Queer people of faith
Offline As a total faggot, I sometimes wish I was born earlier, before the AIDS epidemic began. Why? Because, at that point in history, being queer also meant you were a skeptic and freethinker, if not a downright atheist. The guy you were fucking wouldn't have to take a condom out of his ass and go to church the next morning.
After the AIDS epidemic, we saw lots of gay men running back to faith. This is when the gay-friendly churches were founded, later to be follow by the gay Jewish and gay Muslim help groups.
As someone who was president of my university's queer organization, and someone who has been relatively active in the community (ie, sleeps around a a shitload), I will certainly say that queer people of faith outnumber those who are freethinkers. We even have queers who are "waiting for marriage." The only thing I'd say is notable is the high amounts of New Age faiths, such as Wicca.
Now, there was a good two years where my religion and my queerness overlapped, and that was because I couldn't think of a rational way to reject my religious beliefs, and my understanding of Islam had always been rather liberal anyway. But, when I did find a way out, oh boy did I jump off that boat.
So, honestly, for other queers here, or others with at least some vague familiarity with the community, does the high amount of religious folk these days bother you? Unlike me, not all of them want a way out of faith. Certainly they're not as dogmatic as the straight ones, but still, why do they resign themselves to religious groups, where 90% of the believers find their lifestyle and feelings an abomination, as opposed to a philosophical position that almost anyone who holds it affirms their rights? It's just moronic.
- Login to post comments
Offline What I dont get is what makes us attracted to the opposite sex in the first place? I know the body looks good but other animals dont seem to be like this. When did we base things off of our apperance? It seems like its not unusaul to be gay I mean look how many girls will make out with another girl to turn a guy on. obvioulsy guys dont do that for social reasons so I think if you had a bunch of guys excluded from birth away from women they would be sexual with other guys. Cause there would be no such thing as "eww gross thats gay".
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
- Login to post comments
Offline robj101 wrote:wingless_sephiroth wrote:I'm a n00b on this forum and maybe shouldn't go further than this sentence. But, it's seems a tad extreme to start attacking an individual for an opinion by stating he has no interpersonal skills in the real world, craves for a gigantic soapbox, and putting him in the same sentence as that messiah complexed Jean Chauvin. The worst thing he did say amounted to, "You're wrong and I find those statements to be backwards and offensive," which is like what two or three other people also said.
Just saying. Also, waiting for Godwin's Law to be fulfilled. In the meanwhile, please, this thread is about nostalgia:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHEsE9yN2CY
I'm not quite a noob on the forum and I have read most of Bryan's posts, Kap is actually correct in good part and Bryan is like a freakin rottweiler for political correctness. He is as far left in general as anyone on this forum.
Bryan was the only one who seriously seemed to "take offense" at something I said that really had no actual bearing on what he wanted to make it out to be.
I explained it twice, the second time so a 6 year old might even understand it and he still does not want* to get it.
I feel bad for him for having such a narrow field of view.
Even if you are correct, which I'm not one to judge, I'm not sure you're approaching this correctly. Perhaps you should attack his views, but not him personally, it's not a good segue for constructive dialogue. You guys are approaching this all wrong and making yourselves seem petty.
Except I'm not even interested in constructive dialogue, although I like his idea about "separating the person from their claims". Ok, what's your idea for a "constructive" way of saying "Fuck off, I'm not interested in your $0.02 on everything"? I don't think there is one, except to dance around the problem.
You probably missed the thread here where Rob astutely noticed I'm not interested in being polite with people, especially if I consider them 'nuisance posters'. Rob's observation holds true even now. I don't play nice, and I'm not interested in winning popularity contests. I aim to disobey.
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
- Login to post comments
Offline Except I'm not even interested in constructive dialogue, although I like his idea about "separating the person from their claims". Ok, what's your idea for a "constructive" way of saying "Fuck off, I'm not interested in your $0.02 on everything"? I don't think there is one, except to dance around the problem.
You probably missed the thread here where Rob astutely noticed I'm not interested in being polite with people, especially if I consider them 'nuisance posters'. Rob's observation holds true even now. I don't play nice, and I'm not interested in winning popularity contests. I aim to disobey.
