

2003-02-17 00:53:32-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - ("Mathew R. Ignash" <mathewignash@comcast.net>)


On Mon, 17 Feb 2003 05:26:20 GMT, "Aethelrede" wrote: > > sillyman@famous.com wrote in message <3e5118a3.17225223@news.telus.net>... > > > >> > >>Willow has made it very clear that she thinks penises are icky and she has > eyes > >>only for women now. > > > > > >I missed that ep. Unless you mean her response to Anya's crack during > >"Him" regarding the love of her life having a penis. I don't think she > >said icky though. > > It was while talking to Tara after they got back together, specifically > recounting her part in "Doublemeat Palace", where she described wig-lady's > phallic monster adjunct by saying "Well, if I wasn't gay then..." > I think the last ep, with the entire scoob and potential slayer group > were on Willow's case about how physical she Kennedy were getting leaves us > in no doubt that "Gay now" is still true. Nothing she ever said to Tara counts, as she was just trying to get some sweet Tara lovin'. She would impersonate a lesbian to get some of that. Heck, I'd impersonate a lesbian to get some of that! -- Mathew Homepage - http://mathew.fcpages.com/ Angel web site - http://angel.fcpages.com/

2003-02-17 00:53:32-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - ("Mathew R. Ignash" <mathewignash@comcast.net>)


On Mon, 17 Feb 2003 05:26:20 GMT, "Aethelrede" wrote: > > sillyman@famous.com wrote in message <3e5118a3.17225223@news.telus.net>... > > > >> > >>Willow has made it very clear that she thinks penises are icky and she has > eyes > >>only for women now. > > > > > >I missed that ep. Unless you mean her response to Anya's crack during > >"Him" regarding the love of her life having a penis. I don't think she > >said icky though. > > It was while talking to Tara after they got back together, specifically > recounting her part in "Doublemeat Palace", where she described wig-lady's > phallic monster adjunct by saying "Well, if I wasn't gay then..." > I think the last ep, with the entire scoob and potential slayer group > were on Willow's case about how physical she Kennedy were getting leaves us > in no doubt that "Gay now" is still true. Nothing she ever said to Tara counts, as she was just trying to get some sweet Tara lovin'. She would impersonate a lesbian to get some of that. Heck, I'd impersonate a lesbian to get some of that! -- Mathew Homepage - http://mathew.fcpages.com/ Angel web site - http://angel.fcpages.com/

2003-02-17 02:37:48-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - (The Babaloughesian <me@privacy.net>)


"Shawn Hill" <shill@fas.harvard.edu> wrote in message news:b2q0p8$q3e$3@news.fas.harvard.edu... > Tom Breton <tehom@removepannospamix.com> wrote: > : fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) writes: > > : Straight guys will not "step outside the box" just as long as a man is > : effeminate enough. If that were the case, straight guys would go for > : (identifiable) drag queens, but in fact it's quite the opposite. > > Is it? I mean, those transexual hookers make their money somehow. > > Shawn > Trannies are okay in my book.

2003-02-17 02:37:48-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - (The Babaloughesian <me@privacy.net>)


"Shawn Hill" <shill@fas.harvard.edu> wrote in message news:b2q0p8$q3e$3@news.fas.harvard.edu... > Tom Breton <tehom@removepannospamix.com> wrote: > : fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) writes: > > : Straight guys will not "step outside the box" just as long as a man is > : effeminate enough. If that were the case, straight guys would go for > : (identifiable) drag queens, but in fact it's quite the opposite. > > Is it? I mean, those transexual hookers make their money somehow. > > Shawn > Trannies are okay in my book.

2003-02-17 03:35:14+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


>Subject: Re: andrews gay >From: "Mathew R. Ignash" mathewignash@comcast.net >Date: 2/16/2003 9:37 AM Pacific Standard Time >Message-id: ><91777571416487.NC-1.55.mathewignash@news.mi.comcast.giganews.com> > >On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 13:48:42 -0000, "John Briggs" wrote: >> > Here's an interesting question. Boy George said of a woman he was >> > involved with: "I can say I am bisexual, but obviously I have a >> > preference. I liked so-and-so because she looked like a boy." Would we >> > think of Boy George as bisexual who prefers men... or a homosexual who >> > was willing to step outside of the box if a girl was masculine enough? >> > >> >> He claims to be bisexual, but monogamous (which confuses people, for some >> reason). > >Just like Willow. She's bisexual, but she dated a lesbian, so many people are >confused about her thinking she must be >a lesbian too. Willow has made it very clear that she thinks penises are icky and she has eyes only for women now. Rose It's not Giles

2003-02-17 03:35:14+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


>Subject: Re: andrews gay >From: "Mathew R. Ignash" mathewignash@comcast.net >Date: 2/16/2003 9:37 AM Pacific Standard Time >Message-id: ><91777571416487.NC-1.55.mathewignash@news.mi.comcast.giganews.com> > >On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 13:48:42 -0000, "John Briggs" wrote: >> > Here's an interesting question. Boy George said of a woman he was >> > involved with: "I can say I am bisexual, but obviously I have a >> > preference. I liked so-and-so because she looked like a boy." Would we >> > think of Boy George as bisexual who prefers men... or a homosexual who >> > was willing to step outside of the box if a girl was masculine enough? >> > >> >> He claims to be bisexual, but monogamous (which confuses people, for some >> reason). > >Just like Willow. She's bisexual, but she dated a lesbian, so many people are >confused about her thinking she must be >a lesbian too. Willow has made it very clear that she thinks penises are icky and she has eyes only for women now. Rose It's not Giles

2003-02-17 05:15:06+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (sillyman@famous.com)


> >Willow has made it very clear that she thinks penises are icky and she has eyes >only for women now. I missed that ep. Unless you mean her response to Anya's crack during "Him" regarding the love of her life having a penis. I don't think she said icky though.

2003-02-17 05:15:06+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (sillyman@famous.com)


> >Willow has made it very clear that she thinks penises are icky and she has eyes >only for women now. I missed that ep. Unless you mean her response to Anya's crack during "Him" regarding the love of her life having a penis. I don't think she said icky though.

2003-02-17 05:26:20+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (Aethelrede <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net>)


sillyman@famous.com wrote in message <3e5118a3.17225223@news.telus.net>... > >> >>Willow has made it very clear that she thinks penises are icky and she has eyes >>only for women now. > > >I missed that ep. Unless you mean her response to Anya's crack during >"Him" regarding the love of her life having a penis. I don't think she >said icky though. It was while talking to Tara after they got back together, specifically recounting her part in "Doublemeat Palace", where she described wig-lady's phallic monster adjunct by saying "Well, if I wasn't gay then..." I think the last ep, with the entire scoob and potential slayer group were on Willow's case about how physical she Kennedy were getting leaves us in no doubt that "Gay now" is still true.

2003-02-17 05:26:20+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (Aethelrede <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net>)


sillyman@famous.com wrote in message <3e5118a3.17225223@news.telus.net>... > >> >>Willow has made it very clear that she thinks penises are icky and she has eyes >>only for women now. > > >I missed that ep. Unless you mean her response to Anya's crack during >"Him" regarding the love of her life having a penis. I don't think she >said icky though. It was while talking to Tara after they got back together, specifically recounting her part in "Doublemeat Palace", where she described wig-lady's phallic monster adjunct by saying "Well, if I wasn't gay then..." I think the last ep, with the entire scoob and potential slayer group were on Willow's case about how physical she Kennedy were getting leaves us in no doubt that "Gay now" is still true.

2003-02-17 06:04:12-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - (David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com>)


On Tue, 18 Feb 2003 07:35:03 +0000, Rose wrote: >>Subject: Re: andrews gay >>From: "David Cheatham" david@creeknet.com Date: 2/16/2003 4:44 PM >>Pacific Standard Time Message-id: >><pan.2003.02.17.00.44.32.701375@creeknet.com> >> >>On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 06:12:36 -0800, Renee wrote: >> >>>> The problem, I think, is that women are good-looking based, almost >>>> entirely, their looks. That's why men call someone good-looking. >>>> >>>> Whereas men are judged by various other things, like charisma, >>>> wealth, masculinity, height, lots of other stuff. >>>> >>>> >>> This makes sense in an evolutionary way. A man can go around >>> impregnating many women at once, whereas a woman can only have one >>> pregnancy at a time. She has to make sure the father's genes are good, >>> plus find a man that can provide for her and increase her chances that >>> the offspring will survive. So, women will be attracted to other >>> qualities besides looks, where men may not be. Of course, it's more >>> complex then that. Since some men will want to make sure their >>> offspring survives by choosing a woman that will guarentee that can >>> provide for her offspring, though most of this is from looks (has >>> enough fat for pregnancy and breastfeeding, thus the attraction to big >>> breasts and curvy hips). There is also the theory that women will find >>> a mate to take care of her offspring, but secretly mate with another >>> male. So women are attracted to looks, too. >> >>Oh, yes, it's certainly something to do with evolution, or at least >>history. (It could have just been taught for a *really* long time, >>though, and not be genetic.) >> >>Men simply pick someone to have sex with that have body that can handle >>childbirth. (Of course, this has gotten rather skewed over the years. >>Has anyone ever heard the theory that breasts evolved from butts? That >>is, man is one of the only animals that has sex front to front, and >>while other primates are attracted to big rears, human females started >>growing larger breasts to attract men from the front. Interesting >>theory, eh?) >> >>Whereas women are looking for someone to support them and their child, >>not to have sex with. If anyone doubts this, consider the interesting >>effect putting on a tuxedo has. Why exactly is that sexy? Because it's >>expensive, that's about the only reason. >> >> > Then why do women love men in well-fitting jeans? I have no idea, you'd probably be better off asking a woman. ;) However, I don't mean to imply that 'ability to care for her and her young' is the only male standard, just like 'ability to birth children' isn't the only female standard. But the influence is certainly there. -- David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com> NOYFB, P

2003-02-17 06:04:12-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - (David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com>)


On Tue, 18 Feb 2003 07:35:03 +0000, Rose wrote: >>Subject: Re: andrews gay >>From: "David Cheatham" david@creeknet.com Date: 2/16/2003 4:44 PM >>Pacific Standard Time Message-id: >><pan.2003.02.17.00.44.32.701375@creeknet.com> >> >>On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 06:12:36 -0800, Renee wrote: >> >>>> The problem, I think, is that women are good-looking based, almost >>>> entirely, their looks. That's why men call someone good-looking. >>>> >>>> Whereas men are judged by various other things, like charisma, >>>> wealth, masculinity, height, lots of other stuff. >>>> >>>> >>> This makes sense in an evolutionary way. A man can go around >>> impregnating many women at once, whereas a woman can only have one >>> pregnancy at a time. She has to make sure the father's genes are good, >>> plus find a man that can provide for her and increase her chances that >>> the offspring will survive. So, women will be attracted to other >>> qualities besides looks, where men may not be. Of course, it's more >>> complex then that. Since some men will want to make sure their >>> offspring survives by choosing a woman that will guarentee that can >>> provide for her offspring, though most of this is from looks (has >>> enough fat for pregnancy and breastfeeding, thus the attraction to big >>> breasts and curvy hips). There is also the theory that women will find >>> a mate to take care of her offspring, but secretly mate with another >>> male. So women are attracted to looks, too. >> >>Oh, yes, it's certainly something to do with evolution, or at least >>history. (It could have just been taught for a *really* long time, >>though, and not be genetic.) >> >>Men simply pick someone to have sex with that have body that can handle >>childbirth. (Of course, this has gotten rather skewed over the years. >>Has anyone ever heard the theory that breasts evolved from butts? That >>is, man is one of the only animals that has sex front to front, and >>while other primates are attracted to big rears, human females started >>growing larger breasts to attract men from the front. Interesting >>theory, eh?) >> >>Whereas women are looking for someone to support them and their child, >>not to have sex with. If anyone doubts this, consider the interesting >>effect putting on a tuxedo has. Why exactly is that sexy? Because it's >>expensive, that's about the only reason. >> >> > Then why do women love men in well-fitting jeans? I have no idea, you'd probably be better off asking a woman. ;) However, I don't mean to imply that 'ability to care for her and her young' is the only male standard, just like 'ability to birth children' isn't the only female standard. But the influence is certainly there. -- David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com> NOYFB, P

2003-02-17 06:38:45-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - ("Mathew R. Ignash" <mathewignash@comcast.net>)


On 17 Feb 2003 07:01:08 GMT, Shawn Hill wrote: > Rose <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote: > > :>All your desires are gay. All your actions are straight (because doing > :>anything else would seem wrong or evil or just scary to you, what have > :>you). Which are you? > > : See, the reason I used to think of Willow as bisexual is that I got the > : impression she relished her sex life with Oz. Would a homosexual woman be able > : to relish sex with a man? Then again, maybe Willow didn't relish the sex per > : se, she merely enjoyed the closeness and the attention. > > I think lesbians, much more so than gay men, have a greater occurence of > heterosexual history before they found women. There seems to be more > flexibility there in general, compared to the less fluid divisions between > straight and gay men. Or maybe they are just self-deluded bisexuals. -- Mathew Homepage - http://mathew.fcpages.com/ Angel web site - http://angel.fcpages.com/

2003-02-17 06:38:45-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - ("Mathew R. Ignash" <mathewignash@comcast.net>)


On 17 Feb 2003 07:01:08 GMT, Shawn Hill wrote: > Rose <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote: > > :>All your desires are gay. All your actions are straight (because doing > :>anything else would seem wrong or evil or just scary to you, what have > :>you). Which are you? > > : See, the reason I used to think of Willow as bisexual is that I got the > : impression she relished her sex life with Oz. Would a homosexual woman be able > : to relish sex with a man? Then again, maybe Willow didn't relish the sex per > : se, she merely enjoyed the closeness and the attention. > > I think lesbians, much more so than gay men, have a greater occurence of > heterosexual history before they found women. There seems to be more > flexibility there in general, compared to the less fluid divisions between > straight and gay men. Or maybe they are just self-deluded bisexuals. -- Mathew Homepage - http://mathew.fcpages.com/ Angel web site - http://angel.fcpages.com/

2003-02-17 06:46:44+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu>)


Tom Breton <tehom@removepannospamix.com> wrote: : fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) writes: :> Wealth is not a factor in judging a man's looks. : Sure it is. _Joe Millionaire_. OK, the guy was rumoredly a model, : but judging by the other unlikely things the women praised about him : just because he was rich, I expect they'd have called him handsome if : he were half a notch above Scarface. The question is, do you know he's rich already, or can you tell just by looking at him? :> For that matter, it's easier for rich girls to get dates than girls :> with little :> money. : Doesn't seem that way to me. Again, if they know who the rich girls are, the gold-diggers at least know whom to target. Shawn

2003-02-17 06:46:44+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu>)


Tom Breton <tehom@removepannospamix.com> wrote: : fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) writes: :> Wealth is not a factor in judging a man's looks. : Sure it is. _Joe Millionaire_. OK, the guy was rumoredly a model, : but judging by the other unlikely things the women praised about him : just because he was rich, I expect they'd have called him handsome if : he were half a notch above Scarface. The question is, do you know he's rich already, or can you tell just by looking at him? :> For that matter, it's easier for rich girls to get dates than girls :> with little :> money. : Doesn't seem that way to me. Again, if they know who the rich girls are, the gold-diggers at least know whom to target. Shawn

2003-02-17 06:51:20+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu>)


Tom Breton <tehom@removepannospamix.com> wrote: : fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) writes: : Straight guys will not "step outside the box" just as long as a man is : effeminate enough. If that were the case, straight guys would go for : (identifiable) drag queens, but in fact it's quite the opposite. Is it? I mean, those transexual hookers make their money somehow. Shawn

2003-02-17 06:51:20+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu>)


Tom Breton <tehom@removepannospamix.com> wrote: : fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) writes: : Straight guys will not "step outside the box" just as long as a man is : effeminate enough. If that were the case, straight guys would go for : (identifiable) drag queens, but in fact it's quite the opposite. Is it? I mean, those transexual hookers make their money somehow. Shawn

2003-02-17 06:56:42+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu>)


Rose <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote: :>: Is when you say a male homosexual friend of yours would screw Rose Mcgowen, :>: you're contradicting yourself,if Rose is a woman and he's a man, that's :>opposite :>: gender. :>Even if he's only saying it, it will likely never happen, and he calls :>himself gay while he regularly sleeps with men? : I agree with you in this instance, Shawn, but how does that compare to : Dominican's example of a man who identifies himself as straight (and perhaps : only sleeps with women, if anyone) and yet wanks to gay porn? Well, desire counts so much, and so does societal pressure. I'd say that person is "secretly" gay. But, there again, I wouldn't say he was bisexual, even if his desires are one way and his actions another. : While I agree with you about the guy who is gay and yet is attracted to Rose : McGowan, I don't think it's presumptious to think a word ought to have meaning : beyond "I call myself that because I want to." The dictionary doesn't define : "bisexual" as "a person who calls himself bisexual". I can't get into semantic arguments, because they don't make much sense to me. My dictionary says "sexually oriented to both sexes." "Oriented" seems like just about as gray an area as they could possibly include in their wording. Shawn

2003-02-17 06:56:42+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu>)


Rose <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote: :>: Is when you say a male homosexual friend of yours would screw Rose Mcgowen, :>: you're contradicting yourself,if Rose is a woman and he's a man, that's :>opposite :>: gender. :>Even if he's only saying it, it will likely never happen, and he calls :>himself gay while he regularly sleeps with men? : I agree with you in this instance, Shawn, but how does that compare to : Dominican's example of a man who identifies himself as straight (and perhaps : only sleeps with women, if anyone) and yet wanks to gay porn? Well, desire counts so much, and so does societal pressure. I'd say that person is "secretly" gay. But, there again, I wouldn't say he was bisexual, even if his desires are one way and his actions another. : While I agree with you about the guy who is gay and yet is attracted to Rose : McGowan, I don't think it's presumptious to think a word ought to have meaning : beyond "I call myself that because I want to." The dictionary doesn't define : "bisexual" as "a person who calls himself bisexual". I can't get into semantic arguments, because they don't make much sense to me. My dictionary says "sexually oriented to both sexes." "Oriented" seems like just about as gray an area as they could possibly include in their wording. Shawn

2003-02-17 06:58:42+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu>)


Rose <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote: :>Why does there have to be a "true" homosexual? : I'm a linguist at heart. "Homo" means "same". "Bi" means "two." Ergo, I : think of a homosexual as someone who likes ONLY the same sex, no ifs ands or : buts. But I realize you're right, there are gradations between 100% homosexual : (like a particular male friend of mine who regards as icky the very *idea* of : sex with women and refrains from judging the attractiveness of women the way : most straight men refrain from judging the attractiveness of men) and bisexual, : and between bisexual and 100% straight. We invented words so we could communicate more precisely. Not so we'd have to live up to them all literally, however. Shawn

2003-02-17 06:58:42+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu>)


Rose <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote: :>Why does there have to be a "true" homosexual? : I'm a linguist at heart. "Homo" means "same". "Bi" means "two." Ergo, I : think of a homosexual as someone who likes ONLY the same sex, no ifs ands or : buts. But I realize you're right, there are gradations between 100% homosexual : (like a particular male friend of mine who regards as icky the very *idea* of : sex with women and refrains from judging the attractiveness of women the way : most straight men refrain from judging the attractiveness of men) and bisexual, : and between bisexual and 100% straight. We invented words so we could communicate more precisely. Not so we'd have to live up to them all literally, however. Shawn

2003-02-17 07:01:08+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu>)


Rose <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote: :>All your desires are gay. All your actions are straight (because doing :>anything else would seem wrong or evil or just scary to you, what have :>you). Which are you? : See, the reason I used to think of Willow as bisexual is that I got the : impression she relished her sex life with Oz. Would a homosexual woman be able : to relish sex with a man? Then again, maybe Willow didn't relish the sex per : se, she merely enjoyed the closeness and the attention. I think lesbians, much more so than gay men, have a greater occurence of heterosexual history before they found women. There seems to be more flexibility there in general, compared to the less fluid divisions between straight and gay men. Shawn

2003-02-17 07:01:08+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu>)


Rose <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote: :>All your desires are gay. All your actions are straight (because doing :>anything else would seem wrong or evil or just scary to you, what have :>you). Which are you? : See, the reason I used to think of Willow as bisexual is that I got the : impression she relished her sex life with Oz. Would a homosexual woman be able : to relish sex with a man? Then again, maybe Willow didn't relish the sex per : se, she merely enjoyed the closeness and the attention. I think lesbians, much more so than gay men, have a greater occurence of heterosexual history before they found women. There seems to be more flexibility there in general, compared to the less fluid divisions between straight and gay men. Shawn

2003-02-17 07:48:35+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (Jay <malicious.user@attbi.com>)


"Shawn Hill" wrote: > Rose wrote: > > :>All your desires are gay. All your actions are straight (because doing > :>anything else would seem wrong or evil or just scary to you, what > :>have you). Which are you? > > : See, the reason I used to think of Willow as bisexual is that I got the > : impression she relished her sex life with Oz. Would a homosexual > : woman be able to relish sex with a man? Then again, maybe Willow > : didn't relish the sex per se, she merely enjoyed the closeness and the > : attention. > > I think lesbians, much more so than gay men, have a greater occurence > of heterosexual history before they found women. There seems to be > more flexibility there in general, compared to the less fluid divisions > between straight and gay men. > > Shawn > Maybe it's just my age group (30ish), but almost every gay man I've known has had sex with at least one woman prior to discovering their true sexuality. I don't know many lesbians, but the same seems to hold for them. The largest difference seems to be that they never get married before making their decision. -J

2003-02-17 07:48:35+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (Jay <malicious.user@attbi.com>)


"Shawn Hill" wrote: > Rose wrote: > > :>All your desires are gay. All your actions are straight (because doing > :>anything else would seem wrong or evil or just scary to you, what > :>have you). Which are you? > > : See, the reason I used to think of Willow as bisexual is that I got the > : impression she relished her sex life with Oz. Would a homosexual > : woman be able to relish sex with a man? Then again, maybe Willow > : didn't relish the sex per se, she merely enjoyed the closeness and the > : attention. > > I think lesbians, much more so than gay men, have a greater occurence > of heterosexual history before they found women. There seems to be > more flexibility there in general, compared to the less fluid divisions > between straight and gay men. > > Shawn > Maybe it's just my age group (30ish), but almost every gay man I've known has had sex with at least one woman prior to discovering their true sexuality. I don't know many lesbians, but the same seems to hold for them. The largest difference seems to be that they never get married before making their decision. -J

2003-02-17 21:04:43-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - (forge <bake455@spamsucks.bellsouth.net>)


On 14 Feb 2003 18:22:28 GMT, fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote: >See, even though I'm >>gay, I can appreciate a beautiful woman without wanting to have sex with >>her. (Which brings up one of my pet peeves about some straight men who >>say stuff like "I can't tell if a man's good-looking," but that's another >>discussion.) >> >Such a lie. They just say that so the person they're talking to won't think >they're gay. Pooh!!! I could not for the LIFE of me tell you why my girlfriend thinks Scott Bakula is a hunk. I mean, he's a cool actor etcetera but hunk? It must be the nose, or something. She feels the same way about the guy that played Faramir in the second LOTR movie. To which I say, uhh??? Occasionally I'll go "he's a nice lookin' feller idney?" and get the response "Naaah, too pretty." Okay, sure.

2003-02-17 21:04:43-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - (forge <bake455@spamsucks.bellsouth.net>)


On 14 Feb 2003 18:22:28 GMT, fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote: >See, even though I'm >>gay, I can appreciate a beautiful woman without wanting to have sex with >>her. (Which brings up one of my pet peeves about some straight men who >>say stuff like "I can't tell if a man's good-looking," but that's another >>discussion.) >> >Such a lie. They just say that so the person they're talking to won't think >they're gay. Pooh!!! I could not for the LIFE of me tell you why my girlfriend thinks Scott Bakula is a hunk. I mean, he's a cool actor etcetera but hunk? It must be the nose, or something. She feels the same way about the guy that played Faramir in the second LOTR movie. To which I say, uhh??? Occasionally I'll go "he's a nice lookin' feller idney?" and get the response "Naaah, too pretty." Okay, sure.

2003-02-18 01:50:52-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - ("." <pdesan@ican.net>)


Andrew is not gay he is just a geek that made a reference to Jonathan Archer from Enterprise. David Cheatham wrote in message ... >On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 06:11:55 +0000, Shawn Hill wrote: > >> David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com> wrote: >> >> :> Is it? Nothing to do with her clothes, her taste, her posture, whether >> :> she has cute little glasses, whether she looks tacky or authentic, >> :> whether she looks sophisticated or is a hick, whether she seems hard or >> :> vulnerable? >> >> : Those *are* looks. Looks are what you see looking at someone. >> >> So you'd notice details of clothing, attire, including things like class >> and taste, on a woman but not on a man? > >Broad details are noticed, sure. I'll notice a guy is wearing a suit if >no one else is, or a guy wearing a tee-shirt when everyone else is wearing >suits. If all men are wearing roughly the same thing, no, not really. > >> :> Don't they? Not even in the locker room? Not even on the basketball >> :> court? Not even to the point of: I wish I had that suit? I wish I >> :> looked like that? Damn, I need to get to a gym, look at how fit that >> :> guy is? >> >> : I have never said to myself 'I wish I had that suit.', and the only time >> : I notice how fit a guy is is when he's doing something that requires >> : fitness. Although I will notice very obviously unfit people. >> >> : And I'm not sure what you mean by 'in the locker room'. No, men aren't >> : more likely to notice other men there. (They're slightly more likely to >> : notice women there, though. ;) ) >> >> In the locker room, where you're naked, you see more. Men aren't literally >> invisible to each other, are they? > >I have no idea, I haven't been in a locker room in almost ten years. > >But, no, back in high school gym, I never noticed who was buff, or, at >least, didn't pay any attention. > >In fact, now that I'm thinking about it, the only reason I even consider >some guys 'athletic' is that they were on track. I have no idea how buff >(I keep typing Buffy there.) they actually were. > >> :> This is a scary way to view the world. Are women automatically >> :> unthreatening? Even the drunk one careening towards you who obviously >> :> hasn't bathed for several days? >> >> : And if it's a woman of the right age range, they get 'attractive' or >> : 'unattractive', and perhaps more attention. >> >> Yeah, I can see that. >> >> :> Similarity is good, that's why it's an acceptable answer. And she >> :> presumably knows how she feels about Joey, from Friends, already, so >> :> she can be taken in by your desperate conversational gambit. Very >> :> smooth move. >> >> : Plus, if you have no idea what the question is about, you can always >> : just make up some random guy, like 'He looks like that guy from that >> : movie about the giant rabbits.'. >> >> Wow. Clever. Keep the conversation going, but leave gaps for her to fill >> in. Hmmmmmm. > >Oh, I'm smooth once I get started. It's starting the converstations that's >the problem. > >> :> : And it's the same problem when asked about friends. We've never even >> :> : considered how good-looking they are, we don't even think about how >> :> : they look. >> :> >> :> I just think that's a little unlikely. Surely you've noticed if they're >> :> healthy, well-groomed, have good hygeine, etc. >> >> : It's more the other way around. I notice if they are noticably not >> : healthy, badly groomed, or poor hygeine. >> >> So, as long as they're not excessively pungent, dirty, scuffed or ragged, >> they're simply not accorded any attention? > >Right. Unless they're holding an ax or someone I know. > >> : But that's akin to saying you can comment on the surface of a random >> : road you've driven on because you would notice potholes. The fact you >> : would notice extreme negative qualities doesn't mean you've ever noticed >> : positive ones. >> >> But is there really an environment you've been in, or driven through, you >> haven't rated somewhere on the scale from nice to awful? > >What, specific parts of the road? No, not really. I mean, I know what's >*there*, but I don't even consider if it's good or bad unless it's an >obvious place, like that speed trap I got caught in once. > >> : But I'm serious. It's expecting men and women to be identical in all >> : social and interpersonal aspects, and they *aren't*. I don't consider >> : other men's attractiveness until I'm explictedly asked about it, and >> : it's not cause I'm homophobic or insecure or anything, it's much the >> : same reason I couldn't tell you the brand of piano that my mother has >> : owned since before I was born, and if you asked me I'd have to drive to >> : her house and look. >> >> I'm getting what you're saying, I think. But it's sort of amounting not to >> an inability to discern male beauty, but a disinterest in doing so. I >> don't expect all men or all women (even just sticking to the straight >> ones) to be in the same place on that skill/interest, however. > >Oh, I'm sure it's a disinterest, not inability. It's rather like women >keep handing men an accordian and asking them to play it, and men have no >interest in learning to play the accordian, and never try, while all women >are accomplished accordian players. (That sentence ended up in a different >place than it started.) > >> :> I don't think it's brain function, though. I think it's training. >> >> : Well, that's always a big debate, but it's not really important. Men >> : simply do not automatically do that. Men who are sexual attracted to >> : other men may do it, I don't know, but all that proves is that it's 'men >> : do not judge the attractiveness of genders they are not attracted to'. >> >> But then there's the other argument, of how visual men are. If, as you >> say, women seem to evaluate a whole bunch of qualities when determining a >> man's appeal, while men focus primarily on how a woman looks ..... that >> leads me to conclude that men place a lot of stress on surface appearance, >> and consider that when presenting themselves to the world and when going >> for bright, shiny cars, etc. > >I'll go with that. > >> If they've got that much skill in assessing how women look, how is it they >> have none at all when seeing a man? So little that they can't even tell if >> he's good looking? > >The problem, like I said, is two-fold...one that men, if they had a >concept of 'an attractive man', they could easily figure out if another >man was attractive...but they don't. Male attractiveness is judged >differently. > >The second is that men don't even judge them at all automatically. 'Do you >think that guy is good looking?' (Huh? What guy? That guy over there?) > >> : I've always considered asking random women to mentally undress other >> : women and see what happens. Hey, guys do it more or less automatically, >> : I don't see why women should have difficulties with it. ;) >> >> I think women do it more or less automatically, too, though more along the >> lines of "I'm sure her boobs are fake" or "I bet her butt is really firm >> under that tight skirt." >> >> I also think they'd have an easier time copping to the practice than >> straight men noticing the appeal of other men. > >It's really not a problem copping to it....I mean, I'll tell you if a guy >is attractive or not, I just need a few minutes to think about it. > >-- >David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com> NOYFB, P >

2003-02-18 01:50:52-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - ("." <pdesan@ican.net>)


Andrew is not gay he is just a geek that made a reference to Jonathan Archer from Enterprise. David Cheatham wrote in message ... >On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 06:11:55 +0000, Shawn Hill wrote: > >> David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com> wrote: >> >> :> Is it? Nothing to do with her clothes, her taste, her posture, whether >> :> she has cute little glasses, whether she looks tacky or authentic, >> :> whether she looks sophisticated or is a hick, whether she seems hard or >> :> vulnerable? >> >> : Those *are* looks. Looks are what you see looking at someone. >> >> So you'd notice details of clothing, attire, including things like class >> and taste, on a woman but not on a man? > >Broad details are noticed, sure. I'll notice a guy is wearing a suit if >no one else is, or a guy wearing a tee-shirt when everyone else is wearing >suits. If all men are wearing roughly the same thing, no, not really. > >> :> Don't they? Not even in the locker room? Not even on the basketball >> :> court? Not even to the point of: I wish I had that suit? I wish I >> :> looked like that? Damn, I need to get to a gym, look at how fit that >> :> guy is? >> >> : I have never said to myself 'I wish I had that suit.', and the only time >> : I notice how fit a guy is is when he's doing something that requires >> : fitness. Although I will notice very obviously unfit people. >> >> : And I'm not sure what you mean by 'in the locker room'. No, men aren't >> : more likely to notice other men there. (They're slightly more likely to >> : notice women there, though. ;) ) >> >> In the locker room, where you're naked, you see more. Men aren't literally >> invisible to each other, are they? > >I have no idea, I haven't been in a locker room in almost ten years. > >But, no, back in high school gym, I never noticed who was buff, or, at >least, didn't pay any attention. > >In fact, now that I'm thinking about it, the only reason I even consider >some guys 'athletic' is that they were on track. I have no idea how buff >(I keep typing Buffy there.) they actually were. > >> :> This is a scary way to view the world. Are women automatically >> :> unthreatening? Even the drunk one careening towards you who obviously >> :> hasn't bathed for several days? >> >> : And if it's a woman of the right age range, they get 'attractive' or >> : 'unattractive', and perhaps more attention. >> >> Yeah, I can see that. >> >> :> Similarity is good, that's why it's an acceptable answer. And she >> :> presumably knows how she feels about Joey, from Friends, already, so >> :> she can be taken in by your desperate conversational gambit. Very >> :> smooth move. >> >> : Plus, if you have no idea what the question is about, you can always >> : just make up some random guy, like 'He looks like that guy from that >> : movie about the giant rabbits.'. >> >> Wow. Clever. Keep the conversation going, but leave gaps for her to fill >> in. Hmmmmmm. > >Oh, I'm smooth once I get started. It's starting the converstations that's >the problem. > >> :> : And it's the same problem when asked about friends. We've never even >> :> : considered how good-looking they are, we don't even think about how >> :> : they look. >> :> >> :> I just think that's a little unlikely. Surely you've noticed if they're >> :> healthy, well-groomed, have good hygeine, etc. >> >> : It's more the other way around. I notice if they are noticably not >> : healthy, badly groomed, or poor hygeine. >> >> So, as long as they're not excessively pungent, dirty, scuffed or ragged, >> they're simply not accorded any attention? > >Right. Unless they're holding an ax or someone I know. > >> : But that's akin to saying you can comment on the surface of a random >> : road you've driven on because you would notice potholes. The fact you >> : would notice extreme negative qualities doesn't mean you've ever noticed >> : positive ones. >> >> But is there really an environment you've been in, or driven through, you >> haven't rated somewhere on the scale from nice to awful? > >What, specific parts of the road? No, not really. I mean, I know what's >*there*, but I don't even consider if it's good or bad unless it's an >obvious place, like that speed trap I got caught in once. > >> : But I'm serious. It's expecting men and women to be identical in all >> : social and interpersonal aspects, and they *aren't*. I don't consider >> : other men's attractiveness until I'm explictedly asked about it, and >> : it's not cause I'm homophobic or insecure or anything, it's much the >> : same reason I couldn't tell you the brand of piano that my mother has >> : owned since before I was born, and if you asked me I'd have to drive to >> : her house and look. >> >> I'm getting what you're saying, I think. But it's sort of amounting not to >> an inability to discern male beauty, but a disinterest in doing so. I >> don't expect all men or all women (even just sticking to the straight >> ones) to be in the same place on that skill/interest, however. > >Oh, I'm sure it's a disinterest, not inability. It's rather like women >keep handing men an accordian and asking them to play it, and men have no >interest in learning to play the accordian, and never try, while all women >are accomplished accordian players. (That sentence ended up in a different >place than it started.) > >> :> I don't think it's brain function, though. I think it's training. >> >> : Well, that's always a big debate, but it's not really important. Men >> : simply do not automatically do that. Men who are sexual attracted to >> : other men may do it, I don't know, but all that proves is that it's 'men >> : do not judge the attractiveness of genders they are not attracted to'. >> >> But then there's the other argument, of how visual men are. If, as you >> say, women seem to evaluate a whole bunch of qualities when determining a >> man's appeal, while men focus primarily on how a woman looks ..... that >> leads me to conclude that men place a lot of stress on surface appearance, >> and consider that when presenting themselves to the world and when going >> for bright, shiny cars, etc. > >I'll go with that. > >> If they've got that much skill in assessing how women look, how is it they >> have none at all when seeing a man? So little that they can't even tell if >> he's good looking? > >The problem, like I said, is two-fold...one that men, if they had a >concept of 'an attractive man', they could easily figure out if another >man was attractive...but they don't. Male attractiveness is judged >differently. > >The second is that men don't even judge them at all automatically. 'Do you >think that guy is good looking?' (Huh? What guy? That guy over there?) > >> : I've always considered asking random women to mentally undress other >> : women and see what happens. Hey, guys do it more or less automatically, >> : I don't see why women should have difficulties with it. ;) >> >> I think women do it more or less automatically, too, though more along the >> lines of "I'm sure her boobs are fake" or "I bet her butt is really firm >> under that tight skirt." >> >> I also think they'd have an easier time copping to the practice than >> straight men noticing the appeal of other men. > >It's really not a problem copping to it....I mean, I'll tell you if a guy >is attractive or not, I just need a few minutes to think about it. > >-- >David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com> NOYFB, P >

2003-02-18 07:35:03+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


>Subject: Re: andrews gay >From: "David Cheatham" david@creeknet.com >Date: 2/16/2003 4:44 PM Pacific Standard Time >Message-id: <pan.2003.02.17.00.44.32.701375@creeknet.com> > >On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 06:12:36 -0800, Renee wrote: > >>> The problem, I think, is that women are good-looking based, almost >>> entirely, their looks. That's why men call someone good-looking. >>> >>> Whereas men are judged by various other things, like charisma, wealth, >>> masculinity, height, lots of other stuff. >>> >>> >> This makes sense in an evolutionary way. A man can go around >> impregnating many women at once, whereas a woman can only have one >> pregnancy at a time. She has to make sure the father's genes are good, >> plus find a man that can provide for her and increase her chances that >> the offspring will survive. So, women will be attracted to other >> qualities besides looks, where men may not be. Of course, it's more >> complex then that. Since some men will want to make sure their offspring >> survives by choosing a woman that will guarentee that can provide for >> her offspring, though most of this is from looks (has enough fat for >> pregnancy and breastfeeding, thus the attraction to big breasts and >> curvy hips). There is also the theory that women will find a mate to >> take care of her offspring, but secretly mate with another male. So >> women are attracted to looks, too. > >Oh, yes, it's certainly something to do with evolution, or at least >history. (It could have just been taught for a *really* long time, though, >and not be genetic.) > >Men simply pick someone to have sex with that have body that can handle >childbirth. (Of course, this has gotten rather skewed over the years. Has >anyone ever heard the theory that breasts evolved from butts? That is, man >is one of the only animals that has sex front to front, and while other >primates are attracted to big rears, human females started growing larger >breasts to attract men from the front. Interesting theory, eh?) > >Whereas women are looking for someone to support them and their child, not >to have sex with. If anyone doubts this, consider the interesting effect >putting on a tuxedo has. Why exactly is that sexy? Because it's expensive, >that's about the only reason. > Then why do women love men in well-fitting jeans? Rose It's not Giles

2003-02-18 07:35:03+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


>Subject: Re: andrews gay >From: "David Cheatham" david@creeknet.com >Date: 2/16/2003 4:44 PM Pacific Standard Time >Message-id: <pan.2003.02.17.00.44.32.701375@creeknet.com> > >On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 06:12:36 -0800, Renee wrote: > >>> The problem, I think, is that women are good-looking based, almost >>> entirely, their looks. That's why men call someone good-looking. >>> >>> Whereas men are judged by various other things, like charisma, wealth, >>> masculinity, height, lots of other stuff. >>> >>> >> This makes sense in an evolutionary way. A man can go around >> impregnating many women at once, whereas a woman can only have one >> pregnancy at a time. She has to make sure the father's genes are good, >> plus find a man that can provide for her and increase her chances that >> the offspring will survive. So, women will be attracted to other >> qualities besides looks, where men may not be. Of course, it's more >> complex then that. Since some men will want to make sure their offspring >> survives by choosing a woman that will guarentee that can provide for >> her offspring, though most of this is from looks (has enough fat for >> pregnancy and breastfeeding, thus the attraction to big breasts and >> curvy hips). There is also the theory that women will find a mate to >> take care of her offspring, but secretly mate with another male. So >> women are attracted to looks, too. > >Oh, yes, it's certainly something to do with evolution, or at least >history. (It could have just been taught for a *really* long time, though, >and not be genetic.) > >Men simply pick someone to have sex with that have body that can handle >childbirth. (Of course, this has gotten rather skewed over the years. Has >anyone ever heard the theory that breasts evolved from butts? That is, man >is one of the only animals that has sex front to front, and while other >primates are attracted to big rears, human females started growing larger >breasts to attract men from the front. Interesting theory, eh?) > >Whereas women are looking for someone to support them and their child, not >to have sex with. If anyone doubts this, consider the interesting effect >putting on a tuxedo has. Why exactly is that sexy? Because it's expensive, >that's about the only reason. > Then why do women love men in well-fitting jeans? Rose It's not Giles

2003-02-18 08:16:06+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (coocoo@aol.com)


On Tue, 18 Feb 2003 01:50:52 -0500, "." <pdesan@ican.net> wrote: >Andrew is not gay he is just a geek that made a reference to Jonathan Archer >from Enterprise. > Yes But he did it with that Homer Simpson drool voice!

2003-02-18 08:16:06+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (coocoo@aol.com)


On Tue, 18 Feb 2003 01:50:52 -0500, "." <pdesan@ican.net> wrote: >Andrew is not gay he is just a geek that made a reference to Jonathan Archer >from Enterprise. > Yes But he did it with that Homer Simpson drool voice!

2003-02-18 08:18:21+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (holowillow@aol.com)


On 17 Feb 2003 07:01:08 GMT, Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu> wrote: >I think lesbians, much more so than gay men, have a greater occurence of >heterosexual history before they found women. There seems to be more >flexibility there in general, compared to the less fluid divisions between >straight and gay men. > Did you just say "fluid divisions between straight and gay men." Yuck!

2003-02-18 08:18:21+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (holowillow@aol.com)


On 17 Feb 2003 07:01:08 GMT, Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu> wrote: >I think lesbians, much more so than gay men, have a greater occurence of >heterosexual history before they found women. There seems to be more >flexibility there in general, compared to the less fluid divisions between >straight and gay men. > Did you just say "fluid divisions between straight and gay men." Yuck!