Fair enough, if that's what your goal is. I feel there's a sense of community here to a certain degree, where atheists allow for a little leniency when pointing out something stupid another atheist may have said. A sense of us versus them. I'm an asshole, and I have very thick skin, but the majority of people get hurt easily. I'm just appealing to emotion of course, rationally you should call it like it is. There are ways to point out an idiocy without attacking the person, however. In the end, as long as we're all intellectually honest and willing to admit our limitations and knowledge gaps, we can learn from criticism, even negative criticism. It just seemed like a bunch of people were ganging up on Bryan, and I just wanted to say 'play nice'.
"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc
- Login to post comments
Offline What I dont get is what makes us attracted to the opposite sex in the first place? I know the body looks good but other animals dont seem to be like this. When did we base things off of our apperance? It seems like its not unusaul to be gay I mean look how many girls will make out with another girl to turn a guy on. obvioulsy guys dont do that for social reasons so I think if you had a bunch of guys excluded from birth away from women they would be sexual with other guys. Cause there would be no such thing as "eww gross thats gay".
Many animals base their mate choice on appearance. It is the reason for the peacocks tail, for example.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
- Login to post comments
Offline Kapkao wrote:In conclusion, faggots are fabulous.
Don't chu need tell me that twice.
That was how this topic was supposed to go. You guys royally fucked up.
- Login to post comments
Offline I must be wrong since no one agrees with me on this, either that or or no one is seeing it in the same light. I never said a gay atheist should not "exercise their civil rights" I said it's harder for people to accept when they "let it all hang out". Turning this into a "rights" thing rather than a "common sense" thing, but whatever it takes for you to beat my view.
Either way I'll still be disappointed when I see a gay atheist touting atheism because for the religious it proves them right in much the way a teabagger criticizing a gay would prove you right.
Who's that on youtube zinniajones? An example. He does fine talking about gay rights and all but when he talks of atheism how many christians really watch him and consider anything? "hey look at me I'm everything you hate, now listen ..."
But again I must be wrong in this whole issue.
'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein
- Login to post comments
Offline I'm saying what prevents women from having sex with men immediately isn't charm or lack thereof.
That's a bit over simplified, but, in any event, I disagree.
A woman can be ambivalent, and even terribly conflicted about a particular man, and want to have sex with him, no less. Even more, possibly. That's often the confession I've had women who I've been intimate with, confess to me.
Both my ex wife, and my current wife admitted that they were initially very nervous around me, and felt intimidated, but both knew as soon as they met me, that they wanted to have sex with me. And both admitted they would have had sex with me the very first time we were alone together.
That wasn't the first time, that's happened, and I still have strange women flirt and even boldy proposition me, regularly. And it's not because I look like a model, or that I have 'game'.
I often don't even talk too much. I listen more than I talk. In general, I find that women really like it when someone really contemplates what they're communicating.
I covered the basic obstacles, which are fear and inhibitions. Which is why conversation and alcohol is such a great 'lubricant'. 
The best sex happens between the ears, not between the legs.
Sexual stimulation occurs in the mind. Touch is just but 1 sense. There's also visual, olfactory, aural and cerebral stimulation.
You can achieve sexual ecstasy and climax (with or without orgasm) with Tantric sex, without any touching whatsoever, and in total darkness.
How many women will tell you that the sound of Barry White or Luther Vandross' voice will immediately make them feel 'stimulated'?
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
- Login to post comments
Offline sooo.... i'm bisexual. 
just thought i'd throw that out there...
- Login to post comments
Offline ymalmsteen887 wrote:What I dont get is what makes us attracted to the opposite sex in the first place? I know the body looks good but other animals dont seem to be like this. When did we base things off of our apperance? It seems like its not unusaul to be gay I mean look how many girls will make out with another girl to turn a guy on. obvioulsy guys dont do that for social reasons so I think if you had a bunch of guys excluded from birth away from women they would be sexual with other guys. Cause there would be no such thing as "eww gross thats gay".