2003-02-18 13:14:53-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - ("C.L. Lassiter" <seaelle@unc.edu>)


sillyman@famous.com wrote: > On 14 Feb 2003 15:08:04 -0500, "C.L. Lassiter" <seaelle@unc.edu> > wrote: >> >> Hey. All you straight men here. Can *you* tell when another man >>is attractive? >> >>cl > Sigh. No. I thought I had a handle on it, but then I started checking > this ng daily. If Spike is a dream and Riley is dreck, well . . . Sorry for a tardy response. We didn't get the feet of snow the northeast got; we only got 2 inches of sleet. Ugh. But, sillyman, I'd say that you are completely capable of preceiving what's attractive in another man. You think Riley is attractive (So do I); you don't think Spike is (I do.) Beauty, eye, beholder and all that. And remember: everyone (Even me--though I'm amazed every time) is attractive to someone, and no one (Even Brad Pitt) is attractive to everyone. cl

2003-02-18 13:14:53-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - ("C.L. Lassiter" <seaelle@unc.edu>)


sillyman@famous.com wrote: > On 14 Feb 2003 15:08:04 -0500, "C.L. Lassiter" <seaelle@unc.edu> > wrote: >> >> Hey. All you straight men here. Can *you* tell when another man >>is attractive? >> >>cl > Sigh. No. I thought I had a handle on it, but then I started checking > this ng daily. If Spike is a dream and Riley is dreck, well . . . Sorry for a tardy response. We didn't get the feet of snow the northeast got; we only got 2 inches of sleet. Ugh. But, sillyman, I'd say that you are completely capable of preceiving what's attractive in another man. You think Riley is attractive (So do I); you don't think Spike is (I do.) Beauty, eye, beholder and all that. And remember: everyone (Even me--though I'm amazed every time) is attractive to someone, and no one (Even Brad Pitt) is attractive to everyone. cl

2003-02-18 13:15:58-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - ("C.L. Lassiter" <seaelle@unc.edu>)


sillyman@famous.com wrote: > On 14 Feb 2003 22:37:05 GMT, fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote: >>Yes but these days you need a college degree. > But I do! I do higher math and everything! I'm sending you my checkbook to balance. cl, thinking "I know; I know--lower math"

2003-02-18 13:15:58-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - ("C.L. Lassiter" <seaelle@unc.edu>)


sillyman@famous.com wrote: > On 14 Feb 2003 22:37:05 GMT, fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote: >>Yes but these days you need a college degree. > But I do! I do higher math and everything! I'm sending you my checkbook to balance. cl, thinking "I know; I know--lower math"

2003-02-18 13:40:03-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - ("C.L. Lassiter" <seaelle@unc.edu>)


David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com> wrote: > On Fri, 14 Feb 2003 18:53:55 -0500, Rowan Hawthorn wrote: >> "C.L. Lassiter" <seaelle@unc.edu> wrote in message >> news:3e4d4c9f@news.unc.edu... >>> Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu> wrote: >>> > C.L. Lassiter <seaelle@unc.edu> wrote: >>> >>> Hey. All you straight men here. Can *you* tell when another man is >>> attractive? > For example, I have no idea why, to pick an example, Marsters is > considered good-looking. It seems to me it's his *image* as Spike more > than his actual looks Certainly that plays into it, but even though he's thin, he's *way* cut. (And I like him better with his dark hair.) ...if I were going solely by looks, I'd pick season > 1-4 Xander, Ick. or Riley, Yum. depending on how muscled you like your guys. (See, > look, I'm secure in my sexuality.) Come here, big boy. :-) > The problem, I think, is that women are good-looking based, almost > entirely, their looks. Oh wow. That's not my perception at all. > But men don't judge people's looks by that, and so when we're asked if > another man is good-looking we just resort to 'Well, his haircut seems > okay, his face is symmetrical, he's not fat, his clothes fit...' which > isn't how women (and gay men) judge male 'beauty' at all. So eventually we > just start saying 'we don't know', because no matter how we judge their > looks, we'll always hit someone that women say is 'good-looking' that is > *way* outside the rules, like Russel Crowe. Ugh. Majorly unattractive to me. > So while *some* of it is being insecure in sexuality, there are a lot of > us who *aren't* insecure, but we're just always *wrong*. Wrong? Wrong? How can your perception be wrong? > There's also the problem that men and women have different ideas about > what is important to pay attention to. Men do not pay attention to other > men, I don't buy that. Even straight men size up the competition in locker rooms. whereas women do pay attention to other women. They're more enlightened. :-) > Often times, when a man is ask 'Do you think he's cute?' when walking > through the mall, the man has honestly never had that thought enter his > head...why should *he* care about the looks of a random guy walking near > him? He glanced at the guy, filed him under 'unknown unthreating male', > check a mental map to make sure they weren't going to walk into each > other, and dismissed him. Twenty seconds later, he couldn't even tell you > the approximate age of the guy or his race, because he simply wasn't > paying any attention. It's just 'unknown unthreating male over there'. Um, I can see that. Kind of like I am when someone asks me "Isn't she pretty?" "Huh? Who?" BUT, when I look at the woman I can certainly offer an opinion as to her physical beauty, and, of course, it's exactly that--my opinion. > The stalling isn't because we're embarrassed, it's because we're having to > sit there and figure it out right then, and we know we're not very good at > it, so we just end up giving a non-committal answer, or, like I do, saying > 'He looks kinda like Joey, from Friends.' <shudder> cl

2003-02-18 13:40:03-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - ("C.L. Lassiter" <seaelle@unc.edu>)


David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com> wrote: > On Fri, 14 Feb 2003 18:53:55 -0500, Rowan Hawthorn wrote: >> "C.L. Lassiter" <seaelle@unc.edu> wrote in message >> news:3e4d4c9f@news.unc.edu... >>> Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu> wrote: >>> > C.L. Lassiter <seaelle@unc.edu> wrote: >>> >>> Hey. All you straight men here. Can *you* tell when another man is >>> attractive? > For example, I have no idea why, to pick an example, Marsters is > considered good-looking. It seems to me it's his *image* as Spike more > than his actual looks Certainly that plays into it, but even though he's thin, he's *way* cut. (And I like him better with his dark hair.) ...if I were going solely by looks, I'd pick season > 1-4 Xander, Ick. or Riley, Yum. depending on how muscled you like your guys. (See, > look, I'm secure in my sexuality.) Come here, big boy. :-) > The problem, I think, is that women are good-looking based, almost > entirely, their looks. Oh wow. That's not my perception at all. > But men don't judge people's looks by that, and so when we're asked if > another man is good-looking we just resort to 'Well, his haircut seems > okay, his face is symmetrical, he's not fat, his clothes fit...' which > isn't how women (and gay men) judge male 'beauty' at all. So eventually we > just start saying 'we don't know', because no matter how we judge their > looks, we'll always hit someone that women say is 'good-looking' that is > *way* outside the rules, like Russel Crowe. Ugh. Majorly unattractive to me. > So while *some* of it is being insecure in sexuality, there are a lot of > us who *aren't* insecure, but we're just always *wrong*. Wrong? Wrong? How can your perception be wrong? > There's also the problem that men and women have different ideas about > what is important to pay attention to. Men do not pay attention to other > men, I don't buy that. Even straight men size up the competition in locker rooms. whereas women do pay attention to other women. They're more enlightened. :-) > Often times, when a man is ask 'Do you think he's cute?' when walking > through the mall, the man has honestly never had that thought enter his > head...why should *he* care about the looks of a random guy walking near > him? He glanced at the guy, filed him under 'unknown unthreating male', > check a mental map to make sure they weren't going to walk into each > other, and dismissed him. Twenty seconds later, he couldn't even tell you > the approximate age of the guy or his race, because he simply wasn't > paying any attention. It's just 'unknown unthreating male over there'. Um, I can see that. Kind of like I am when someone asks me "Isn't she pretty?" "Huh? Who?" BUT, when I look at the woman I can certainly offer an opinion as to her physical beauty, and, of course, it's exactly that--my opinion. > The stalling isn't because we're embarrassed, it's because we're having to > sit there and figure it out right then, and we know we're not very good at > it, so we just end up giving a non-committal answer, or, like I do, saying > 'He looks kinda like Joey, from Friends.' <shudder> cl

2003-02-18 13:48:48-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - ("C.L. Lassiter" <seaelle@unc.edu>)


Jay <malicious.user@attbi.com> wrote: > "C.L. Lassiter" <seaelle@unc.edu> wrote in message news:3e4d4c9f@news.unc.edu... >> Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu> wrote: >> > C.L. Lassiter <seaelle@unc.edu> wrote: >> >> > : her. (Which brings up one of my pet peeves about some straight >> > : men who say stuff like "I can't tell if a man's good-looking," but that's >> > :another discussion.) >> >> > Let's start it. >> >> Hey. All you straight men here. Can *you* tell when another man >> is attractive? >> >> cl > Sometimes. Gay men and straight women often have very different > standards of male beauty. Some things are universal - height, build, > jaw, and so on. And even that's subjective. I know "tall" is considered better. (I'm 6'2"...whew), but in what I find attractive, I'm typically drawn to men in the 5'6" to 5'8" range. And I lift weights (No Ahhnold here though), but I rather like the JFK, Jr. build. Some things (and this is the part I get lost on) are not. Again, that's true, but what you (or I) consider attractive is not, ultimately, everyone else's definition. What's attractive to you is what's attractive to you. How's that for profound? cl

2003-02-18 13:48:48-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - ("C.L. Lassiter" <seaelle@unc.edu>)


Jay <malicious.user@attbi.com> wrote: > "C.L. Lassiter" <seaelle@unc.edu> wrote in message news:3e4d4c9f@news.unc.edu... >> Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu> wrote: >> > C.L. Lassiter <seaelle@unc.edu> wrote: >> >> > : her. (Which brings up one of my pet peeves about some straight >> > : men who say stuff like "I can't tell if a man's good-looking," but that's >> > :another discussion.) >> >> > Let's start it. >> >> Hey. All you straight men here. Can *you* tell when another man >> is attractive? >> >> cl > Sometimes. Gay men and straight women often have very different > standards of male beauty. Some things are universal - height, build, > jaw, and so on. And even that's subjective. I know "tall" is considered better. (I'm 6'2"...whew), but in what I find attractive, I'm typically drawn to men in the 5'6" to 5'8" range. And I lift weights (No Ahhnold here though), but I rather like the JFK, Jr. build. Some things (and this is the part I get lost on) are not. Again, that's true, but what you (or I) consider attractive is not, ultimately, everyone else's definition. What's attractive to you is what's attractive to you. How's that for profound? cl

2003-02-18 13:50:57-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - ("C.L. Lassiter" <seaelle@unc.edu>)


drifter <nowhere@all> wrote: > "C.L. Lassiter" <seaelle@unc.edu> wrote in message >> Hey. All you straight men here. Can *you* tell when another man >> is attractive? >> >> cl > My sister is nuts about Jon Bon Jovi, but to me he just > looks kinda like a corpse. I wouldn't want to look like him. > She also thinks Brad Pitt is all that, but he looks feminine > to me. I also think that JM in vamp face has a peculiarly > long chin, for some reason (might be the teeth), but he isn't > exactly ugly. All this should prove that I'm truly no judge > of male beauty. In fact, the only guy I can think of that I > actually think IS handsome, and is just what I would like to > look like if I didn't look like myself, is Tom Selleck. That > there is one good looking man. Even as a straight man, I'm > not afraid to say that. Then you pass the test. Congratulations. :-) cl

2003-02-18 13:50:57-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - ("C.L. Lassiter" <seaelle@unc.edu>)


drifter <nowhere@all> wrote: > "C.L. Lassiter" <seaelle@unc.edu> wrote in message >> Hey. All you straight men here. Can *you* tell when another man >> is attractive? >> >> cl > My sister is nuts about Jon Bon Jovi, but to me he just > looks kinda like a corpse. I wouldn't want to look like him. > She also thinks Brad Pitt is all that, but he looks feminine > to me. I also think that JM in vamp face has a peculiarly > long chin, for some reason (might be the teeth), but he isn't > exactly ugly. All this should prove that I'm truly no judge > of male beauty. In fact, the only guy I can think of that I > actually think IS handsome, and is just what I would like to > look like if I didn't look like myself, is Tom Selleck. That > there is one good looking man. Even as a straight man, I'm > not afraid to say that. Then you pass the test. Congratulations. :-) cl

2003-02-18 13:53:22-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - ("C.L. Lassiter" <seaelle@unc.edu>)


Rose <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote: > I find Buffy-era Cordelia very pleasant to look at. (Since then the various > icky hairstyles and less animated expression have soured my reaction.) Her face > is a work of art that brings me pleasure to look at...not sexual, but aesthetic > pleasure. Why can't there be a man that a straight guy would look at and say > "He has a beautiful face that I enjoy looking at, even though I would never > want to have intercourse with him." Thank you, Rose. What a good way to express it. cl

2003-02-18 13:53:22-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - ("C.L. Lassiter" <seaelle@unc.edu>)


Rose <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote: > I find Buffy-era Cordelia very pleasant to look at. (Since then the various > icky hairstyles and less animated expression have soured my reaction.) Her face > is a work of art that brings me pleasure to look at...not sexual, but aesthetic > pleasure. Why can't there be a man that a straight guy would look at and say > "He has a beautiful face that I enjoy looking at, even though I would never > want to have intercourse with him." Thank you, Rose. What a good way to express it. cl

2003-02-18 13:57:22-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - ("C.L. Lassiter" <seaelle@unc.edu>)


Sam <sam_14042@yahoo.com> wrote: > Yeah, I get that. And I can pick up on charisma in guys perfectly > fine. It's what largely determines which male actors I like -- George > Clooney, for instance, practically oozes charisma. And I, for one, find him so totally bland as to be bored silly by him. If I found him sleeping in my bed, I *would* sleep in the tub. Well, okay, I'd sleep in the bed, but he'd have to sleep over on that -> side! cl

2003-02-18 13:57:22-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - ("C.L. Lassiter" <seaelle@unc.edu>)


Sam <sam_14042@yahoo.com> wrote: > Yeah, I get that. And I can pick up on charisma in guys perfectly > fine. It's what largely determines which male actors I like -- George > Clooney, for instance, practically oozes charisma. And I, for one, find him so totally bland as to be bored silly by him. If I found him sleeping in my bed, I *would* sleep in the tub. Well, okay, I'd sleep in the bed, but he'd have to sleep over on that -> side! cl

2003-02-18 14:01:33-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - ("C.L. Lassiter" <seaelle@unc.edu>)


Tigerlily <tiger1i1y@hotmail.com> wrote: > dominicanindian@aol.com (DominicanIndian) wrote in message news:<20030214163411.29584.00000344@mb-cd.aol.com>... >> > >> >> I never liked labels........ "straight" "gay" "bisexual" "omnisexual" >> > "Omnisexual"??? Isn't that the same as bisexual? I mean, there are > only two genders, so bi covers them all, no? Well, there's that whole pesky matter of beastiality if you want to go there. cl, who doesn't

2003-02-18 14:01:33-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - ("C.L. Lassiter" <seaelle@unc.edu>)


Tigerlily <tiger1i1y@hotmail.com> wrote: > dominicanindian@aol.com (DominicanIndian) wrote in message news:<20030214163411.29584.00000344@mb-cd.aol.com>... >> > >> >> I never liked labels........ "straight" "gay" "bisexual" "omnisexual" >> > "Omnisexual"??? Isn't that the same as bisexual? I mean, there are > only two genders, so bi covers them all, no? Well, there's that whole pesky matter of beastiality if you want to go there. cl, who doesn't

2003-02-18 14:07:45-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - ("C.L. Lassiter" <seaelle@unc.edu>)


DominicanIndian <dominicanindian@aol.com> wrote: > << Okay, this is contradictory. If you would bone either sex, you are bisexual! >>> > not nessicarily....my friend is straight, though he masterbates to gay > porn..... Er...huh? Methinks your friend has unresolved issues. cl, completely befuddled

2003-02-18 14:07:45-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - ("C.L. Lassiter" <seaelle@unc.edu>)


DominicanIndian <dominicanindian@aol.com> wrote: > << Okay, this is contradictory. If you would bone either sex, you are bisexual! >>> > not nessicarily....my friend is straight, though he masterbates to gay > porn..... Er...huh? Methinks your friend has unresolved issues. cl, completely befuddled

2003-02-18 14:09:12-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - ("C.L. Lassiter" <seaelle@unc.edu>)


Rose <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote: > Then again, why is this guy TELLing you he jerks off to gay porn? I mean > really, it's too much information. > Rose, who promises never to discuss her snot fetish online Ewwww. Too late! cl, who'll never own up to XXXX --

2003-02-18 14:09:12-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - ("C.L. Lassiter" <seaelle@unc.edu>)


Rose <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote: > Then again, why is this guy TELLing you he jerks off to gay porn? I mean > really, it's too much information. > Rose, who promises never to discuss her snot fetish online Ewwww. Too late! cl, who'll never own up to XXXX --

2003-02-18 14:10:52-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - ("C.L. Lassiter" <seaelle@unc.edu>)


Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu> wrote: > All your desires are gay. All your actions are straight (because doing > anything else would seem wrong or evil or just scary to you, what have > you). Which are you? I'd say what one wants is what one is. cl

2003-02-18 14:10:52-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - ("C.L. Lassiter" <seaelle@unc.edu>)


Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu> wrote: > All your desires are gay. All your actions are straight (because doing > anything else would seem wrong or evil or just scary to you, what have > you). Which are you? I'd say what one wants is what one is. cl

2003-02-18 14:14:49-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - ("C.L. Lassiter" <seaelle@unc.edu>)


holowillow@aol.com wrote: > Did you just say > "fluid divisions between straight and gay men." <Homer Simpson> Oooh, fluid divisions.</HS> cl

2003-02-18 14:14:49-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - ("C.L. Lassiter" <seaelle@unc.edu>)


holowillow@aol.com wrote: > Did you just say > "fluid divisions between straight and gay men." <Homer Simpson> Oooh, fluid divisions.</HS> cl

2003-02-18 18:27:51-08:00 - Re: andrews gay - (pahammond@onetel.net.uk)


fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote in message news:<20030214155523.20075.00001352@mb-cu.aol.com>... > >Subject: Re: andrews gay > >From: sillyman@famous.com > >Date: 2/14/2003 12:48 PM Pacific Standard Time > >Message-id: <3e4dfcf0.58730260@news.telus.net> > > > >On 14 Feb 2003 15:08:04 -0500, "C.L. Lassiter" <seaelle@unc.edu> > >wrote: > > > > > >> > >> Hey. All you straight men here. Can *you* tell when another man > >>is attractive? > >> > >>cl > > I think the correct answer is "sometimes" - and often our ideas about "fanciability" are at variance with the opinions of those who actually do fancy men. I guess it is too hypothetical, trying to put yourself in the position of imaginining you fancy those you don't. I think we can tell the difference between potential movie stars, ordinary guys, and "urgh, ugly as sin", but I have had several experiences like forge - for the life of me, I couldn't see what many of my female friends saw in Goran Ivanisevich, and once, when watching an impromptu soccer match at university, and challenged to choose the sexiest man on the pitch, myself and all the straight men picked one player, and the women and the gay man all agreed on a totally different player. Paul > >Sigh. No. I thought I had a handle on it, but then I started checking > >this ng daily. If Spike is a dream and Riley is dreck, well . . . > > > > There is room for difference of opinion. Some women don't find Spike > attractive and think Riley is hot. > > > > Rose > It's not Giles

2003-02-18 18:27:51-08:00 - Re: andrews gay - (pahammond@onetel.net.uk)


fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote in message news:<20030214155523.20075.00001352@mb-cu.aol.com>... > >Subject: Re: andrews gay > >From: sillyman@famous.com > >Date: 2/14/2003 12:48 PM Pacific Standard Time > >Message-id: <3e4dfcf0.58730260@news.telus.net> > > > >On 14 Feb 2003 15:08:04 -0500, "C.L. Lassiter" <seaelle@unc.edu> > >wrote: > > > > > >> > >> Hey. All you straight men here. Can *you* tell when another man > >>is attractive? > >> > >>cl > > I think the correct answer is "sometimes" - and often our ideas about "fanciability" are at variance with the opinions of those who actually do fancy men. I guess it is too hypothetical, trying to put yourself in the position of imaginining you fancy those you don't. I think we can tell the difference between potential movie stars, ordinary guys, and "urgh, ugly as sin", but I have had several experiences like forge - for the life of me, I couldn't see what many of my female friends saw in Goran Ivanisevich, and once, when watching an impromptu soccer match at university, and challenged to choose the sexiest man on the pitch, myself and all the straight men picked one player, and the women and the gay man all agreed on a totally different player. Paul > >Sigh. No. I thought I had a handle on it, but then I started checking > >this ng daily. If Spike is a dream and Riley is dreck, well . . . > > > > There is room for difference of opinion. Some women don't find Spike > attractive and think Riley is hot. > > > > Rose > It's not Giles

2003-02-18 21:32:26+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (rander3127@rogers.com)


On 18 Feb 2003 13:50:57 -0500, "C.L. Lassiter" <seaelle@unc.edu> wrote: >drifter <nowhere@all> wrote: >> "C.L. Lassiter" <seaelle@unc.edu> wrote in message > >>> Hey. All you straight men here. Can *you* tell when another man >>> is attractive? >>> >>> cl > >> My sister is nuts about Jon Bon Jovi, but to me he just >> looks kinda like a corpse. I wouldn't want to look like him. >> She also thinks Brad Pitt is all that, but he looks feminine >> to me. I also think that JM in vamp face has a peculiarly >> long chin, for some reason (might be the teeth), but he isn't >> exactly ugly. All this should prove that I'm truly no judge >> of male beauty. In fact, the only guy I can think of that I >> actually think IS handsome, and is just what I would like to >> look like if I didn't look like myself, is Tom Selleck. That >> there is one good looking man. Even as a straight man, I'm >> not afraid to say that. > > Then you pass the test. Congratulations. :-) > >cl Tom Sellect is a homosexual. He shot a movie in Toronto once. A friend of mine had a girlfriend who had a small part in the movie. Every day, Selleck's boyfriend would show up at the site. -Rich

2003-02-18 21:32:26+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (rander3127@rogers.com)


On 18 Feb 2003 13:50:57 -0500, "C.L. Lassiter" <seaelle@unc.edu> wrote: >drifter <nowhere@all> wrote: >> "C.L. Lassiter" <seaelle@unc.edu> wrote in message > >>> Hey. All you straight men here. Can *you* tell when another man >>> is attractive? >>> >>> cl > >> My sister is nuts about Jon Bon Jovi, but to me he just >> looks kinda like a corpse. I wouldn't want to look like him. >> She also thinks Brad Pitt is all that, but he looks feminine >> to me. I also think that JM in vamp face has a peculiarly >> long chin, for some reason (might be the teeth), but he isn't >> exactly ugly. All this should prove that I'm truly no judge >> of male beauty. In fact, the only guy I can think of that I >> actually think IS handsome, and is just what I would like to >> look like if I didn't look like myself, is Tom Selleck. That >> there is one good looking man. Even as a straight man, I'm >> not afraid to say that. > > Then you pass the test. Congratulations. :-) > >cl Tom Sellect is a homosexual. He shot a movie in Toronto once. A friend of mine had a girlfriend who had a small part in the movie. Every day, Selleck's boyfriend would show up at the site. -Rich