I think that is more along the same lines as women wanting a man with a good job or a healthy body and good personality. I am talking about becoming aroused because of how sexy someone looks. All other animals seem to have seasons but we can pretty much do it all the time.
- Login to post comments
Offline Gonna take the bait, using the new debating techniques introduced to me through this thread.
Of course you won't like what I say, because you hate God so much, and actively repress what your nature realizes.
Nope. I agree with you on this.... and please don't anyone ask me to elaborate because most of you won't like what I have to say about people who call themselves 'faggots'.
Judging on forum precedent, probably best for you, oh menacing eye of Sauron.
- Login to post comments
Offline Gonna take the bait, using the new debating techniques introduced to me through this thread.
Jean Chauvin wrote:Of course you won't like what I say, because you hate God so much, and actively repress what your nature realizes.
Sandycane wrote:Nope. I agree with you on this.... and please don't anyone ask me to elaborate because most of you won't like what I have to say about people who call themselves 'faggots'.
Judging on forum precedent, probably best for you, oh menacing eye of Sauron.
Dang!!! I wish I had the eye of Sauron. A cup of hot tea just doesn't compete. Well, shoot.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
- Login to post comments
Offline
There are ways to point out an idiocy without attacking the person, however. In the end, as long as we're all intellectually honest and willing to admit our limitations and knowledge gaps, we can learn from criticism, even negative criticism.
There's a big difference between my receiving negative criticism and baseless criticism. I have accused Brian of being an anti bigotry bigot and I stand by that. I see no reason yet to revise my assessment. He characterizes his opposition in ridiculously overblown terms ( stereotypes ) yet rails against this type of thinking within the same breath. He whines about "labels" but has no problem with likening his opposition to "skin heads". There's an obvious double-standard going on. If that doesn't bother you well I am not responsible for your lack of perception.
It just seemed like a bunch of people were ganging up on Bryan, and I just wanted to say 'play nice'.
Play nice ? Lately I have dealt with Brian in much the same emotional tone he constantly deals with theists who visit this forum. Brian's style of communication is, shall I say, ....bombastic ?, .....confrontational ?, ..... laced with emotionally charged rhetoric ?
Again, a differing opinion does not in itself annoy me. That does not constitute hypocrisy . Brian operates with a double standard. I predict that he will continue to operate within a double standard. Why ? Because so far, those of us who can see that he does this have kept our mouths shut, and when we do draw attention to it we are dismissed as not "playing nice."
Ganging up on Brian ? What, ...isn't there like only two or three of us who have so far made any kind or critical remarks against him. Compared to his supporters who either explicitly defend him ( Bob ) or the rest who apparently implicitly approve of him by their continued silence.
Those of us see Brian in a less than admirable light are the ones who are swimming against the stream yet I see no need to appeal to anyone's sense of pity just because so few here agree with me.
Brian can continue to present his pov in any way that he sees fit. No problem, but he certainly has endured nothing that confers any type of implied victim status upon himself.
Phtt. Whatever. I'm through attempting to dialog with Brian. You can have him.
- Login to post comments
Offline Ktulu wrote:
There are ways to point out an idiocy without attacking the person, however. In the end, as long as we're all intellectually honest and willing to admit our limitations and knowledge gaps, we can learn from criticism, even negative criticism.
There's a big difference between my receiving negative criticism and baseless criticism. I have accused Brian of being an anti bigotry bigot and I stand by that. I see no reason yet to revise my assessment. He characterizes his opposition in ridiculously overblown terms ( stereotypes ) yet rails against this type of thinking within the same breath. He whines about "labels" but has no problem with likening his opposition to "skin heads". There's an obvious double-standard going on. If that doesn't bother you well I am not responsible for your lack of perception.
Ktulu wrote:It just seemed like a bunch of people were ganging up on Bryan, and I just wanted to say 'play nice'.Play nice ? Lately I have dealt with Brian in much the same emotional tone he constantly deals with theists who visit this forum. Brian's style of communication is, shall I say, ....bombastic ?, .....confrontational ?, ..... laced with emotionally charged rhetoric ?
Again, a differing opinion does not in itself annoy me. That does not constitute hypocrisy . Brian operates with a double standard. I predict that he will continue to operate within a double standard. Why ? Because so far, those of us who can see that he does this have kept our mouths shut, and when we do draw attention to it we are dismissed as not "playing nice."
Ganging up on Brian ? What, ...isn't there like only two or three of us who have so far made any kind or critical remarks against him. Compared to his supporters who either explicitly defend him ( Bob ) or the rest who apparently implicitly approve of him by their continued silence.
Those of us see Brian in a less than admirable light are the ones who are swimming against the stream yet I see no need to appeal to anyone's sense of pity just because so few here agree with me.
Brian can continue to present his pov in any way that he sees fit. No problem, but he certainly has endured nothing that confers any type of implied victim status upon himself.
Phtt. Whatever. I'm through attempting to dialog with Brian. You can have him.
I have actually wanted to call him out for some time. It took him making a stupid assumption which seemed a retarded flanking attack on my view (because it was an assumption he preferred due to his anti bigotry and ultra pc'ness imo) for me to do so. I actually often agree with what Bryan has to say but even when I do at times he goes off the deep end with it.
I'm fairly easy to get along with and if I feel like I really fucked up and pist people off I'll stop posting, I made that offer once already a good while back. (no one likes my view on "faggotry" )
Hopefully that's the last I'll have to say about this, though I know Kap likes the drama.
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
- Login to post comments
Offline ymalmsteen887 wrote:What I dont get is what makes us attracted to the opposite sex in the first place? I know the body looks good but other animals dont seem to be like this. When did we base things off of our apperance? It seems like its not unusaul to be gay I mean look how many girls will make out with another girl to turn a guy on. obvioulsy guys dont do that for social reasons so I think if you had a bunch of guys excluded from birth away from women they would be sexual with other guys. Cause there would be no such thing as "eww gross thats gay".
Many animals base their mate choice on appearance. It is the reason for the peacocks tail, for example.
Most animals do, I think there is a bird that makes a nest to attract females though. http://www.suite101.com/content/how-male-bowerbirds-attract-mates-a112037
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
- Login to post comments
Offline For the record, I agree with Prozacdeathwish and robj101 regards to Brian.
When I read post #12 of this thread, I said to myself, 'Oh christ, here he goes again'.
Wow, so this is how you suggest we help minorities, tell them to shut up? Remember that the next time a Christian equates you to Hitler and Stalin because you are an atheist.
I am glad you had no hand in the civil rights movement.
You probably didn't mean it the way it may come across, but I do not think helping others should involve coddling the insecurities and phobias of bigots.
Kudos to him for his bravery to be out both as being gay and atheist and screw any fuckhead who thinks they have the right by proxy of popular myth to deny him his rights.
There is no "example" of an atheist. Just like any other label, people are a range, not an essence or perfect utopia.
I don't see how being gay and atheist and open about both is a problem. I think it is a plus because it shows liberal theists that their religion is not needed as a guide for morality AND it can also be used to remind both gay and straight liberal theists of the origin of the bigotry justified in their holy book. It may not change their minds but it does make them aware of the need to watch those in theism who still buy into the bigotry.
But even as such, there is no "example" of an atheist. There are a range of atheists who are educated and uneducated or less educated. Atheism is does not address your class or status or sexuality. Being gay only addresses your sexuality. Neither makes you automatically good or bad.
No label automatically makes a person good or bad.
What WE should support is his individual rights, not pander to the insecurities of bigots.
I for one am sick and tired of being bashed on this forum for not having the same (lack of) values and life-style choices as the rest of the atheists here. Just because I am an atheist doesn't mean I have to believe in moral relativism or, that I automatically discard everything that I deem good in the bible... or, other philosophy or, religion.
As to the topic at hand, I agree with robj101, trying to gain acceptance as an atheist is hard enough but to also boast of being a 'faggot' would make your life even more difficult, I suppose.
Personally, and I know no one asked for it, I thought the OP was vulgar and from what I have read here, wingless seems to have an unnatural fear of and disrespect for straight women and men. If you are going to bad mouth straight people for their personal choices, don't be surprised if you receive the same back from them.