2003-02-18 22:06:39-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - (Kevin Michael Vail <kevin@vaildc.net>)


In article <b2jg95$39s$7@news.fas.harvard.edu>, Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu> wrote: > And its unlikely that such a scenario as you describe above (a > self-identified lesbian who really prefers sleeping with men) would > happen. I used to know a woman who was a Jewish lesbian vegetarian, but she ate bacon and dated men. -- Kevin Michael Vail | Dogbert: That's circular reasoning. kevin@vaildc.net | Dilbert: I prefer to think of it as no loose ends. http://www.vaildc.net/kevin/

2003-02-18 22:06:39-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - (Kevin Michael Vail <kevin@vaildc.net>)


In article <b2jg95$39s$7@news.fas.harvard.edu>, Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu> wrote: > And its unlikely that such a scenario as you describe above (a > self-identified lesbian who really prefers sleeping with men) would > happen. I used to know a woman who was a Jewish lesbian vegetarian, but she ate bacon and dated men. -- Kevin Michael Vail | Dogbert: That's circular reasoning. kevin@vaildc.net | Dilbert: I prefer to think of it as no loose ends. http://www.vaildc.net/kevin/

2003-02-18 22:18:45-08:00 - Re: andrews gay - (rabidsara@yahoo.com)


Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu> wrote in message news:<b2kre8$9nm$1@news.fas.harvard.edu>... > Sam <sam_14042@yahoo.com> wrote: > > There's a simple rule for both male and female beauty, and it's the same > one, which is one of the reasons I find it disingenuous when people > purport to be able to see the one but not the other: symmetry. > > Faces that are proportioned evenly, with great symmetry, seem to indicate > qualities like health, harmony and balance to the people who view them. > These are attractive, adaptive traits, and this is what we're wired to > determine about potential partners, as well as potential friends/allies. > What's their chance for survival, and your chance of relying on them as a > partner and getting something back? > Ok, gotta step in here... Most ideas about the importance of symmetry we got from patterns on animals like butterflies and how important symmetry of pattern was to butterflies in choosing a mate. It has generally held up in experiments though. But so have many other notions such as the averaging of faces, the pentagon theory, etc... Here is one I like that is easy to see. And I don't need a computer to measure up the person's attractiveness. This is the result of experiments done on Japanese people measuring beauty of both Japanese and Americans, and on Americans measuring beauty of both Japanese and Americans. Both American and Japanese women *and* men were consistently rated higher in beauty if they had the following features: Eyes: Larger iris when compared to the size of the actual eye. (It doesn't matter how large the eyes are, although large eyes with large irises help. Larger irises in proportion to eye size make eyes look more warm and liquid instead of beady-looking). You can experiment with this yourself... look at a highschool yearbook or www.hotornot.com to compare lots of pictures of average people. People with proportionally larger irises consistently seem to have more "attractive" eyes. Don't look at TV shows because people on TV typically have larger irises. Nose: Smaller nose in proportion to face. Experiment by shrinking down the nose of a larger-nosed male or female... might look more attractive. Cheekbones: Higher cheek bones (yes, in both males and females). Chin: A chin that tapers from the front view gives more attractiveness to the shape of the face. This is a biggie that people often forget. Draw a circle or a square to represent the front view of a face. Then make the "chin" of the face (whether square or circle) appear to taper down instead of remain square or circle. Every main cast member on Buffy and Angel has most or all of these features. Babies have the above features, minus the chin. My friends and I experimented with these features by taking pictures from magazines and increasing the iris size, making cheekbones higher, noses smaller and tapering the chins. The result always ended up more attractive! > This doesn't rule out unusual features, like wide mouths, large teeth, > long noses, or even exceptions to the rule. Sophia Loren's nose is too > big. Cher's face is too long. Deniro has squinty eyes, and a big nose. > One of Shannen Doherty's eyes is bigger or higher than the other. But even > those faces have other aspects of symmetry, and those people are all > deemed attractive. The method I mentioned does rule some of that out ;) Also, I'm sure the first thing we notice about Shannon Doherty isn't that one eye is bigger or higher than the other. When scanning the face, within seconds we can appraise its beauty. I must have scanned her face hundreds and hundreds of times and I never noticed the eye thing. > > So, if you meet a guy and he seems to exude health and energy, with nice > skin and twinkly eyes, and he doesn't say have one big ear or an odd slant > to his jaw or a strangely shaped head, he would likely be deemed > attractive. > > Shawn In case anyone's wondering, there were three and only three differences found between male and female faces (excluding facial hair, eyebrows), and the differences were very slight: Males have slightly larger noses. Males have slightly longer chins. Males have slightly smaller lips. Decrease the nose and chin of a guy and increase the lip size and he looks like a woman! (I did this with photoshop!) Same for a female if you make her nose bigger, her chin longer, and her lips thinner. People with a mix of the features look a little more androgynous. -Sara

2003-02-18 22:18:45-08:00 - Re: andrews gay - (rabidsara@yahoo.com)


Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu> wrote in message news:<b2kre8$9nm$1@news.fas.harvard.edu>... > Sam <sam_14042@yahoo.com> wrote: > > There's a simple rule for both male and female beauty, and it's the same > one, which is one of the reasons I find it disingenuous when people > purport to be able to see the one but not the other: symmetry. > > Faces that are proportioned evenly, with great symmetry, seem to indicate > qualities like health, harmony and balance to the people who view them. > These are attractive, adaptive traits, and this is what we're wired to > determine about potential partners, as well as potential friends/allies. > What's their chance for survival, and your chance of relying on them as a > partner and getting something back? > Ok, gotta step in here... Most ideas about the importance of symmetry we got from patterns on animals like butterflies and how important symmetry of pattern was to butterflies in choosing a mate. It has generally held up in experiments though. But so have many other notions such as the averaging of faces, the pentagon theory, etc... Here is one I like that is easy to see. And I don't need a computer to measure up the person's attractiveness. This is the result of experiments done on Japanese people measuring beauty of both Japanese and Americans, and on Americans measuring beauty of both Japanese and Americans. Both American and Japanese women *and* men were consistently rated higher in beauty if they had the following features: Eyes: Larger iris when compared to the size of the actual eye. (It doesn't matter how large the eyes are, although large eyes with large irises help. Larger irises in proportion to eye size make eyes look more warm and liquid instead of beady-looking). You can experiment with this yourself... look at a highschool yearbook or www.hotornot.com to compare lots of pictures of average people. People with proportionally larger irises consistently seem to have more "attractive" eyes. Don't look at TV shows because people on TV typically have larger irises. Nose: Smaller nose in proportion to face. Experiment by shrinking down the nose of a larger-nosed male or female... might look more attractive. Cheekbones: Higher cheek bones (yes, in both males and females). Chin: A chin that tapers from the front view gives more attractiveness to the shape of the face. This is a biggie that people often forget. Draw a circle or a square to represent the front view of a face. Then make the "chin" of the face (whether square or circle) appear to taper down instead of remain square or circle. Every main cast member on Buffy and Angel has most or all of these features. Babies have the above features, minus the chin. My friends and I experimented with these features by taking pictures from magazines and increasing the iris size, making cheekbones higher, noses smaller and tapering the chins. The result always ended up more attractive! > This doesn't rule out unusual features, like wide mouths, large teeth, > long noses, or even exceptions to the rule. Sophia Loren's nose is too > big. Cher's face is too long. Deniro has squinty eyes, and a big nose. > One of Shannen Doherty's eyes is bigger or higher than the other. But even > those faces have other aspects of symmetry, and those people are all > deemed attractive. The method I mentioned does rule some of that out ;) Also, I'm sure the first thing we notice about Shannon Doherty isn't that one eye is bigger or higher than the other. When scanning the face, within seconds we can appraise its beauty. I must have scanned her face hundreds and hundreds of times and I never noticed the eye thing. > > So, if you meet a guy and he seems to exude health and energy, with nice > skin and twinkly eyes, and he doesn't say have one big ear or an odd slant > to his jaw or a strangely shaped head, he would likely be deemed > attractive. > > Shawn In case anyone's wondering, there were three and only three differences found between male and female faces (excluding facial hair, eyebrows), and the differences were very slight: Males have slightly larger noses. Males have slightly longer chins. Males have slightly smaller lips. Decrease the nose and chin of a guy and increase the lip size and he looks like a woman! (I did this with photoshop!) Same for a female if you make her nose bigger, her chin longer, and her lips thinner. People with a mix of the features look a little more androgynous. -Sara

2003-02-18 23:36:28+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu>)


David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com> wrote: : On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 06:11:55 +0000, Shawn Hill wrote: :> If they've got that much skill in assessing how women look, how is it they :> have none at all when seeing a man? So little that they can't even tell if :> he's good looking? : The problem, like I said, is two-fold...one that men, if they had a : concept of 'an attractive man', they could easily figure out if another : man was attractive...but they don't. Male attractiveness is judged : differently. What if the man thinks he, himself, is attractive (or not attractive, on the other hand). Wouldn't that indicate he has some sort of ideal of male attractiveness, that he either meets or fails? : The second is that men don't even judge them at all automatically. 'Do you : think that guy is good looking?' (Huh? What guy? That guy over there?) Right. Not even bothering to look, because not interested. This is making me think of Andy Richter's best friend (Kieth? Played by the OTHER Patrick Stewart) on his sitcom; a guy so sure of his own beauty and appeal to women, other men barely cross his mind at all. Except for functional things like hanging out or work, he might just as well live in world of one, where EVERYONE else worthy of interest is female. : It's really not a problem copping to it....I mean, I'll tell you if a guy : is attractive or not, I just need a few minutes to think about it. Interesting. Shawn

2003-02-18 23:36:28+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu>)


David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com> wrote: : On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 06:11:55 +0000, Shawn Hill wrote: :> If they've got that much skill in assessing how women look, how is it they :> have none at all when seeing a man? So little that they can't even tell if :> he's good looking? : The problem, like I said, is two-fold...one that men, if they had a : concept of 'an attractive man', they could easily figure out if another : man was attractive...but they don't. Male attractiveness is judged : differently. What if the man thinks he, himself, is attractive (or not attractive, on the other hand). Wouldn't that indicate he has some sort of ideal of male attractiveness, that he either meets or fails? : The second is that men don't even judge them at all automatically. 'Do you : think that guy is good looking?' (Huh? What guy? That guy over there?) Right. Not even bothering to look, because not interested. This is making me think of Andy Richter's best friend (Kieth? Played by the OTHER Patrick Stewart) on his sitcom; a guy so sure of his own beauty and appeal to women, other men barely cross his mind at all. Except for functional things like hanging out or work, he might just as well live in world of one, where EVERYONE else worthy of interest is female. : It's really not a problem copping to it....I mean, I'll tell you if a guy : is attractive or not, I just need a few minutes to think about it. Interesting. Shawn

2003-02-18 23:37:40+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu>)


. <pdesan@ican.net> wrote: : Andrew is not gay he is just a geek that made a reference to Jonathan Archer : from Enterprise. A reference with stars in his eyes and a contented sigh. Shawn

2003-02-18 23:37:40+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu>)


. <pdesan@ican.net> wrote: : Andrew is not gay he is just a geek that made a reference to Jonathan Archer : from Enterprise. A reference with stars in his eyes and a contented sigh. Shawn

2003-02-18 23:40:42+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu>)


holowillow@aol.com wrote: : On 17 Feb 2003 07:01:08 GMT, Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu> wrote: :>I think lesbians, much more so than gay men, have a greater occurence of :>heterosexual history before they found women. There seems to be more :>flexibility there in general, compared to the less fluid divisions between :>straight and gay men. :> : Did you just say : "fluid divisions between straight and gay men." : Yuck! It all washes off in the steam room. Shawn :)

2003-02-18 23:40:42+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu>)


holowillow@aol.com wrote: : On 17 Feb 2003 07:01:08 GMT, Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu> wrote: :>I think lesbians, much more so than gay men, have a greater occurence of :>heterosexual history before they found women. There seems to be more :>flexibility there in general, compared to the less fluid divisions between :>straight and gay men. :> : Did you just say : "fluid divisions between straight and gay men." : Yuck! It all washes off in the steam room. Shawn :)

2003-02-19 00:32:25-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - (David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com>)


On Tue, 18 Feb 2003 23:36:28 +0000, Shawn Hill wrote: > David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com> wrote: > : On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 06:11:55 +0000, Shawn Hill wrote: > > :> If they've got that much skill in assessing how women look, how is it > :> they have none at all when seeing a man? So little that they can't even > :> tell if he's good looking? > > : The problem, like I said, is two-fold...one that men, if they had a > : concept of 'an attractive man', they could easily figure out if another > : man was attractive...but they don't. Male attractiveness is judged > : differently. > > What if the man thinks he, himself, is attractive (or not attractive, on > the other hand). Wouldn't that indicate he has some sort of ideal of male > attractiveness, that he either meets or fails? I think that's probably just based on how women react to him. And, seriously, haven't you seen straight men wearing really bad clothes? Some of us have no concept of what looks good on men. > : The second is that men don't even judge them at all automatically. 'Do > : you think that guy is good looking?' (Huh? What guy? That guy over > : there?) > > Right. Not even bothering to look, because not interested. This is making > me think of Andy Richter's best friend (Kieth? Played by the OTHER Patrick > Stewart) on his sitcom; a guy so sure of his own beauty and appeal to > women, other men barely cross his mind at all. Except for functional > things like hanging out or work, he might just as well live in world of > one, where EVERYONE else worthy of interest is female. Heh. It's not quite that bad. Let's just say I have absolutely no reason to pay attention to guys I don't know and are not interacting with, and I have no reason to pay attention to how guy looks under, really, any circumstances, unless he's robbing a bank or something. > : It's really not a problem copping to it....I mean, I'll tell you if a > : guy is attractive or not, I just need a few minutes to think about it. > > Interesting. > > Shawn -- David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com> NOYFB, P

2003-02-19 00:32:25-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - (David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com>)


On Tue, 18 Feb 2003 23:36:28 +0000, Shawn Hill wrote: > David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com> wrote: > : On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 06:11:55 +0000, Shawn Hill wrote: > > :> If they've got that much skill in assessing how women look, how is it > :> they have none at all when seeing a man? So little that they can't even > :> tell if he's good looking? > > : The problem, like I said, is two-fold...one that men, if they had a > : concept of 'an attractive man', they could easily figure out if another > : man was attractive...but they don't. Male attractiveness is judged > : differently. > > What if the man thinks he, himself, is attractive (or not attractive, on > the other hand). Wouldn't that indicate he has some sort of ideal of male > attractiveness, that he either meets or fails? I think that's probably just based on how women react to him. And, seriously, haven't you seen straight men wearing really bad clothes? Some of us have no concept of what looks good on men. > : The second is that men don't even judge them at all automatically. 'Do > : you think that guy is good looking?' (Huh? What guy? That guy over > : there?) > > Right. Not even bothering to look, because not interested. This is making > me think of Andy Richter's best friend (Kieth? Played by the OTHER Patrick > Stewart) on his sitcom; a guy so sure of his own beauty and appeal to > women, other men barely cross his mind at all. Except for functional > things like hanging out or work, he might just as well live in world of > one, where EVERYONE else worthy of interest is female. Heh. It's not quite that bad. Let's just say I have absolutely no reason to pay attention to guys I don't know and are not interacting with, and I have no reason to pay attention to how guy looks under, really, any circumstances, unless he's robbing a bank or something. > : It's really not a problem copping to it....I mean, I'll tell you if a > : guy is attractive or not, I just need a few minutes to think about it. > > Interesting. > > Shawn -- David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com> NOYFB, P

2003-02-19 00:53:32-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - (David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com>)


On Tue, 18 Feb 2003 13:40:03 -0500, C.L. Lassiter wrote: > David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com> wrote: >> On Fri, 14 Feb 2003 18:53:55 -0500, Rowan Hawthorn wrote: > > >>> "C.L. Lassiter" <seaelle@unc.edu> wrote in message >>> news:3e4d4c9f@news.unc.edu... >>>> Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu> wrote: >>>> > C.L. Lassiter <seaelle@unc.edu> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hey. All you straight men here. Can *you* tell when another man is >>>> attractive? > >> For example, I have no idea why, to pick an example, Marsters is >> considered good-looking. It seems to me it's his *image* as Spike more >> than his actual looks > > Certainly that plays into it, but even though he's thin, he's > *way* cut. (And I like him better with his dark hair.) > > ...if I were going solely by looks, I'd pick season >> 1-4 Xander, > > Ick. > > or Riley, > > Yum. > > depending on how muscled you like your guys. (See, >> look, I'm secure in my sexuality.) > > Come here, big boy. :-) > >> The problem, I think, is that women are good-looking based, almost >> entirely, their looks. > > Oh wow. That's not my perception at all. 'Looks' meaning 'things that are visible', not literally just the body but how it is carried and whatnot. >> But men don't judge people's looks by that, and so when we're asked if >> another man is good-looking we just resort to 'Well, his haircut seems >> okay, his face is symmetrical, he's not fat, his clothes fit...' which >> isn't how women (and gay men) judge male 'beauty' at all. So eventually >> we just start saying 'we don't know', because no matter how we judge >> their looks, we'll always hit someone that women say is 'good-looking' >> that is *way* outside the rules, like Russel Crowe. > > Ugh. Majorly unattractive to me. See what I'm talking about? Now, with women, there are certain variations, like breast size and general thinness, that can vary from man to man. But that's about it, and those are vary obvious. >> So while *some* of it is being insecure in sexuality, there are a lot >> of us who *aren't* insecure, but we're just always *wrong*. > > Wrong? Wrong? How can your perception be wrong? I don't *have* a perception of what a good-looking man looks like, just like I don't have a perception of what a good looking candy bar tastes like. I don't like chocolate, and I don't find men attractive. >> There's also the problem that men and women have different ideas about >> what is important to pay attention to. Men do not pay attention to >> other men, > > I don't buy that. Even straight men size up the competition in > locker rooms. Oh, certainly, the *competition*. Of course men try to figure out what women find attractive with their *competition*. But I don't consider myself 'competing' with 99% of the men I see...they're walking one way into the universe, and I'm walking another, and I don't expect to ever see them again. If me and some other guy were competing over a girl, you bet I'd try to figure out *everything* she might see in him, from looks to money to personality. > whereas women do pay attention to other women. > > They're more enlightened. :-) I actually think you hit the nail on the head a paragraph above. Other women are competition. Men look at them, hence women regard them as such. Whereas men presume that their girlfriends aren't going to sudden pull a random guy into a closet and make out with him. And I can't decide whether that speaks badly of men or women. >> Often times, when a man is ask 'Do you think he's cute?' when walking >> through the mall, the man has honestly never had that thought enter his >> head...why should *he* care about the looks of a random guy walking >> near him? He glanced at the guy, filed him under 'unknown unthreating >> male', check a mental map to make sure they weren't going to walk into >> each other, and dismissed him. Twenty seconds later, he couldn't even >> tell you the approximate age of the guy or his race, because he simply >> wasn't paying any attention. It's just 'unknown unthreating male over >> there'. > > Um, I can see that. Kind of like I am when someone asks me "Isn't > she pretty?" "Huh? Who?" BUT, when I look at the woman I can > certainly offer an opinion as to her physical beauty, and, of course, > it's exactly that--my opinion. My actual opinion on how he looks is that 'He looks like a man, and thus is not attractive at all.', just like if someone asked me how sexual attractive a park bench was. I don't honestly understand the disconnect you're presenting here. You are not attracted to other women, correct? Yet you can say how attractive she is? Well...how attractive she is to *who*? See, it's *not* your opinion, it's your opinion of society's opinion, because she isn't attractive to you. And that's really a big thing. Women are just faking it, they cannot judge the sexual attraction of a woman like a man does. (I'm limiting myself to straight people here.) All they are doing is matching it to societial standard of beauty...and female standards of beauty are a *lot* simplier than male standards, and women are a lot more aware of female standards than men are of male standards for that exact reason. (Gay people of either gender have an interesting and unique perspective on this, because they probably spent years trying to figure out what a good looking member of the other sex looked like, and then suddenly realized it looked like a member of their own.) -- David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com> NOYFB, P

2003-02-19 00:53:32-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - (David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com>)


On Tue, 18 Feb 2003 13:40:03 -0500, C.L. Lassiter wrote: > David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com> wrote: >> On Fri, 14 Feb 2003 18:53:55 -0500, Rowan Hawthorn wrote: > > >>> "C.L. Lassiter" <seaelle@unc.edu> wrote in message >>> news:3e4d4c9f@news.unc.edu... >>>> Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu> wrote: >>>> > C.L. Lassiter <seaelle@unc.edu> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hey. All you straight men here. Can *you* tell when another man is >>>> attractive? > >> For example, I have no idea why, to pick an example, Marsters is >> considered good-looking. It seems to me it's his *image* as Spike more >> than his actual looks > > Certainly that plays into it, but even though he's thin, he's > *way* cut. (And I like him better with his dark hair.) > > ...if I were going solely by looks, I'd pick season >> 1-4 Xander, > > Ick. > > or Riley, > > Yum. > > depending on how muscled you like your guys. (See, >> look, I'm secure in my sexuality.) > > Come here, big boy. :-) > >> The problem, I think, is that women are good-looking based, almost >> entirely, their looks. > > Oh wow. That's not my perception at all. 'Looks' meaning 'things that are visible', not literally just the body but how it is carried and whatnot. >> But men don't judge people's looks by that, and so when we're asked if >> another man is good-looking we just resort to 'Well, his haircut seems >> okay, his face is symmetrical, he's not fat, his clothes fit...' which >> isn't how women (and gay men) judge male 'beauty' at all. So eventually >> we just start saying 'we don't know', because no matter how we judge >> their looks, we'll always hit someone that women say is 'good-looking' >> that is *way* outside the rules, like Russel Crowe. > > Ugh. Majorly unattractive to me. See what I'm talking about? Now, with women, there are certain variations, like breast size and general thinness, that can vary from man to man. But that's about it, and those are vary obvious. >> So while *some* of it is being insecure in sexuality, there are a lot >> of us who *aren't* insecure, but we're just always *wrong*. > > Wrong? Wrong? How can your perception be wrong? I don't *have* a perception of what a good-looking man looks like, just like I don't have a perception of what a good looking candy bar tastes like. I don't like chocolate, and I don't find men attractive. >> There's also the problem that men and women have different ideas about >> what is important to pay attention to. Men do not pay attention to >> other men, > > I don't buy that. Even straight men size up the competition in > locker rooms. Oh, certainly, the *competition*. Of course men try to figure out what women find attractive with their *competition*. But I don't consider myself 'competing' with 99% of the men I see...they're walking one way into the universe, and I'm walking another, and I don't expect to ever see them again. If me and some other guy were competing over a girl, you bet I'd try to figure out *everything* she might see in him, from looks to money to personality. > whereas women do pay attention to other women. > > They're more enlightened. :-) I actually think you hit the nail on the head a paragraph above. Other women are competition. Men look at them, hence women regard them as such. Whereas men presume that their girlfriends aren't going to sudden pull a random guy into a closet and make out with him. And I can't decide whether that speaks badly of men or women. >> Often times, when a man is ask 'Do you think he's cute?' when walking >> through the mall, the man has honestly never had that thought enter his >> head...why should *he* care about the looks of a random guy walking >> near him? He glanced at the guy, filed him under 'unknown unthreating >> male', check a mental map to make sure they weren't going to walk into >> each other, and dismissed him. Twenty seconds later, he couldn't even >> tell you the approximate age of the guy or his race, because he simply >> wasn't paying any attention. It's just 'unknown unthreating male over >> there'. > > Um, I can see that. Kind of like I am when someone asks me "Isn't > she pretty?" "Huh? Who?" BUT, when I look at the woman I can > certainly offer an opinion as to her physical beauty, and, of course, > it's exactly that--my opinion. My actual opinion on how he looks is that 'He looks like a man, and thus is not attractive at all.', just like if someone asked me how sexual attractive a park bench was. I don't honestly understand the disconnect you're presenting here. You are not attracted to other women, correct? Yet you can say how attractive she is? Well...how attractive she is to *who*? See, it's *not* your opinion, it's your opinion of society's opinion, because she isn't attractive to you. And that's really a big thing. Women are just faking it, they cannot judge the sexual attraction of a woman like a man does. (I'm limiting myself to straight people here.) All they are doing is matching it to societial standard of beauty...and female standards of beauty are a *lot* simplier than male standards, and women are a lot more aware of female standards than men are of male standards for that exact reason. (Gay people of either gender have an interesting and unique perspective on this, because they probably spent years trying to figure out what a good looking member of the other sex looked like, and then suddenly realized it looked like a member of their own.) -- David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com> NOYFB, P

2003-02-19 01:03:16-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - (David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com>)


On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 04:34:47 +0000, Shawn Hill wrote: > David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com> wrote: > : On Tue, 18 Feb 2003 07:35:03 +0000, Rose wrote: > > :> Then why do women love men in well-fitting jeans? > > : I have no idea, you'd probably be better off asking a woman. ;) > > Because then you can see if their legs are long and strong. Maybe. Or at least how thin they are. I suspect it's just random sexual overlap, though. Something evolving in both genders, although it's only useful for one, like some scientists think the clitoris did. (Partially because it's badly located for sexual pleasure, and there thus there isn't really reason for it to exist for most of history. It might just be a 'side effect' of penises.) > : However, I don't mean to imply that 'ability to care for her and her > : young' is the only male standard, just like 'ability to birth children' > : isn't the only female standard. But the influence is certainly there. > > It's there, but it's one among many. And their are plenty of women, > confident of their own providing abilities, who are drawn to effiminate or > otherwise delicated looking guys, And, interestingly enough, this split continues in homosexuals, so much to the point it's a stereotype. > as well as men who like women with no > discernible hips but big (artificial) boobs. Yes, well, I have a theory that all those men have the same hangup. ;) -- David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com> NOYFB, P

2003-02-19 01:03:16-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - (David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com>)


On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 04:34:47 +0000, Shawn Hill wrote: > David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com> wrote: > : On Tue, 18 Feb 2003 07:35:03 +0000, Rose wrote: > > :> Then why do women love men in well-fitting jeans? > > : I have no idea, you'd probably be better off asking a woman. ;) > > Because then you can see if their legs are long and strong. Maybe. Or at least how thin they are. I suspect it's just random sexual overlap, though. Something evolving in both genders, although it's only useful for one, like some scientists think the clitoris did. (Partially because it's badly located for sexual pleasure, and there thus there isn't really reason for it to exist for most of history. It might just be a 'side effect' of penises.) > : However, I don't mean to imply that 'ability to care for her and her > : young' is the only male standard, just like 'ability to birth children' > : isn't the only female standard. But the influence is certainly there. > > It's there, but it's one among many. And their are plenty of women, > confident of their own providing abilities, who are drawn to effiminate or > otherwise delicated looking guys, And, interestingly enough, this split continues in homosexuals, so much to the point it's a stereotype. > as well as men who like women with no > discernible hips but big (artificial) boobs. Yes, well, I have a theory that all those men have the same hangup. ;) -- David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com> NOYFB, P

2003-02-19 01:04:43-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - (David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com>)


On Tue, 18 Feb 2003 22:06:39 -0500, Kevin Michael Vail wrote: > In article <b2jg95$39s$7@news.fas.harvard.edu>, > Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu> wrote: > >> And its unlikely that such a scenario as you describe above (a >> self-identified lesbian who really prefers sleeping with men) would >> happen. > > I used to know a woman who was a Jewish lesbian vegetarian, but she ate > bacon and dated men. Also she was a man. ;) -- David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com> NOYFB, P

2003-02-19 01:04:43-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - (David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com>)


On Tue, 18 Feb 2003 22:06:39 -0500, Kevin Michael Vail wrote: > In article <b2jg95$39s$7@news.fas.harvard.edu>, > Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu> wrote: > >> And its unlikely that such a scenario as you describe above (a >> self-identified lesbian who really prefers sleeping with men) would >> happen. > > I used to know a woman who was a Jewish lesbian vegetarian, but she ate > bacon and dated men. Also she was a man. ;) -- David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com> NOYFB, P

2003-02-19 01:12:17-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - (David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com>)


On Tue, 18 Feb 2003 18:27:51 -0800, Paul Hammond wrote: > fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote in message > news:<20030214155523.20075.00001352@mb-cu.aol.com>... >> >Subject: Re: andrews gay >> >From: sillyman@famous.com >> >Date: 2/14/2003 12:48 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: >> ><3e4dfcf0.58730260@news.telus.net> >> > >> >On 14 Feb 2003 15:08:04 -0500, "C.L. Lassiter" <seaelle@unc.edu> >> >wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> >> Hey. All you straight men here. Can *you* tell when another man >> >>is attractive? >> >> >> >>cl >> > >> > > I think the correct answer is "sometimes" - and often our ideas about > "fanciability" are at variance with the opinions of those who actually > do fancy men. > > I guess it is too hypothetical, trying to put yourself in the position > of imaginining you fancy those you don't. > > I think we can tell the difference between potential movie stars, > ordinary guys, and "urgh, ugly as sin", but I have had several > experiences like forge - for the life of me, I couldn't see what many of > my female friends saw in Goran Ivanisevich, and once, when watching an > impromptu soccer match at university, and challenged to choose the > sexiest man on the pitch, myself and all the straight men picked one > player, and the women and the gay man all agreed on a totally different > player. See! I knew some other straight guy would back me up on that. That's part of the 'Do you think he's cute?' befuddlement. The answer is obviously supposed to be at least 'a little', but often times I'm thinking 'Well, compared to the other people here? Not noticable.'. I mean, if, to pick a random Bufffyverse person, Groo were walking by, sure, I might even notice him. I can point to hit and say 'Look, a hot guy.'. (I wouldn't actually do that, but I am capable of it.) And I can tell ugly men. But I can't filter the middle correctly. My opinions of what women think is attractive do not actually match up with what they think is attractive. -- David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com> NOYFB, P

2003-02-19 01:12:17-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - (David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com>)


On Tue, 18 Feb 2003 18:27:51 -0800, Paul Hammond wrote: > fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote in message > news:<20030214155523.20075.00001352@mb-cu.aol.com>... >> >Subject: Re: andrews gay >> >From: sillyman@famous.com >> >Date: 2/14/2003 12:48 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: >> ><3e4dfcf0.58730260@news.telus.net> >> > >> >On 14 Feb 2003 15:08:04 -0500, "C.L. Lassiter" <seaelle@unc.edu> >> >wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> >> Hey. All you straight men here. Can *you* tell when another man >> >>is attractive? >> >> >> >>cl >> > >> > > I think the correct answer is "sometimes" - and often our ideas about > "fanciability" are at variance with the opinions of those who actually > do fancy men. > > I guess it is too hypothetical, trying to put yourself in the position > of imaginining you fancy those you don't. > > I think we can tell the difference between potential movie stars, > ordinary guys, and "urgh, ugly as sin", but I have had several > experiences like forge - for the life of me, I couldn't see what many of > my female friends saw in Goran Ivanisevich, and once, when watching an > impromptu soccer match at university, and challenged to choose the > sexiest man on the pitch, myself and all the straight men picked one > player, and the women and the gay man all agreed on a totally different > player. See! I knew some other straight guy would back me up on that. That's part of the 'Do you think he's cute?' befuddlement. The answer is obviously supposed to be at least 'a little', but often times I'm thinking 'Well, compared to the other people here? Not noticable.'. I mean, if, to pick a random Bufffyverse person, Groo were walking by, sure, I might even notice him. I can point to hit and say 'Look, a hot guy.'. (I wouldn't actually do that, but I am capable of it.) And I can tell ugly men. But I can't filter the middle correctly. My opinions of what women think is attractive do not actually match up with what they think is attractive. -- David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com> NOYFB, P

2003-02-19 01:22:34-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - (Luna <lunachick@NOSPAMmindspring.com>)


In article <2ec773e.0302182218.69bfe0db@posting.google.com>, rabidsara@yahoo.com (rabidsara) wrote: > Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu> wrote in message > news:<b2kre8$9nm$1@news.fas.harvard.edu>... > > Sam <sam_14042@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > There's a simple rule for both male and female beauty, and it's the same > > one, which is one of the reasons I find it disingenuous when people > > purport to be able to see the one but not the other: symmetry. > > > > Faces that are proportioned evenly, with great symmetry, seem to indicate > > qualities like health, harmony and balance to the people who view them. > > These are attractive, adaptive traits, and this is what we're wired to > > determine about potential partners, as well as potential friends/allies. > > What's their chance for survival, and your chance of relying on them as a > > partner and getting something back? > > > > Ok, gotta step in here... > > Most ideas about the importance of symmetry we got from patterns on > animals like butterflies and how important symmetry of pattern was to > butterflies in choosing a mate. It has generally held up in > experiments though. But so have many other notions such as the > averaging of faces, the pentagon theory, etc... Here is one I like > that is easy to see. And I don't need a computer to measure up the > person's attractiveness. > > This is the result of experiments done on Japanese people measuring > beauty of both Japanese and Americans, and on Americans measuring > beauty of both Japanese and Americans. Both American and Japanese > women *and* men were consistently rated higher in beauty if they had > the following features: > > Eyes: Larger iris when compared to the size of the actual eye. (It > doesn't matter how large the eyes are, although large eyes with large > irises help. Larger irises in proportion to eye size make eyes look > more warm and liquid instead of beady-looking). You can experiment > with this yourself... look at a highschool yearbook or > www.hotornot.com to compare lots of pictures of average people. > People with proportionally larger irises consistently seem to have > more "attractive" eyes. Don't look at TV shows because people on TV > typically have larger irises. > > Nose: Smaller nose in proportion to face. Experiment by shrinking > down the nose of a larger-nosed male or female... might look more > attractive. > > Cheekbones: Higher cheek bones (yes, in both males and females). > > Chin: A chin that tapers from the front view gives more > attractiveness to the shape of the face. This is a biggie that people > often forget. Draw a circle or a square to represent the front view > of a face. Then make the "chin" of the face (whether square or > circle) appear to taper down instead of remain square or circle. > > Every main cast member on Buffy and Angel has most or all of these > features. > Babies have the above features, minus the chin. My friends and I > experimented with these features by taking pictures from magazines and > increasing the iris size, making cheekbones higher, noses smaller and > tapering the chins. The result always ended up more attractive! > > > > > This doesn't rule out unusual features, like wide mouths, large teeth, > > long noses, or even exceptions to the rule. Sophia Loren's nose is too > > big. Cher's face is too long. Deniro has squinty eyes, and a big nose. > > One of Shannen Doherty's eyes is bigger or higher than the other. But even > > those faces have other aspects of symmetry, and those people are all > > deemed attractive. > > > The method I mentioned does rule some of that out ;) > Also, I'm sure the first thing we notice about Shannon Doherty isn't > that one eye is bigger or higher than the other. When scanning the > face, within seconds we can appraise its beauty. I must have scanned > her face hundreds and hundreds of times and I never noticed the eye > thing. > > > > > So, if you meet a guy and he seems to exude health and energy, with nice > > skin and twinkly eyes, and he doesn't say have one big ear or an odd slant > > to his jaw or a strangely shaped head, he would likely be deemed > > attractive. > > > > Shawn > > In case anyone's wondering, there were three and only three > differences found between male and female faces (excluding facial > hair, eyebrows), and the differences were very slight: > > Males have slightly larger noses. > Males have slightly longer chins. > Males have slightly smaller lips. > > Decrease the nose and chin of a guy and increase the lip size and he > looks like a woman! (I did this with photoshop!) Same for a female > if you make her nose bigger, her chin longer, and her lips thinner. > People with a mix of the features look a little more androgynous. > > > -Sara I saw a thing on the Discovery channel (or maybe TLC) about the science behind attraction, and they showed men a group of computerized photos of women ranging from very "feminine" to very "masculine." And they did vice-versa with a group of women. They found that men preferred the most extremely feminine photos, but women did NOT prefer the most extremely masculine photos, probably because the most masculine looking men also looked the most threatening. However, when women were ovulating, they preferred more masculine looking men (more potent looking, more likely to fertilize them.) The whole masculine = threatening thing also explains why younger, more vulnerable girls tend to like more androgynous looking men (Leonardo Dicaprio) and older, more secure women prefer more masculine looking men. -- -Michelle Levin (Luna) http://www.mindspring.com/~lunachick http://www.mindspring.com/~designbyluna In the beginning, there was nothing. Then it exploded.

2003-02-19 01:22:34-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - (Luna <lunachick@NOSPAMmindspring.com>)


In article <2ec773e.0302182218.69bfe0db@posting.google.com>, rabidsara@yahoo.com (rabidsara) wrote: > Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu> wrote in message > news:<b2kre8$9nm$1@news.fas.harvard.edu>... > > Sam <sam_14042@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > There's a simple rule for both male and female beauty, and it's the same > > one, which is one of the reasons I find it disingenuous when people > > purport to be able to see the one but not the other: symmetry. > > > > Faces that are proportioned evenly, with great symmetry, seem to indicate > > qualities like health, harmony and balance to the people who view them. > > These are attractive, adaptive traits, and this is what we're wired to > > determine about potential partners, as well as potential friends/allies. > > What's their chance for survival, and your chance of relying on them as a > > partner and getting something back? > > > > Ok, gotta step in here... > > Most ideas about the importance of symmetry we got from patterns on > animals like butterflies and how important symmetry of pattern was to > butterflies in choosing a mate. It has generally held up in > experiments though. But so have many other notions such as the > averaging of faces, the pentagon theory, etc... Here is one I like > that is easy to see. And I don't need a computer to measure up the > person's attractiveness. > > This is the result of experiments done on Japanese people measuring > beauty of both Japanese and Americans, and on Americans measuring > beauty of both Japanese and Americans. Both American and Japanese > women *and* men were consistently rated higher in beauty if they had > the following features: > > Eyes: Larger iris when compared to the size of the actual eye. (It > doesn't matter how large the eyes are, although large eyes with large > irises help. Larger irises in proportion to eye size make eyes look > more warm and liquid instead of beady-looking). You can experiment > with this yourself... look at a highschool yearbook or > www.hotornot.com to compare lots of pictures of average people. > People with proportionally larger irises consistently seem to have > more "attractive" eyes. Don't look at TV shows because people on TV > typically have larger irises. > > Nose: Smaller nose in proportion to face. Experiment by shrinking > down the nose of a larger-nosed male or female... might look more > attractive. > > Cheekbones: Higher cheek bones (yes, in both males and females). > > Chin: A chin that tapers from the front view gives more > attractiveness to the shape of the face. This is a biggie that people > often forget. Draw a circle or a square to represent the front view > of a face. Then make the "chin" of the face (whether square or > circle) appear to taper down instead of remain square or circle. > > Every main cast member on Buffy and Angel has most or all of these > features. > Babies have the above features, minus the chin. My friends and I > experimented with these features by taking pictures from magazines and > increasing the iris size, making cheekbones higher, noses smaller and > tapering the chins. The result always ended up more attractive! > > > > > This doesn't rule out unusual features, like wide mouths, large teeth, > > long noses, or even exceptions to the rule. Sophia Loren's nose is too > > big. Cher's face is too long. Deniro has squinty eyes, and a big nose. > > One of Shannen Doherty's eyes is bigger or higher than the other. But even > > those faces have other aspects of symmetry, and those people are all > > deemed attractive. > > > The method I mentioned does rule some of that out ;) > Also, I'm sure the first thing we notice about Shannon Doherty isn't > that one eye is bigger or higher than the other. When scanning the > face, within seconds we can appraise its beauty. I must have scanned > her face hundreds and hundreds of times and I never noticed the eye > thing. > > > > > So, if you meet a guy and he seems to exude health and energy, with nice > > skin and twinkly eyes, and he doesn't say have one big ear or an odd slant > > to his jaw or a strangely shaped head, he would likely be deemed > > attractive. > > > > Shawn > > In case anyone's wondering, there were three and only three > differences found between male and female faces (excluding facial > hair, eyebrows), and the differences were very slight: > > Males have slightly larger noses. > Males have slightly longer chins. > Males have slightly smaller lips. > > Decrease the nose and chin of a guy and increase the lip size and he > looks like a woman! (I did this with photoshop!) Same for a female > if you make her nose bigger, her chin longer, and her lips thinner. > People with a mix of the features look a little more androgynous. > > > -Sara I saw a thing on the Discovery channel (or maybe TLC) about the science behind attraction, and they showed men a group of computerized photos of women ranging from very "feminine" to very "masculine." And they did vice-versa with a group of women. They found that men preferred the most extremely feminine photos, but women did NOT prefer the most extremely masculine photos, probably because the most masculine looking men also looked the most threatening. However, when women were ovulating, they preferred more masculine looking men (more potent looking, more likely to fertilize them.) The whole masculine = threatening thing also explains why younger, more vulnerable girls tend to like more androgynous looking men (Leonardo Dicaprio) and older, more secure women prefer more masculine looking men. -- -Michelle Levin (Luna) http://www.mindspring.com/~lunachick http://www.mindspring.com/~designbyluna In the beginning, there was nothing. Then it exploded.