... and for brian: to quote redneF 'STFU'
'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein
- Login to post comments
Offline Gauche wrote:I'm saying what prevents women from having sex with men immediately isn't charm or lack thereof.That's a bit over simplified, but, in any event, I disagree.
A woman can be ambivalent, and even terribly conflicted about a particular man, and want to have sex with him, no less. Even more, possibly. That's often the confession I've had women who I've been intimate with, confess to me.
Both my ex wife, and my current wife admitted that they were initially very nervous around me, and felt intimidated, but both knew as soon as they met me, that they wanted to have sex with me. And both admitted they would have had sex with me the very first time we were alone together.
That wasn't the first time, that's happened, and I still have strange women flirt and even boldy proposition me, regularly. And it's not because I look like a model, or that I have 'game'.
I often don't even talk too much. I listen more than I talk. In general, I find that women really like it when someone really contemplates what they're communicating.
I covered the basic obstacles, which are fear and inhibitions. Which is why conversation and alcohol is such a great 'lubricant'.
The best sex happens between the ears, not between the legs.
Sexual stimulation occurs in the mind. Touch is just but 1 sense. There's also visual, olfactory, aural and cerebral stimulation.
You can achieve sexual ecstasy and climax (with or without orgasm) with Tantric sex, without any touching whatsoever, and in total darkness.
How many women will tell you that the sound of Barry White or Luther Vandross' voice will immediately make them feel 'stimulated'?
Well, hell... I hate to admit it but, I agree with you 100%.
We had lunch at Applebee's yeasterday and an old Barry White song played... 
'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein
- Login to post comments
Offline Personally, and I know no one asked for it, I thought the OP was vulgar and from what I have read here, wingless seems to have an unnatural fear of and disrespect for straight women and men. If you are going to bad mouth straight people for their personal choices, don't be surprised if you receive the same back from them.
Where did wingless demonstrate an "unnatural fear of and disrespect for straight women and men," if you don't mind my asking? I just read through his OP and a few of his posts and didn't see anything that stood out to me as such.
- Login to post comments
Offline Both my ex wife, and my current wife admitted . . .
That doesn't matter because you're not very charming and even if you were it doesn't address the issue of why women are disinclined to sleep with men they barely know if they are or if those women even were.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
- Login to post comments
Offline
SECOND STEP: Anthropology-wise, historical and contemporary homosexuals have generally realized that parts of their personalities resembled the opposite sex. Instead of just being slightly effeminate or masculine in demeanour, they've always quickly understood that part of them, was if you will, "like a woman" or "like a man." They drew the dots about their behaviour and realised what they seemed like to others.
Well, my earlier attempt at distracting people from arguing over things unrelated to the intention of this thread didn't work, haha.
But I just wanted to say that this was exactly how I realized I was bi when I was 10 or 11 (unfortunately, due to religion and whatnot, it would take me about 10 more years to actually admit it and come out, but that's a story for another day). I often wondered why I felt "like a man should" around some of my girl friends when I was in middle school. But I also felt attracted to boys my age, so I was really confused as to whether I was gay or straight - wouldn't find out for a couple of years that there was an inbetween option.
But anyways, just wanted to say that this part of your theory is right on, as my first indication was that I sometimes felt masculine, despite otherwise being a mostly girly girl.
- Login to post comments
Offline Sandycane wrote:Personally, and I know no one asked for it, I thought the OP was vulgar and from what I have read here, wingless seems to have an unnatural fear of and disrespect for straight women and men. If you are going to bad mouth straight people for their personal choices, don't be surprised if you receive the same back from them.
Where did wingless demonstrate an "unnatural fear of and disrespect for straight women and men," if you don't mind my asking? I just read through his OP and a few of his posts and didn't see anything that stood out to me as such.
Post #54 wingless wrote
But, it's seems a tad extreme to start attacking an individual for an opinion by stating he has no interpersonal skills in the real world, craves for a gigantic soapbox, and putting him in the same sentence as that messiah complexed Jean Chauvin.