2003-02-19 04:32:43+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu>)


David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com> wrote: : On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 06:12:36 -0800, Renee wrote: : Whereas women are looking for someone to support them and their child, not : to have sex with. If anyone doubts this, consider the interesting effect : putting on a tuxedo has. Why exactly is that sexy? Because it's expensive, : that's about the only reason. It's also dark, and formal, and for special occasions. All of that adds glamour to the normally casual guy. Shawn

2003-02-19 04:32:43+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu>)


David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com> wrote: : On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 06:12:36 -0800, Renee wrote: : Whereas women are looking for someone to support them and their child, not : to have sex with. If anyone doubts this, consider the interesting effect : putting on a tuxedo has. Why exactly is that sexy? Because it's expensive, : that's about the only reason. It's also dark, and formal, and for special occasions. All of that adds glamour to the normally casual guy. Shawn

2003-02-19 04:34:47+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu>)


David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com> wrote: : On Tue, 18 Feb 2003 07:35:03 +0000, Rose wrote: :> Then why do women love men in well-fitting jeans? : I have no idea, you'd probably be better off asking a woman. ;) Because then you can see if their legs are long and strong. : However, I don't mean to imply that 'ability to care for her and her : young' is the only male standard, just like 'ability to birth children' : isn't the only female standard. But the influence is certainly there. It's there, but it's one among many. And their are plenty of women, confident of their own providing abilities, who are drawn to effiminate or otherwise delicated looking guys, as well as men who like women with no discernible hips but big (artificial) boobs. Shawn

2003-02-19 04:34:47+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu>)


David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com> wrote: : On Tue, 18 Feb 2003 07:35:03 +0000, Rose wrote: :> Then why do women love men in well-fitting jeans? : I have no idea, you'd probably be better off asking a woman. ;) Because then you can see if their legs are long and strong. : However, I don't mean to imply that 'ability to care for her and her : young' is the only male standard, just like 'ability to birth children' : isn't the only female standard. But the influence is certainly there. It's there, but it's one among many. And their are plenty of women, confident of their own providing abilities, who are drawn to effiminate or otherwise delicated looking guys, as well as men who like women with no discernible hips but big (artificial) boobs. Shawn

2003-02-19 07:00:07+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (instantimpresive@aol.com)


>: Whereas women are looking for someone to support them and their child, not >: to have sex with. If anyone doubts this, consider the interesting effect >: putting on a tuxedo has. Why exactly is that sexy? Because it's expensive, >: that's about the only reason. > >It's also dark, and formal, and for special occasions. All of that adds >glamour >to the normally casual guy. technically, I think that guys look sexier when they're dressed down and casual than when they're all formaled up

2003-02-19 07:00:07+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (instantimpresive@aol.com)


>: Whereas women are looking for someone to support them and their child, not >: to have sex with. If anyone doubts this, consider the interesting effect >: putting on a tuxedo has. Why exactly is that sexy? Because it's expensive, >: that's about the only reason. > >It's also dark, and formal, and for special occasions. All of that adds >glamour >to the normally casual guy. technically, I think that guys look sexier when they're dressed down and casual than when they're all formaled up

2003-02-19 09:01:53-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - (David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com>)


On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 16:50:19 +0000, Shawn Hill wrote: > David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com> wrote: > > :> What if the man thinks he, himself, is attractive (or not attractive, > :> on the other hand). Wouldn't that indicate he has some sort of ideal > :> of male attractiveness, that he either meets or fails? > > : And, seriously, haven't you seen straight men wearing really bad > : clothes? Some of us have no concept of what looks good on men. > > Some of you, sure, but I tend to view those poor slobs as the > differently abled few. You shouldn't, that's the way all of us are. Some of us have just learned the rules from women or gay men. -- David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com> NOYFB, P

2003-02-19 09:01:53-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - (David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com>)


On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 16:50:19 +0000, Shawn Hill wrote: > David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com> wrote: > > :> What if the man thinks he, himself, is attractive (or not attractive, > :> on the other hand). Wouldn't that indicate he has some sort of ideal > :> of male attractiveness, that he either meets or fails? > > : And, seriously, haven't you seen straight men wearing really bad > : clothes? Some of us have no concept of what looks good on men. > > Some of you, sure, but I tend to view those poor slobs as the > differently abled few. You shouldn't, that's the way all of us are. Some of us have just learned the rules from women or gay men. -- David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com> NOYFB, P

2003-02-19 10:04:22-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - ("C.L. Lassiter" <seaelle@unc.edu>)


Kevin Michael Vail <kevin@vaildc.net> wrote: > In article <b2jg95$39s$7@news.fas.harvard.edu>, > Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu> wrote: >> And its unlikely that such a scenario as you describe above (a >> self-identified lesbian who really prefers sleeping with men) would >> happen. > I used to know a woman who was a Jewish lesbian vegetarian, but she ate > bacon and dated men. Hi, Kevin. Somehow along the way, I missed that you're a Buffy fan. Nice to see you here. You realize that the next question has to be..."Is she a practicing Hindu?" :-) cl

2003-02-19 10:04:22-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - ("C.L. Lassiter" <seaelle@unc.edu>)


Kevin Michael Vail <kevin@vaildc.net> wrote: > In article <b2jg95$39s$7@news.fas.harvard.edu>, > Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu> wrote: >> And its unlikely that such a scenario as you describe above (a >> self-identified lesbian who really prefers sleeping with men) would >> happen. > I used to know a woman who was a Jewish lesbian vegetarian, but she ate > bacon and dated men. Hi, Kevin. Somehow along the way, I missed that you're a Buffy fan. Nice to see you here. You realize that the next question has to be..."Is she a practicing Hindu?" :-) cl

2003-02-19 10:10:57-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - ("C.L. Lassiter" <seaelle@unc.edu>)


Paul Hammond <pahammond@onetel.net.uk> wrote: >> > >> >On 14 Feb 2003 15:08:04 -0500, "C.L. Lassiter" <seaelle@unc.edu> >> >wrote: >> >> >> >> Hey. All you straight men here. Can *you* tell when another man >> >>is attractive? >> >> >> >>cl >> > > I think the correct answer is "sometimes" - and often our ideas > about "fanciability" are at variance with the opinions of > those who actually do fancy men. Again I say, "beauty/eye/beholder." The fact that you and your straight friends chose one soccer player while the woman and gay men chose another doesn't demonstrate your inability to determine what makes a man attractive. Quite the contrary. It simply indicates that what makes a man attractive to you is different than what someone else (whose opinions are no more or less valid than yours except in their perceptions). I find lots of women beautiful, gorgeous even. (For example, I think Tea Leoni in "Flying Blind" was hothothot.) But no matter how gorgeous I find them, the idea of sex with them is totally alien to me. That doesn't invalidate my opinion of their physical beauty. cl

2003-02-19 10:10:57-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - ("C.L. Lassiter" <seaelle@unc.edu>)


Paul Hammond <pahammond@onetel.net.uk> wrote: >> > >> >On 14 Feb 2003 15:08:04 -0500, "C.L. Lassiter" <seaelle@unc.edu> >> >wrote: >> >> >> >> Hey. All you straight men here. Can *you* tell when another man >> >>is attractive? >> >> >> >>cl >> > > I think the correct answer is "sometimes" - and often our ideas > about "fanciability" are at variance with the opinions of > those who actually do fancy men. Again I say, "beauty/eye/beholder." The fact that you and your straight friends chose one soccer player while the woman and gay men chose another doesn't demonstrate your inability to determine what makes a man attractive. Quite the contrary. It simply indicates that what makes a man attractive to you is different than what someone else (whose opinions are no more or less valid than yours except in their perceptions). I find lots of women beautiful, gorgeous even. (For example, I think Tea Leoni in "Flying Blind" was hothothot.) But no matter how gorgeous I find them, the idea of sex with them is totally alien to me. That doesn't invalidate my opinion of their physical beauty. cl

2003-02-19 10:22:23-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - ("C.L. Lassiter" <seaelle@unc.edu>)


David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com> wrote: [major snippage] >> >> Um, I can see that. Kind of like I am when someone asks me "Isn't >> she pretty?" "Huh? Who?" BUT, when I look at the woman I can >> certainly offer an opinion as to her physical beauty, and, of course, >> it's exactly that--my opinion. > My actual opinion on how he looks is that 'He looks like a man, and thus > is not attractive at all.', just like if someone asked me how sexual > attractive a park bench was. But that's actually what causes my confusion. I can certainly appreciate what would make a woman attractive, or sexually attractive as you say, to another man even though I would have zero interest in sexual relations with her myself. I'm befuddled that you can't do the same in reverse. > I don't honestly understand the disconnect you're presenting here. You are > not attracted to other women, correct? Correct. Yet you can say how attractive she > is? Certainly. > Well...how attractive she is to *who*? See, it's *not* your opinion, Of course it is. it's > your opinion of society's opinion, because she isn't attractive to you. I don't know about you, but my perceptions of beauty have changed greatly over the years--for both men and women. > And that's really a big thing. Women are just faking it, they cannot judge > the sexual attraction of a woman like a man does. Um, I respectfully disagree. cl

2003-02-19 10:22:23-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - ("C.L. Lassiter" <seaelle@unc.edu>)


David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com> wrote: [major snippage] >> >> Um, I can see that. Kind of like I am when someone asks me "Isn't >> she pretty?" "Huh? Who?" BUT, when I look at the woman I can >> certainly offer an opinion as to her physical beauty, and, of course, >> it's exactly that--my opinion. > My actual opinion on how he looks is that 'He looks like a man, and thus > is not attractive at all.', just like if someone asked me how sexual > attractive a park bench was. But that's actually what causes my confusion. I can certainly appreciate what would make a woman attractive, or sexually attractive as you say, to another man even though I would have zero interest in sexual relations with her myself. I'm befuddled that you can't do the same in reverse. > I don't honestly understand the disconnect you're presenting here. You are > not attracted to other women, correct? Correct. Yet you can say how attractive she > is? Certainly. > Well...how attractive she is to *who*? See, it's *not* your opinion, Of course it is. it's > your opinion of society's opinion, because she isn't attractive to you. I don't know about you, but my perceptions of beauty have changed greatly over the years--for both men and women. > And that's really a big thing. Women are just faking it, they cannot judge > the sexual attraction of a woman like a man does. Um, I respectfully disagree. cl

2003-02-19 10:26:34-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - ("C.L. Lassiter" <seaelle@unc.edu>)


rabidsara <rabidsara@yahoo.com> wrote: > Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu> wrote in message news:<b2kre8$9nm$1@news.fas.harvard.edu>... >> Sam <sam_14042@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > Nose: Smaller nose in proportion to face. Experiment by shrinking > down the nose of a larger-nosed male or female... might look more > attractive. I have to laugh at this. Someone once pointed out to me that everyone I find attractive has a large nose. I laughed at the idea. Only when I started thinking about people I find attractive, he was right. One time when I was in a restaurant with two straight friends, Heather leaned over and said, "I'll bet I can pick out the man you consider most attractive in here." I looked around, and there, over my left shoulder, was a man with a big old honking nose. We all started laughing because she had, indeed, picked the man I found most handsome. cl, and no, we ain't talkin' Jimmy Durante big folks

2003-02-19 10:26:34-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - ("C.L. Lassiter" <seaelle@unc.edu>)


rabidsara <rabidsara@yahoo.com> wrote: > Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu> wrote in message news:<b2kre8$9nm$1@news.fas.harvard.edu>... >> Sam <sam_14042@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > Nose: Smaller nose in proportion to face. Experiment by shrinking > down the nose of a larger-nosed male or female... might look more > attractive. I have to laugh at this. Someone once pointed out to me that everyone I find attractive has a large nose. I laughed at the idea. Only when I started thinking about people I find attractive, he was right. One time when I was in a restaurant with two straight friends, Heather leaned over and said, "I'll bet I can pick out the man you consider most attractive in here." I looked around, and there, over my left shoulder, was a man with a big old honking nose. We all started laughing because she had, indeed, picked the man I found most handsome. cl, and no, we ain't talkin' Jimmy Durante big folks

2003-02-19 11:07:49-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - (David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com>)


On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 10:22:23 -0500, C.L. Lassiter wrote: > David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com> wrote: [major snippage] >>> >>> Um, I can see that. Kind of like I am when someone asks me "Isn't >>> she pretty?" "Huh? Who?" BUT, when I look at the woman I can >>> certainly offer an opinion as to her physical beauty, and, of course, >>> it's exactly that--my opinion. > >> My actual opinion on how he looks is that 'He looks like a man, and >> thus is not attractive at all.', just like if someone asked me how >> sexual attractive a park bench was. > > But that's actually what causes my confusion. I can certainly > appreciate what would make a woman attractive, or sexually attractive as > you say, to another man even though I would have zero interest in sexual > relations with her myself. I'm befuddled that you can't do the same in > reverse. What *would* make someone attractive is *not* the same as what *does* make someone attractive to other people. In other words, when you say a woman is attractive, you are actually saying 'I think that people who find women attractive would find her attractive.', not 'I actually find her attractive.'. One is a statement of fact (You definitively find someone attractive or not.), one is just a postulate (You're just estimating how attractive a third party would find someone.) That is actually 'faking it', it's attractiveness-judging emulation, not actually attractiveness judging. >> I don't honestly understand the disconnect you're presenting here. You >> are not attracted to other women, correct? > > Correct. > > Yet you can say how attractive she >> is? > > Certainly. > >> Well...how attractive she is to *who*? See, it's *not* your opinion, > > Of course it is. Then you *are* attracted to women. You're in some weird logical place where 'finding someone attractive' and 'being attracted to them' operate in two seperate places. But finding someone attractive isn't some objective thing, it's a subjective experience, and, more to the point, it's the same thing as being attracted to them. > it's >> your opinion of society's opinion, because she isn't attractive to you. > > I don't know about you, but my perceptions of beauty have changed > greatly over the years--for both men and women. > > >> And that's really a big thing. Women are just faking it, they cannot >> judge the sexual attraction of a woman like a man does. > > Um, I respectfully disagree. I fail to see how people who are not attracted to someone can tell how attractive she is to them, because, by definition, she *isn't* attractive to them. -- David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com> NOYFB, P

2003-02-19 11:07:49-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - (David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com>)


On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 10:22:23 -0500, C.L. Lassiter wrote: > David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com> wrote: [major snippage] >>> >>> Um, I can see that. Kind of like I am when someone asks me "Isn't >>> she pretty?" "Huh? Who?" BUT, when I look at the woman I can >>> certainly offer an opinion as to her physical beauty, and, of course, >>> it's exactly that--my opinion. > >> My actual opinion on how he looks is that 'He looks like a man, and >> thus is not attractive at all.', just like if someone asked me how >> sexual attractive a park bench was. > > But that's actually what causes my confusion. I can certainly > appreciate what would make a woman attractive, or sexually attractive as > you say, to another man even though I would have zero interest in sexual > relations with her myself. I'm befuddled that you can't do the same in > reverse. What *would* make someone attractive is *not* the same as what *does* make someone attractive to other people. In other words, when you say a woman is attractive, you are actually saying 'I think that people who find women attractive would find her attractive.', not 'I actually find her attractive.'. One is a statement of fact (You definitively find someone attractive or not.), one is just a postulate (You're just estimating how attractive a third party would find someone.) That is actually 'faking it', it's attractiveness-judging emulation, not actually attractiveness judging. >> I don't honestly understand the disconnect you're presenting here. You >> are not attracted to other women, correct? > > Correct. > > Yet you can say how attractive she >> is? > > Certainly. > >> Well...how attractive she is to *who*? See, it's *not* your opinion, > > Of course it is. Then you *are* attracted to women. You're in some weird logical place where 'finding someone attractive' and 'being attracted to them' operate in two seperate places. But finding someone attractive isn't some objective thing, it's a subjective experience, and, more to the point, it's the same thing as being attracted to them. > it's >> your opinion of society's opinion, because she isn't attractive to you. > > I don't know about you, but my perceptions of beauty have changed > greatly over the years--for both men and women. > > >> And that's really a big thing. Women are just faking it, they cannot >> judge the sexual attraction of a woman like a man does. > > Um, I respectfully disagree. I fail to see how people who are not attracted to someone can tell how attractive she is to them, because, by definition, she *isn't* attractive to them. -- David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com> NOYFB, P

2003-02-19 12:07:55-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - (David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com>)


On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 14:37:24 -0500, C.L. Lassiter wrote: > David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com> wrote: >> On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 10:22:23 -0500, C.L. Lassiter wrote: > >>> David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com> wrote: [major snippage] >>>>> >>>>> Um, I can see that. Kind of like I am when someone asks me "Isn't >>>>> she pretty?" "Huh? Who?" BUT, when I look at the woman I can >>>>> certainly offer an opinion as to her physical beauty, and, of course, >>>>> it's exactly that--my opinion. >>> >>>> My actual opinion on how he looks is that 'He looks like a man, and >>>> thus is not attractive at all.', just like if someone asked me how >>>> sexual attractive a park bench was. >>> >>> But that's actually what causes my confusion. I can certainly >>> appreciate what would make a woman attractive, or sexually attractive >>> as you say, to another man even though I would have zero interest in >>> sexual relations with her myself. I'm befuddled that you can't do the >>> same in reverse. > >> What *would* make someone attractive is *not* the same as what *does* >> make someone attractive to other people. In other words, when you say a >> woman is attractive, you are actually saying 'I think that people who >> find women attractive would find her attractive.', not 'I actually find >> her attractive.'. > > I so disagree. I can't believe you're trying to convince me that > I can't find a woman attractive even though I don't want to bed her. Do > you want to bed every attractive woman you see? What, at the same time? That would just be very confusing. Seperately...well, no. Physical attractiveness is not the only standard I have. But that doesn't alter anything. I can't judge personality and whatnot from a distance. > Certainly you can see in > some women who aren't attractive to you that they are, in general, > attractive to X% of the population. I can't believe you don't. Oh, sure, but that's just faking it. I'm told certain attributes make someone attractive, and I just check these attributes. It's like I realize that a large percentage of the population like chocolate, and thus would enjoy, for example, fudge. That doesn't make it taste good for *me*, and it doesn't make those people attractive to *me*. >>>> I don't honestly understand the disconnect you're presenting here. You >>>> are not attracted to other women, correct? >>> >>> Correct. >>> >>> Yet you can say how attractive she >>>> is? >>> >>> Certainly. >>> >>>> Well...how attractive she is to *who*? See, it's *not* your opinion, >>> >>> Of course it is. > >> Then you *are* attracted to women. You're in some weird logical place >> where 'finding someone attractive' and 'being attracted to them' operate >> in two seperate places. > > I would say it's not logical; it's emotional (Remember, I'm an > INFJ--thread tie.), and yes, finding them attractive and wanting to act on > those desires are two completely different things. Yes, I find plenty of women attractive that I don't want to act on that attraction. That doesn't really alter the men and women I don't find attractive. >>> Um, I respectfully disagree. > >> I fail to see how people who are not attracted to someone can tell how >> attractive she is to them, because, by definition, she *isn't* >> attractive to them. > > Well, then I've failed to communicate effectively, and I apologize > for that; however, I honestly don't know how to phrase it differently to > convey my sentiments to you. *shrug* -- David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com> NOYFB, P

2003-02-19 12:07:55-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - (David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com>)


On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 14:37:24 -0500, C.L. Lassiter wrote: > David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com> wrote: >> On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 10:22:23 -0500, C.L. Lassiter wrote: > >>> David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com> wrote: [major snippage] >>>>> >>>>> Um, I can see that. Kind of like I am when someone asks me "Isn't >>>>> she pretty?" "Huh? Who?" BUT, when I look at the woman I can >>>>> certainly offer an opinion as to her physical beauty, and, of course, >>>>> it's exactly that--my opinion. >>> >>>> My actual opinion on how he looks is that 'He looks like a man, and >>>> thus is not attractive at all.', just like if someone asked me how >>>> sexual attractive a park bench was. >>> >>> But that's actually what causes my confusion. I can certainly >>> appreciate what would make a woman attractive, or sexually attractive >>> as you say, to another man even though I would have zero interest in >>> sexual relations with her myself. I'm befuddled that you can't do the >>> same in reverse. > >> What *would* make someone attractive is *not* the same as what *does* >> make someone attractive to other people. In other words, when you say a >> woman is attractive, you are actually saying 'I think that people who >> find women attractive would find her attractive.', not 'I actually find >> her attractive.'. > > I so disagree. I can't believe you're trying to convince me that > I can't find a woman attractive even though I don't want to bed her. Do > you want to bed every attractive woman you see? What, at the same time? That would just be very confusing. Seperately...well, no. Physical attractiveness is not the only standard I have. But that doesn't alter anything. I can't judge personality and whatnot from a distance. > Certainly you can see in > some women who aren't attractive to you that they are, in general, > attractive to X% of the population. I can't believe you don't. Oh, sure, but that's just faking it. I'm told certain attributes make someone attractive, and I just check these attributes. It's like I realize that a large percentage of the population like chocolate, and thus would enjoy, for example, fudge. That doesn't make it taste good for *me*, and it doesn't make those people attractive to *me*. >>>> I don't honestly understand the disconnect you're presenting here. You >>>> are not attracted to other women, correct? >>> >>> Correct. >>> >>> Yet you can say how attractive she >>>> is? >>> >>> Certainly. >>> >>>> Well...how attractive she is to *who*? See, it's *not* your opinion, >>> >>> Of course it is. > >> Then you *are* attracted to women. You're in some weird logical place >> where 'finding someone attractive' and 'being attracted to them' operate >> in two seperate places. > > I would say it's not logical; it's emotional (Remember, I'm an > INFJ--thread tie.), and yes, finding them attractive and wanting to act on > those desires are two completely different things. Yes, I find plenty of women attractive that I don't want to act on that attraction. That doesn't really alter the men and women I don't find attractive. >>> Um, I respectfully disagree. > >> I fail to see how people who are not attracted to someone can tell how >> attractive she is to them, because, by definition, she *isn't* >> attractive to them. > > Well, then I've failed to communicate effectively, and I apologize > for that; however, I honestly don't know how to phrase it differently to > convey my sentiments to you. *shrug* -- David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com> NOYFB, P

2003-02-19 12:37:17-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - (David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com>)


On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 17:04:52 +0000, Shawn Hill wrote: > David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com> wrote: > > : What *would* make someone attractive is *not* the same as what *does* > : make someone attractive to other people. In other words, when you say > : a woman is attractive, you are actually saying 'I think that people > : who find women attractive would find her attractive.', not 'I actually > : find her attractive.'. > > Not true. Eliza Dushku is hot, I don't need to think about what anybody > else might think to know that. I don't think she's that hot. She plays a character that dresses and acts very sexy, but I don't find her (as opposed to Faith) that hot. As Faith is supposed to be hot, I tend to treat the character as hot, but, costumes being equal, I think other actors could give ED a run for her money. (To get slightly off topic, have you ever seen Gillian Anderson? <andrew>I'd date Scully in a second</andrew>, but I'd never date Gillian Anderson. But this is because of her personality, not her looks. GA sounds like an idiot.) > : One is a statement of fact (You definitively find someone attractive > : or not.), one is just a postulate (You're just estimating how > : attractive a third party would find someone.) > > I don't think you need to jump through this many hoops in your mind to > answer the question about your own sex. Is he healthy, is his skin rosy, > does he have a symmetrical face, are his features proportional, is he > well-dressed ... these are all questions you can answer in a glance. You > can be assured you won't be completely off base if you hazard an > opinion. Yes, and all those are assessed at a single glance. If I pay the slightest attention to a man, I can tell you if something is wrong with his features. But not having something wrong with him is not the same thing as 'attractive'. That's *average*, not 'attractive'. (And note I'm talking about 'attractive' in the hypothetical sense, what I thinks society would judge to be it.) > : That is actually 'faking it', it's attractiveness-judging emulation, > : not actually attractiveness judging. > > Is attraction only an indication of sexual interest? Or gravitational pull, maybe. That's what I mean when I talk about, in general, how attractive someone is, how interested I think appropriate segments of the population would be in 'having' them. I mean, isn't that the definition of 'attraction', how much one thing wants another thing? If a business deal is attractive, you want to close it, if a house is attractive, you want to live in it, if a women is attractive, you want to sleep with her, if a planet is attractive, you want to smash into its surface. This is, of course, barring the fact you don't have fifty thousand for the business deal, don't need a huge house, are happily married, and have a steel reinforced floor holding you up. The point isn't that your want outweighs other things, it's merely how strong the want is, that's how you measure 'attraction'. You can even weigh dissimiliar wants...would you rather have the girl or the car? (Would you rather smash into the earth or have the girl? Hmm, metaphor breaks down there.) > : Then you *are* attracted to women. You're in some weird logical place > : where 'finding someone attractive' and 'being attracted to them' > : operate in two seperate places. > > That's not so weird a place. I might say it's just as simple as being > gay or bisexual, but I think it's more. I can look at a painting, find > it beautiful, but not want to own it. I can admire an impressive car, > but know it's not the right one for me. Similarly, I can notice a pretty > girl, but have no compelling desire to do anything more than look. But you don't want to own the painting and car because of other concerns. They are still attractive. And the reason you notice a pretty girl is because society has trained you to do so, it doesn't have anything to do with attraction. If you just intellectually notice someone fits society's definition of 'pretty', then you do not find them attractive. Now, it's perfectly possible to find *other* aspects of a women attractive that cause you to want *other* things. Maybe she's a great debater, and you like a good debate. But this discussion has always been about the physical attributes of a person. > : But finding someone attractive isn't some objective thing, it's a > : subjective experience, and, more to the point, it's the same thing as > : being attracted to them. > > I think this is the crux of the discomfort straight men experience in > confronting this issue, and I think it's something you can let go > easily. Appreciation doesn't have to equal desire. Yes, appreciation doesn't have to equal desire. I don't like chocolate, but I can appreciate the work that goes into making something, the way it looks, the way other people enjoy it...but I can't appreciate the taste, and I can't apprecate the way men look, at least not the same way as women do. Now, I do actually have a way of judging how men look, and it's *completely* different from how society does it. You get points off for wearing a suit, you get more points for having an orginal haircut, you get points for interesting shirts, you get points for picking things up with your knees and not your waist...and there are a whole lot of other points you can gain or lose for how you act, those are just the ones I can see with my eyes. (And, back on topic, you get a lot of points for being a Buffy fan.) But that's not 'attraction', that's just how interesting and useful I think you are. > :> Um, I respectfully disagree. > > : I fail to see how people who are not attracted to someone can tell how > : attractive she is to them, because, by definition, she *isn't* > : attractive to them. > > You've caught yourself in a logic loop of words. This isn't about > language, it's about sight and feeling. I haven't caught myself anywhere, and it's perfectly possible to talk about emotions logically. Emotional sematics follow the same rules as any others. If something doesn't make sense when rephrased, it probably didn't make any sense to start with. ;) -- David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com> NOYFB, P

2003-02-19 12:37:17-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - (David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com>)


On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 17:04:52 +0000, Shawn Hill wrote: > David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com> wrote: > > : What *would* make someone attractive is *not* the same as what *does* > : make someone attractive to other people. In other words, when you say > : a woman is attractive, you are actually saying 'I think that people > : who find women attractive would find her attractive.', not 'I actually > : find her attractive.'. > > Not true. Eliza Dushku is hot, I don't need to think about what anybody > else might think to know that. I don't think she's that hot. She plays a character that dresses and acts very sexy, but I don't find her (as opposed to Faith) that hot. As Faith is supposed to be hot, I tend to treat the character as hot, but, costumes being equal, I think other actors could give ED a run for her money. (To get slightly off topic, have you ever seen Gillian Anderson? <andrew>I'd date Scully in a second</andrew>, but I'd never date Gillian Anderson. But this is because of her personality, not her looks. GA sounds like an idiot.) > : One is a statement of fact (You definitively find someone attractive > : or not.), one is just a postulate (You're just estimating how > : attractive a third party would find someone.) > > I don't think you need to jump through this many hoops in your mind to > answer the question about your own sex. Is he healthy, is his skin rosy, > does he have a symmetrical face, are his features proportional, is he > well-dressed ... these are all questions you can answer in a glance. You > can be assured you won't be completely off base if you hazard an > opinion. Yes, and all those are assessed at a single glance. If I pay the slightest attention to a man, I can tell you if something is wrong with his features. But not having something wrong with him is not the same thing as 'attractive'. That's *average*, not 'attractive'. (And note I'm talking about 'attractive' in the hypothetical sense, what I thinks society would judge to be it.) > : That is actually 'faking it', it's attractiveness-judging emulation, > : not actually attractiveness judging. > > Is attraction only an indication of sexual interest? Or gravitational pull, maybe. That's what I mean when I talk about, in general, how attractive someone is, how interested I think appropriate segments of the population would be in 'having' them. I mean, isn't that the definition of 'attraction', how much one thing wants another thing? If a business deal is attractive, you want to close it, if a house is attractive, you want to live in it, if a women is attractive, you want to sleep with her, if a planet is attractive, you want to smash into its surface. This is, of course, barring the fact you don't have fifty thousand for the business deal, don't need a huge house, are happily married, and have a steel reinforced floor holding you up. The point isn't that your want outweighs other things, it's merely how strong the want is, that's how you measure 'attraction'. You can even weigh dissimiliar wants...would you rather have the girl or the car? (Would you rather smash into the earth or have the girl? Hmm, metaphor breaks down there.) > : Then you *are* attracted to women. You're in some weird logical place > : where 'finding someone attractive' and 'being attracted to them' > : operate in two seperate places. > > That's not so weird a place. I might say it's just as simple as being > gay or bisexual, but I think it's more. I can look at a painting, find > it beautiful, but not want to own it. I can admire an impressive car, > but know it's not the right one for me. Similarly, I can notice a pretty > girl, but have no compelling desire to do anything more than look. But you don't want to own the painting and car because of other concerns. They are still attractive. And the reason you notice a pretty girl is because society has trained you to do so, it doesn't have anything to do with attraction. If you just intellectually notice someone fits society's definition of 'pretty', then you do not find them attractive. Now, it's perfectly possible to find *other* aspects of a women attractive that cause you to want *other* things. Maybe she's a great debater, and you like a good debate. But this discussion has always been about the physical attributes of a person. > : But finding someone attractive isn't some objective thing, it's a > : subjective experience, and, more to the point, it's the same thing as > : being attracted to them. > > I think this is the crux of the discomfort straight men experience in > confronting this issue, and I think it's something you can let go > easily. Appreciation doesn't have to equal desire. Yes, appreciation doesn't have to equal desire. I don't like chocolate, but I can appreciate the work that goes into making something, the way it looks, the way other people enjoy it...but I can't appreciate the taste, and I can't apprecate the way men look, at least not the same way as women do. Now, I do actually have a way of judging how men look, and it's *completely* different from how society does it. You get points off for wearing a suit, you get more points for having an orginal haircut, you get points for interesting shirts, you get points for picking things up with your knees and not your waist...and there are a whole lot of other points you can gain or lose for how you act, those are just the ones I can see with my eyes. (And, back on topic, you get a lot of points for being a Buffy fan.) But that's not 'attraction', that's just how interesting and useful I think you are. > :> Um, I respectfully disagree. > > : I fail to see how people who are not attracted to someone can tell how > : attractive she is to them, because, by definition, she *isn't* > : attractive to them. > > You've caught yourself in a logic loop of words. This isn't about > language, it's about sight and feeling. I haven't caught myself anywhere, and it's perfectly possible to talk about emotions logically. Emotional sematics follow the same rules as any others. If something doesn't make sense when rephrased, it probably didn't make any sense to start with. ;) -- David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com> NOYFB, P

2003-02-19 12:45:10-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - (David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com>)


On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 16:58:03 +0000, Shawn Hill wrote: > David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com> wrote: > : On Tue, 18 Feb 2003 13:40:03 -0500, C.L. Lassiter wrote: > > : And that's really a big thing. Women are just faking it, they cannot > : judge the sexual attraction of a woman like a man does. (I'm limiting > : myself to straight people here.) All they are doing is matching it to > : societial standard of beauty...and female standards of beauty are a > : *lot* simplier than male standards, and women are a lot more aware of > : female standards than men are of male standards for that exact reason. > > I'm unconvinced by this. Women are very aware of what looks good, not just > by societal standards, but by their own. I still feel men lack not the > ability, but the vocabulary and permission to use it, when judging their > own sex. Vocabulary, I'll give you. Permission, not really. It's a stereotype, but it's not very true. Like I said, it's an accordian. Men don't have any interest in playing the accordian, men don't practice the accordian, men don't care about the accordian, men often find they play the accordian badly when they try. > : (Gay people of either gender have an interesting and unique perspective > : on this, because they probably spent years trying to figure out what a > : good looking member of the other sex looked like, and then suddenly > : realized it looked like a member of their own.) > > I don't think it's quite so hard, or quite so intellectualized. No, it's obviously not a conscious process. Trying to define what you find attractive can be a conscious process, but trying to *discover* what you find attractive almost always happens randomly. > Beautiful > people look good. Ugly people don't. Yes, but I keep saying, it's not about ugly people. Anyone can find ugly people. And anyone can find the extremely beautiful people. It's seperating the high averages from the low averages that's difficult. > I don't find the male and female standards really all that different. Well, in that case, I better go shave my legs and get some bangs. > In the abstract at least; in both > sexes in real life, it also comes down to individual charisma. Yes, quite a lot of it is undefinable. > Which is why someone like James Gandolfini, greatly differing from the > ideal, can be sexy to so many women and men. Sorry, don't know him. -- David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com> NOYFB, P

2003-02-19 12:45:10-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - (David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com>)


On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 16:58:03 +0000, Shawn Hill wrote: > David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com> wrote: > : On Tue, 18 Feb 2003 13:40:03 -0500, C.L. Lassiter wrote: > > : And that's really a big thing. Women are just faking it, they cannot > : judge the sexual attraction of a woman like a man does. (I'm limiting > : myself to straight people here.) All they are doing is matching it to > : societial standard of beauty...and female standards of beauty are a > : *lot* simplier than male standards, and women are a lot more aware of > : female standards than men are of male standards for that exact reason. > > I'm unconvinced by this. Women are very aware of what looks good, not just > by societal standards, but by their own. I still feel men lack not the > ability, but the vocabulary and permission to use it, when judging their > own sex. Vocabulary, I'll give you. Permission, not really. It's a stereotype, but it's not very true. Like I said, it's an accordian. Men don't have any interest in playing the accordian, men don't practice the accordian, men don't care about the accordian, men often find they play the accordian badly when they try. > : (Gay people of either gender have an interesting and unique perspective > : on this, because they probably spent years trying to figure out what a > : good looking member of the other sex looked like, and then suddenly > : realized it looked like a member of their own.) > > I don't think it's quite so hard, or quite so intellectualized. No, it's obviously not a conscious process. Trying to define what you find attractive can be a conscious process, but trying to *discover* what you find attractive almost always happens randomly. > Beautiful > people look good. Ugly people don't. Yes, but I keep saying, it's not about ugly people. Anyone can find ugly people. And anyone can find the extremely beautiful people. It's seperating the high averages from the low averages that's difficult. > I don't find the male and female standards really all that different. Well, in that case, I better go shave my legs and get some bangs. > In the abstract at least; in both > sexes in real life, it also comes down to individual charisma. Yes, quite a lot of it is undefinable. > Which is why someone like James Gandolfini, greatly differing from the > ideal, can be sexy to so many women and men. Sorry, don't know him. -- David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com> NOYFB, P

2003-02-19 14:37:24-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - ("C.L. Lassiter" <seaelle@unc.edu>)


David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com> wrote: > On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 10:22:23 -0500, C.L. Lassiter wrote: >> David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com> wrote: [major snippage] >>>> >>>> Um, I can see that. Kind of like I am when someone asks me "Isn't >>>> she pretty?" "Huh? Who?" BUT, when I look at the woman I can >>>> certainly offer an opinion as to her physical beauty, and, of course, >>>> it's exactly that--my opinion. >> >>> My actual opinion on how he looks is that 'He looks like a man, and >>> thus is not attractive at all.', just like if someone asked me how >>> sexual attractive a park bench was. >> >> But that's actually what causes my confusion. I can certainly >> appreciate what would make a woman attractive, or sexually attractive as >> you say, to another man even though I would have zero interest in sexual >> relations with her myself. I'm befuddled that you can't do the same in >> reverse. > What *would* make someone attractive is *not* the same as what *does* make > someone attractive to other people. In other words, when you say a woman > is attractive, you are actually saying 'I think that people who find women > attractive would find her attractive.', not 'I actually find her > attractive.'. I so disagree. I can't believe you're trying to convince me that I can't find a woman attractive even though I don't want to bed her. Do you want to bed every attractive woman you see? Certainly you can see in some women who aren't attractive to you that they are, in general, attractive to X% of the population. I can't believe you don't. >>> I don't honestly understand the disconnect you're presenting here. You >>> are not attracted to other women, correct? >> >> Correct. >> >> Yet you can say how attractive she >>> is? >> >> Certainly. >> >>> Well...how attractive she is to *who*? See, it's *not* your opinion, >> >> Of course it is. > Then you *are* attracted to women. You're in some weird logical place > where 'finding someone attractive' and 'being attracted to them' operate > in two seperate places. I would say it's not logical; it's emotional (Remember, I'm an INFJ--thread tie.), and yes, finding them attractive and wanting to act on those desires are two completely different things. >> Um, I respectfully disagree. > I fail to see how people who are not attracted to someone can tell how > attractive she is to them, because, by definition, she *isn't* attractive > to them. Well, then I've failed to communicate effectively, and I apologize for that; however, I honestly don't know how to phrase it differently to convey my sentiments to you. cl

2003-02-19 14:37:24-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - ("C.L. Lassiter" <seaelle@unc.edu>)


David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com> wrote: > On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 10:22:23 -0500, C.L. Lassiter wrote: >> David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com> wrote: [major snippage] >>>> >>>> Um, I can see that. Kind of like I am when someone asks me "Isn't >>>> she pretty?" "Huh? Who?" BUT, when I look at the woman I can >>>> certainly offer an opinion as to her physical beauty, and, of course, >>>> it's exactly that--my opinion. >> >>> My actual opinion on how he looks is that 'He looks like a man, and >>> thus is not attractive at all.', just like if someone asked me how >>> sexual attractive a park bench was. >> >> But that's actually what causes my confusion. I can certainly >> appreciate what would make a woman attractive, or sexually attractive as >> you say, to another man even though I would have zero interest in sexual >> relations with her myself. I'm befuddled that you can't do the same in >> reverse. > What *would* make someone attractive is *not* the same as what *does* make > someone attractive to other people. In other words, when you say a woman > is attractive, you are actually saying 'I think that people who find women > attractive would find her attractive.', not 'I actually find her > attractive.'. I so disagree. I can't believe you're trying to convince me that I can't find a woman attractive even though I don't want to bed her. Do you want to bed every attractive woman you see? Certainly you can see in some women who aren't attractive to you that they are, in general, attractive to X% of the population. I can't believe you don't. >>> I don't honestly understand the disconnect you're presenting here. You >>> are not attracted to other women, correct? >> >> Correct. >> >> Yet you can say how attractive she >>> is? >> >> Certainly. >> >>> Well...how attractive she is to *who*? See, it's *not* your opinion, >> >> Of course it is. > Then you *are* attracted to women. You're in some weird logical place > where 'finding someone attractive' and 'being attracted to them' operate > in two seperate places. I would say it's not logical; it's emotional (Remember, I'm an INFJ--thread tie.), and yes, finding them attractive and wanting to act on those desires are two completely different things. >> Um, I respectfully disagree. > I fail to see how people who are not attracted to someone can tell how > attractive she is to them, because, by definition, she *isn't* attractive > to them. Well, then I've failed to communicate effectively, and I apologize for that; however, I honestly don't know how to phrase it differently to convey my sentiments to you. cl

2003-02-19 15:11:06-08:00 - Re: andrews gay - (tiger1i1y@hotmail.com)


"C.L. Lassiter" <seaelle@unc.edu> wrote in message news:<3e52830d@news.unc.edu>... > Tigerlily <tiger1i1y@hotmail.com> wrote: > > dominicanindian@aol.com (DominicanIndian) wrote in message news:<20030214163411.29584.00000344@mb-cd.aol.com>... > >> > > >> > >> I never liked labels........ "straight" "gay" "bisexual" "omnisexual" > >> > > > "Omnisexual"??? Isn't that the same as bisexual? I mean, there are > > only two genders, so bi covers them all, no? > > Well, there's that whole pesky matter of beastiality if you want > to go there. > > cl, who doesn't Eeeewww... but still, animals are either *male* or *female* (at least the mammals ... I believe slugs are hermaphrodites ... I can't imagine that someone would get off of slugs ... but I'm sure someone is ... somwhere out there ... <shudder>) I was so innocent before I got access to the internet ...

2003-02-19 15:11:06-08:00 - Re: andrews gay - (tiger1i1y@hotmail.com)


"C.L. Lassiter" <seaelle@unc.edu> wrote in message news:<3e52830d@news.unc.edu>... > Tigerlily <tiger1i1y@hotmail.com> wrote: > > dominicanindian@aol.com (DominicanIndian) wrote in message news:<20030214163411.29584.00000344@mb-cd.aol.com>... > >> > > >> > >> I never liked labels........ "straight" "gay" "bisexual" "omnisexual" > >> > > > "Omnisexual"??? Isn't that the same as bisexual? I mean, there are > > only two genders, so bi covers them all, no? > > Well, there's that whole pesky matter of beastiality if you want > to go there. > > cl, who doesn't Eeeewww... but still, animals are either *male* or *female* (at least the mammals ... I believe slugs are hermaphrodites ... I can't imagine that someone would get off of slugs ... but I'm sure someone is ... somwhere out there ... <shudder>) I was so innocent before I got access to the internet ...

2003-02-19 16:50:19+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu>)


David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com> wrote: :> What if the man thinks he, himself, is attractive (or not attractive, on :> the other hand). Wouldn't that indicate he has some sort of ideal of male :> attractiveness, that he either meets or fails? : And, seriously, haven't you seen straight men wearing really bad clothes? : Some of us have no concept of what looks good on men. Some of you, sure, but I tend to view those poor slobs as the differently abled few. Shawn

2003-02-19 16:50:19+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu>)


David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com> wrote: :> What if the man thinks he, himself, is attractive (or not attractive, on :> the other hand). Wouldn't that indicate he has some sort of ideal of male :> attractiveness, that he either meets or fails? : And, seriously, haven't you seen straight men wearing really bad clothes? : Some of us have no concept of what looks good on men. Some of you, sure, but I tend to view those poor slobs as the differently abled few. Shawn

2003-02-19 16:53:07+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu>)


David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com> wrote: : On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 04:34:47 +0000, Shawn Hill wrote: :> Because then you can see if their legs are long and strong. : Maybe. Or at least how thin they are. : I suspect it's just random sexual overlap, though. Something evolving in : both genders, although it's only useful for one, like some scientists : think the clitoris did. (Partially because it's badly located for sexual : pleasure, and there thus there isn't really reason for it to exist for : most of history. It might just be a 'side effect' of penises.) Actually, the penis is more like a side effect of the clitoris. All foetuses are female until the hormones kick in. :> It's there, but it's one among many. And their are plenty of women, :> confident of their own providing abilities, who are drawn to effiminate or :> otherwise delicated looking guys, : And, interestingly enough, this split continues in homosexuals, so much to : the point it's a stereotype. What split. Gay guys liking effeminate guys? Usually it's a top/bottom thing, a butch with a femme. That's a stereotype that's often true for lesbians and gay men. :> as well as men who like women with no :> discernible hips but big (artificial) boobs. : Yes, well, I have a theory that all those men have the same hangup. ;) Gotcha! shawn

2003-02-19 16:53:07+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu>)


David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com> wrote: : On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 04:34:47 +0000, Shawn Hill wrote: :> Because then you can see if their legs are long and strong. : Maybe. Or at least how thin they are. : I suspect it's just random sexual overlap, though. Something evolving in : both genders, although it's only useful for one, like some scientists : think the clitoris did. (Partially because it's badly located for sexual : pleasure, and there thus there isn't really reason for it to exist for : most of history. It might just be a 'side effect' of penises.) Actually, the penis is more like a side effect of the clitoris. All foetuses are female until the hormones kick in. :> It's there, but it's one among many. And their are plenty of women, :> confident of their own providing abilities, who are drawn to effiminate or :> otherwise delicated looking guys, : And, interestingly enough, this split continues in homosexuals, so much to : the point it's a stereotype. What split. Gay guys liking effeminate guys? Usually it's a top/bottom thing, a butch with a femme. That's a stereotype that's often true for lesbians and gay men. :> as well as men who like women with no :> discernible hips but big (artificial) boobs. : Yes, well, I have a theory that all those men have the same hangup. ;) Gotcha! shawn

2003-02-19 16:58:03+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu>)


David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com> wrote: : On Tue, 18 Feb 2003 13:40:03 -0500, C.L. Lassiter wrote: : And that's really a big thing. Women are just faking it, they cannot judge : the sexual attraction of a woman like a man does. (I'm limiting myself to : straight people here.) All they are doing is matching it to societial : standard of beauty...and female standards of beauty are a *lot* simplier : than male standards, and women are a lot more aware of female standards : than men are of male standards for that exact reason. I'm unconvinced by this. Women are very aware of what looks good, not just by societal standards, but by their own. I still feel men lack not the ability, but the vocabulary and permission to use it, when judging their own sex. : (Gay people of either gender have an interesting and unique perspective on : this, because they probably spent years trying to figure out what a good : looking member of the other sex looked like, and then suddenly realized it : looked like a member of their own.) I don't think it's quite so hard, or quite so intellectualized. Beautiful people look good. Ugly people don't. I don't find the male and female standards really all that different. In the abstract at least; in both sexes in real life, it also comes down to individual charisma. Which is why someone like James Gandolfini, greatly differing from the ideal, can be sexy to so many women and men. Shawn

2003-02-19 16:58:03+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu>)


David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com> wrote: : On Tue, 18 Feb 2003 13:40:03 -0500, C.L. Lassiter wrote: : And that's really a big thing. Women are just faking it, they cannot judge : the sexual attraction of a woman like a man does. (I'm limiting myself to : straight people here.) All they are doing is matching it to societial : standard of beauty...and female standards of beauty are a *lot* simplier : than male standards, and women are a lot more aware of female standards : than men are of male standards for that exact reason. I'm unconvinced by this. Women are very aware of what looks good, not just by societal standards, but by their own. I still feel men lack not the ability, but the vocabulary and permission to use it, when judging their own sex. : (Gay people of either gender have an interesting and unique perspective on : this, because they probably spent years trying to figure out what a good : looking member of the other sex looked like, and then suddenly realized it : looked like a member of their own.) I don't think it's quite so hard, or quite so intellectualized. Beautiful people look good. Ugly people don't. I don't find the male and female standards really all that different. In the abstract at least; in both sexes in real life, it also comes down to individual charisma. Which is why someone like James Gandolfini, greatly differing from the ideal, can be sexy to so many women and men. Shawn

2003-02-19 17:04:52+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu>)


David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com> wrote: : What *would* make someone attractive is *not* the same as what *does* make : someone attractive to other people. In other words, when you say a woman : is attractive, you are actually saying 'I think that people who find women : attractive would find her attractive.', not 'I actually find her : attractive.'. Not true. Eliza Dushku is hot, I don't need to think about what anybody else might think to know that. : One is a statement of fact (You definitively find someone attractive or : not.), one is just a postulate (You're just estimating how attractive a : third party would find someone.) I don't think you need to jump through this many hoops in your mind to answer the question about your own sex. Is he healthy, is his skin rosy, does he have a symmetrical face, are his features proportional, is he well-dressed ... these are all questions you can answer in a glance. You can be assured you won't be completely off base if you hazard an opinion. : That is actually 'faking it', it's attractiveness-judging emulation, not : actually attractiveness judging. Is attraction only an indication of sexual interest? : Then you *are* attracted to women. You're in some weird logical place : where 'finding someone attractive' and 'being attracted to them' operate : in two seperate places. That's not so weird a place. I might say it's just as simple as being gay or bisexual, but I think it's more. I can look at a painting, find it beautiful, but not want to own it. I can admire an impressive car, but know it's not the right one for me. Similarly, I can notice a pretty girl, but have no compelling desire to do anything more than look. : But finding someone attractive isn't some objective thing, it's a : subjective experience, and, more to the point, it's the same thing as : being attracted to them. I think this is the crux of the discomfort straight men experience in confronting this issue, and I think it's something you can let go easily. Appreciation doesn't have to equal desire. :> Um, I respectfully disagree. : I fail to see how people who are not attracted to someone can tell how : attractive she is to them, because, by definition, she *isn't* attractive : to them. You've caught yourself in a logic loop of words. This isn't about language, it's about sight and feeling. Shawn

2003-02-19 17:04:52+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu>)


David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com> wrote: : What *would* make someone attractive is *not* the same as what *does* make : someone attractive to other people. In other words, when you say a woman : is attractive, you are actually saying 'I think that people who find women : attractive would find her attractive.', not 'I actually find her : attractive.'. Not true. Eliza Dushku is hot, I don't need to think about what anybody else might think to know that. : One is a statement of fact (You definitively find someone attractive or : not.), one is just a postulate (You're just estimating how attractive a : third party would find someone.) I don't think you need to jump through this many hoops in your mind to answer the question about your own sex. Is he healthy, is his skin rosy, does he have a symmetrical face, are his features proportional, is he well-dressed ... these are all questions you can answer in a glance. You can be assured you won't be completely off base if you hazard an opinion. : That is actually 'faking it', it's attractiveness-judging emulation, not : actually attractiveness judging. Is attraction only an indication of sexual interest? : Then you *are* attracted to women. You're in some weird logical place : where 'finding someone attractive' and 'being attracted to them' operate : in two seperate places. That's not so weird a place. I might say it's just as simple as being gay or bisexual, but I think it's more. I can look at a painting, find it beautiful, but not want to own it. I can admire an impressive car, but know it's not the right one for me. Similarly, I can notice a pretty girl, but have no compelling desire to do anything more than look. : But finding someone attractive isn't some objective thing, it's a : subjective experience, and, more to the point, it's the same thing as : being attracted to them. I think this is the crux of the discomfort straight men experience in confronting this issue, and I think it's something you can let go easily. Appreciation doesn't have to equal desire. :> Um, I respectfully disagree. : I fail to see how people who are not attracted to someone can tell how : attractive she is to them, because, by definition, she *isn't* attractive : to them. You've caught yourself in a logic loop of words. This isn't about language, it's about sight and feeling. Shawn

2003-02-19 19:57:57+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (sillyman@famous.com)


On 19 Feb 2003 14:37:24 -0500, "C.L. Lassiter" <seaelle@unc.edu> wrote: Do >you want to bed every attractive woman you see? Well, yes. To varying degrees, of course, but yes. Or was that a rhetorical question?

2003-02-19 19:57:57+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (sillyman@famous.com)


On 19 Feb 2003 14:37:24 -0500, "C.L. Lassiter" <seaelle@unc.edu> wrote: Do >you want to bed every attractive woman you see? Well, yes. To varying degrees, of course, but yes. Or was that a rhetorical question?

2003-02-20 03:22:47+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu>)


David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com> wrote: : On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 16:50:19 +0000, Shawn Hill wrote: :> Some of you, sure, but I tend to view those poor slobs as the :> differently abled few. : You shouldn't, that's the way all of us are. Some of us have just learned : the rules from women or gay men. You're selling yourself way short. Shawn

2003-02-20 03:22:47+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu>)


David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com> wrote: : On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 16:50:19 +0000, Shawn Hill wrote: :> Some of you, sure, but I tend to view those poor slobs as the :> differently abled few. : You shouldn't, that's the way all of us are. Some of us have just learned : the rules from women or gay men. You're selling yourself way short. Shawn

2003-02-20 05:57:50+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu>)


David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com> wrote: : On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 17:04:52 +0000, Shawn Hill wrote: :> Not true. Eliza Dushku is hot, I don't need to think about what anybody :> else might think to know that. : I don't think she's that hot. She plays a character that dresses and acts : very sexy, but I don't find her (as opposed to Faith) that hot. As Faith : is supposed to be hot, I tend to treat the character as hot, but, costumes : being equal, I think other actors could give ED a run for her money. ED has looked pretty good in every movie I've seen her in. : (To get slightly off topic, have you ever seen Gillian Anderson? : <andrew>I'd date Scully in a second</andrew>, but I'd never date Gillian : Anderson. But this is because of her personality, not her looks. GA sounds : like an idiot.) GA also has a British accent when in England. She's flakier than Scully. I don't think it makes her less attractive. : But not having something wrong with him is not the same thing as : 'attractive'. That's *average*, not 'attractive'. (And note I'm talking : about 'attractive' in the hypothetical sense, what I thinks society would : judge to be it.) You don't have to explain that, I think that's how most people think of the term. :> : That is actually 'faking it', it's attractiveness-judging emulation, :> : not actually attractiveness judging. :> :> Is attraction only an indication of sexual interest? : Or gravitational pull, maybe. That's what I mean when I talk about, in : general, how attractive someone is, how interested I think appropriate : segments of the population would be in 'having' them. That's limiting. : I mean, isn't that the definition of 'attraction', how much one thing : wants another thing? If a business deal is attractive, you want to close : it, if a house is attractive, you want to live in it, if a women is : attractive, you want to sleep with her, if a planet is attractive, you : want to smash into its surface. see, it's the woman = sleep with thing that's a bit problematic; some people I'm attracted to just because I want to spend time with them, because they're good company at movies or sporting events, because I'd rather have them on my team at the office than other co-workers I can't stand. Etc. "Attractive" still fits in those situations. :> That's not so weird a place. I might say it's just as simple as being :> gay or bisexual, but I think it's more. I can look at a painting, find :> it beautiful, but not want to own it. I can admire an impressive car, :> but know it's not the right one for me. Similarly, I can notice a pretty :> girl, but have no compelling desire to do anything more than look. : But you don't want to own the painting and car because of other concerns. : They are still attractive. What other concerns? I admit the painting is nice, but it's not my style. I'm impressed with the car but would rather not drive a gas guzzler. : And the reason you notice a pretty girl is because society has trained you : to do so, it doesn't have anything to do with attraction. If you just : intellectually notice someone fits society's definition of 'pretty', then : you do not find them attractive. And whither society's definition of handsome for men you notice, then? :> I think this is the crux of the discomfort straight men experience in :> confronting this issue, and I think it's something you can let go :> easily. Appreciation doesn't have to equal desire. : Now, I do actually have a way of judging how men look, and it's : *completely* different from how society does it. You get points off for : wearing a suit, you get more points for having an orginal haircut, you get : points for interesting shirts, you get points for picking things up with : your knees and not your waist...and there are a whole lot of other points : you can gain or lose for how you act, those are just the ones I can see : with my eyes. (And, back on topic, you get a lot of points for being a : Buffy fan.) : But that's not 'attraction', that's just how interesting and useful I : think you are. If they "attract" your interest, it's attraction. I don't think your points are that different from ones in society. They all sound perfectly reasonable. :> You've caught yourself in a logic loop of words. This isn't about :> language, it's about sight and feeling. : I haven't caught myself anywhere, and it's perfectly possible to talk : about emotions logically. Emotional sematics follow the same rules as any : others. : If something doesn't make sense when rephrased, it probably didn't make : any sense to start with. ;) Or maybe you just haven't come up with the best phrase to describe it yet. Shawn

2003-02-20 05:57:50+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu>)


David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com> wrote: : On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 17:04:52 +0000, Shawn Hill wrote: :> Not true. Eliza Dushku is hot, I don't need to think about what anybody :> else might think to know that. : I don't think she's that hot. She plays a character that dresses and acts : very sexy, but I don't find her (as opposed to Faith) that hot. As Faith : is supposed to be hot, I tend to treat the character as hot, but, costumes : being equal, I think other actors could give ED a run for her money. ED has looked pretty good in every movie I've seen her in. : (To get slightly off topic, have you ever seen Gillian Anderson? : <andrew>I'd date Scully in a second</andrew>, but I'd never date Gillian : Anderson. But this is because of her personality, not her looks. GA sounds : like an idiot.) GA also has a British accent when in England. She's flakier than Scully. I don't think it makes her less attractive. : But not having something wrong with him is not the same thing as : 'attractive'. That's *average*, not 'attractive'. (And note I'm talking : about 'attractive' in the hypothetical sense, what I thinks society would : judge to be it.) You don't have to explain that, I think that's how most people think of the term. :> : That is actually 'faking it', it's attractiveness-judging emulation, :> : not actually attractiveness judging. :> :> Is attraction only an indication of sexual interest? : Or gravitational pull, maybe. That's what I mean when I talk about, in : general, how attractive someone is, how interested I think appropriate : segments of the population would be in 'having' them. That's limiting. : I mean, isn't that the definition of 'attraction', how much one thing : wants another thing? If a business deal is attractive, you want to close : it, if a house is attractive, you want to live in it, if a women is : attractive, you want to sleep with her, if a planet is attractive, you : want to smash into its surface. see, it's the woman = sleep with thing that's a bit problematic; some people I'm attracted to just because I want to spend time with them, because they're good company at movies or sporting events, because I'd rather have them on my team at the office than other co-workers I can't stand. Etc. "Attractive" still fits in those situations. :> That's not so weird a place. I might say it's just as simple as being :> gay or bisexual, but I think it's more. I can look at a painting, find :> it beautiful, but not want to own it. I can admire an impressive car, :> but know it's not the right one for me. Similarly, I can notice a pretty :> girl, but have no compelling desire to do anything more than look. : But you don't want to own the painting and car because of other concerns. : They are still attractive. What other concerns? I admit the painting is nice, but it's not my style. I'm impressed with the car but would rather not drive a gas guzzler. : And the reason you notice a pretty girl is because society has trained you : to do so, it doesn't have anything to do with attraction. If you just : intellectually notice someone fits society's definition of 'pretty', then : you do not find them attractive. And whither society's definition of handsome for men you notice, then? :> I think this is the crux of the discomfort straight men experience in :> confronting this issue, and I think it's something you can let go :> easily. Appreciation doesn't have to equal desire. : Now, I do actually have a way of judging how men look, and it's : *completely* different from how society does it. You get points off for : wearing a suit, you get more points for having an orginal haircut, you get : points for interesting shirts, you get points for picking things up with : your knees and not your waist...and there are a whole lot of other points : you can gain or lose for how you act, those are just the ones I can see : with my eyes. (And, back on topic, you get a lot of points for being a : Buffy fan.) : But that's not 'attraction', that's just how interesting and useful I : think you are. If they "attract" your interest, it's attraction. I don't think your points are that different from ones in society. They all sound perfectly reasonable. :> You've caught yourself in a logic loop of words. This isn't about :> language, it's about sight and feeling. : I haven't caught myself anywhere, and it's perfectly possible to talk : about emotions logically. Emotional sematics follow the same rules as any : others. : If something doesn't make sense when rephrased, it probably didn't make : any sense to start with. ;) Or maybe you just haven't come up with the best phrase to describe it yet. Shawn

2003-02-20 06:00:04+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu>)


David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com> wrote: : On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 16:58:03 +0000, Shawn Hill wrote: :> David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com> wrote: : Yes, but I keep saying, it's not about ugly people. Anyone can find ugly : people. And anyone can find the extremely beautiful people. It's : seperating the high averages from the low averages that's difficult. :> I don't find the male and female standards really all that different. : Well, in that case, I better go shave my legs and get some bangs. If you were a swimmer in the 70s, that would have been perfectly fine. :> In the abstract at least; in both :> sexes in real life, it also comes down to individual charisma. : Yes, quite a lot of it is undefinable. :> Which is why someone like James Gandolfini, greatly differing from the :> ideal, can be sexy to so many women and men. : Sorry, don't know him. Tony Soprano. Shawn

2003-02-20 06:00:04+00:00 - Re: andrews gay - (Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu>)


David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com> wrote: : On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 16:58:03 +0000, Shawn Hill wrote: :> David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com> wrote: : Yes, but I keep saying, it's not about ugly people. Anyone can find ugly : people. And anyone can find the extremely beautiful people. It's : seperating the high averages from the low averages that's difficult. :> I don't find the male and female standards really all that different. : Well, in that case, I better go shave my legs and get some bangs. If you were a swimmer in the 70s, that would have been perfectly fine. :> In the abstract at least; in both :> sexes in real life, it also comes down to individual charisma. : Yes, quite a lot of it is undefinable. :> Which is why someone like James Gandolfini, greatly differing from the :> ideal, can be sexy to so many women and men. : Sorry, don't know him. Tony Soprano. Shawn

2003-02-20 09:28:33-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - ("C.L. Lassiter" <seaelle@unc.edu>)


David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com> wrote: > On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 16:50:19 +0000, Shawn Hill wrote: >> David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com> wrote: >> >> :> What if the man thinks he, himself, is attractive (or not attractive, >> :> on the other hand). Wouldn't that indicate he has some sort of ideal >> :> of male attractiveness, that he either meets or fails? >> >> : And, seriously, haven't you seen straight men wearing really bad >> : clothes? Some of us have no concept of what looks good on men. >> >> Some of you, sure, but I tend to view those poor slobs as the >> differently abled few. > You shouldn't, that's the way all of us are. Some of us have just learned > the rules from women or gay men. Now you know none of us believes that! cl

2003-02-20 09:28:33-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - ("C.L. Lassiter" <seaelle@unc.edu>)


David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com> wrote: > On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 16:50:19 +0000, Shawn Hill wrote: >> David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com> wrote: >> >> :> What if the man thinks he, himself, is attractive (or not attractive, >> :> on the other hand). Wouldn't that indicate he has some sort of ideal >> :> of male attractiveness, that he either meets or fails? >> >> : And, seriously, haven't you seen straight men wearing really bad >> : clothes? Some of us have no concept of what looks good on men. >> >> Some of you, sure, but I tend to view those poor slobs as the >> differently abled few. > You shouldn't, that's the way all of us are. Some of us have just learned > the rules from women or gay men. Now you know none of us believes that! cl

2003-02-20 09:34:27-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - ("C.L. Lassiter" <seaelle@unc.edu>)


That Morph Chick <gtc@panix.com> wrote: > "David Cheatham" <david@creeknet.com> writes: >>On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 17:04:52 +0000, Shawn Hill wrote: >>> David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com> wrote: >>> : What *would* make someone attractive is *not* the same as what *does* >>> : make someone attractive to other people. In other words, when you say >>> : a woman is attractive, you are actually saying 'I think that people >>> : who find women attractive would find her attractive.', not 'I actually >>> : find her attractive.'. >>> Not true. Eliza Dushku is hot, I don't need to think about what anybody >>> else might think to know that. >>I don't think she's that hot. She plays a character that dresses and acts >>very sexy, but I don't find her (as opposed to Faith) that hot. As Faith >>is supposed to be hot, I tend to treat the character as hot, but, costumes >>being equal, I think other actors could give ED a run for her money. > Mmm, Vamp Willow. :) Damn, dvora, it's about time you weighed in here! >>(To get slightly off topic, have you ever seen Gillian Anderson? >><andrew>I'd date Scully in a second</andrew>, but I'd never date Gillian >>Anderson. But this is because of her personality, not her looks. GA sounds >>like an idiot.) > Wow, total opposite here. I really don't get the Scully thing, but I > wouldn't throw GA out of bed... Actually, I think GA is DDG, and when I've seen her interviewed, she comes across as intelligent and compassionate. In my estimation, she's great. I watched X for her, not for DD; though I will confess that Nick Lea makes me drool. I watch Once a Thief just for him. cl

2003-02-20 09:34:27-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - ("C.L. Lassiter" <seaelle@unc.edu>)


That Morph Chick <gtc@panix.com> wrote: > "David Cheatham" <david@creeknet.com> writes: >>On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 17:04:52 +0000, Shawn Hill wrote: >>> David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com> wrote: >>> : What *would* make someone attractive is *not* the same as what *does* >>> : make someone attractive to other people. In other words, when you say >>> : a woman is attractive, you are actually saying 'I think that people >>> : who find women attractive would find her attractive.', not 'I actually >>> : find her attractive.'. >>> Not true. Eliza Dushku is hot, I don't need to think about what anybody >>> else might think to know that. >>I don't think she's that hot. She plays a character that dresses and acts >>very sexy, but I don't find her (as opposed to Faith) that hot. As Faith >>is supposed to be hot, I tend to treat the character as hot, but, costumes >>being equal, I think other actors could give ED a run for her money. > Mmm, Vamp Willow. :) Damn, dvora, it's about time you weighed in here! >>(To get slightly off topic, have you ever seen Gillian Anderson? >><andrew>I'd date Scully in a second</andrew>, but I'd never date Gillian >>Anderson. But this is because of her personality, not her looks. GA sounds >>like an idiot.) > Wow, total opposite here. I really don't get the Scully thing, but I > wouldn't throw GA out of bed... Actually, I think GA is DDG, and when I've seen her interviewed, she comes across as intelligent and compassionate. In my estimation, she's great. I watched X for her, not for DD; though I will confess that Nick Lea makes me drool. I watch Once a Thief just for him. cl

2003-02-20 09:37:09-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - ("C.L. Lassiter" <seaelle@unc.edu>)


Tigerlily <tiger1i1y@hotmail.com> wrote: > Eeeewww... but still, animals are either *male* or *female* (at least > the mammals ... I believe slugs are hermaphrodites ... I can't imagine > that someone would get off of slugs ... but I'm sure someone is ... > somwhere out there ... <shudder>) Yep. If you can think of something, someone is into it. > I was so innocent before I got access to the internet ... Bwahahahahahaha! My work here is done! cl, a combination of cynicism and naivete

2003-02-20 09:37:09-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - ("C.L. Lassiter" <seaelle@unc.edu>)


Tigerlily <tiger1i1y@hotmail.com> wrote: > Eeeewww... but still, animals are either *male* or *female* (at least > the mammals ... I believe slugs are hermaphrodites ... I can't imagine > that someone would get off of slugs ... but I'm sure someone is ... > somwhere out there ... <shudder>) Yep. If you can think of something, someone is into it. > I was so innocent before I got access to the internet ... Bwahahahahahaha! My work here is done! cl, a combination of cynicism and naivete

2003-02-20 19:55:54-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - (David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com>)


On Thu, 20 Feb 2003 03:22:47 +0000, Shawn Hill wrote: > David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com> wrote: > : On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 16:50:19 +0000, Shawn Hill wrote: > > :> Some of you, sure, but I tend to view those poor slobs as the > :> differently abled few. > > : You shouldn't, that's the way all of us are. Some of us have just > : learned the rules from women or gay men. > > You're selling yourself way short. No I'm not. I like my fashion sense, but it certainly doesn't match up to what women like. -- David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com> NOYFB, P

2003-02-20 19:55:54-05:00 - Re: andrews gay - (David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com>)


On Thu, 20 Feb 2003 03:22:47 +0000, Shawn Hill wrote: > David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com> wrote: > : On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 16:50:19 +0000, Shawn Hill wrote: > > :> Some of you, sure, but I tend to view those poor slobs as the > :> differently abled few. > > : You shouldn't, that's the way all of us are. Some of us have just > : learned the rules from women or gay men. > > You're selling yourself way short. No I'm not. I like my fashion sense, but it certainly doesn't match up to what women like. -- David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com> NOYFB, P