Then post #136, addressed to me
Gonna take the bait, using the new debating techniques introduced to me through this thread.
Jean Chauvin wrote:
Of course you won't like what I say, because you hate God so much, and actively repress what your nature realizes.
Sandycane wrote:
Nope. I agree with you on this.... and please don't anyone ask me to elaborate because most of you won't like what I have to say about people who call themselves 'faggots'.
Judging on forum precedent, probably best for you, oh menacing eye of Sauron.
'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein
- Login to post comments
Offline Well, my earlier attempt at distracting people from arguing over things unrelated to the intention of this thread didn't work, haha.
But I just wanted to say that this was exactly how I realized I was bi when I was 10 or 11 (unfortunately, due to religion and whatnot, it would take me about 10 more years to actually admit it and come out, but that's a story for another day). I often wondered why I felt "like a man should" around some of my girl friends when I was in middle school. But I also felt attracted to boys my age, so I was really confused as to whether I was gay or straight - wouldn't find out for a couple of years that there was an in-between option.
But anyways, just wanted to say that this part of your theory is right on, as my first indication was that I sometimes felt masculine, despite otherwise being a mostly girly girl.
I read a good book on this a while back and it has nothing to do with sex:
For a dominatrix in everyday life, the key to
effectiveness lies in being switchable–knowing when to be firm and direct
and when to be flexible and accommodating. A Corporate Dominatrix dominates without being domineering and is submissive to authority (when necessary) without being subservient. She stands up for her rights in an open and straightforward way, and she is confident enough to intuit what her clients or colleagues want and she responds accordingly.
Example: If I am in the presence of a self-confident, intelligent, 'strong' male, I will feel more submissive (I use that word figuratively). If I am in the presence of a bimbo, I view her as the submissive one and react accordingly.
SEX, imo, should not come into the picture until/unless there has been a serious, monogamous relationship cultivated first.
Sexual promiscuity is something I frown upon, now that I am older and wiser. 
'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein
- Login to post comments
Offline greek goddess wrote:Don't most, if not all, children experiment with their new-found sexuality? At the same time, they are trying to define their place in the world, their place on the totem pole. How you react to another person is directly related to how that person reacts to you (obviously). What is not so obvious is that some people are the dominate type and others are the dominated... and your position changes, sometimes you are more aggresive and others, more passive depending on who you are dealing with. You (me, anyone) normally adjusts their persona, depending on the personality type of the other person.Well, my earlier attempt at distracting people from arguing over things unrelated to the intention of this thread didn't work, haha.
But I just wanted to say that this was exactly how I realized I was bi when I was 10 or 11 (unfortunately, due to religion and whatnot, it would take me about 10 more years to actually admit it and come out, but that's a story for another day). I often wondered why I felt "like a man should" around some of my girl friends when I was in middle school. But I also felt attracted to boys my age, so I was really confused as to whether I was gay or straight - wouldn't find out for a couple of years that there was an in-between option.
But anyways, just wanted to say that this part of your theory is right on, as my first indication was that I sometimes felt masculine, despite otherwise being a mostly girly girl.
I read a good book on this a while back and it has nothing to do with sex:
For a dominatrix in everyday life, the key to
effectiveness lies in being switchable–knowing when to be firm and direct
and when to be flexible and accommodating. A Corporate Dominatrix dominates without being domineering and is submissive to authority (when necessary) without being subservient. She stands up for her rights in an open and straightforward way, and she is confident enough to intuit what her clients or colleagues want and she responds accordingly.
Example: If I am in the presence of a self-confident, intelligent, 'strong' male, I will feel more submissive (I use that word figuratively). If I am in the presence of a bimbo, I view her as the submissive one and react accordingly.
SEX, imo, should not come into the picture until/unless there has been a serious, monogamous relationship cultivated first.
Sexual promiscuity is something I frown upon, now that I am older and wiser.
From what I have seen they don't have to be intelligent. I know a loud overly confident guy that can cry on demand who seems to attract women from a mile away. He is quite bold in that he will talk to any woman he finds to be attractive and I must give him credit he comes away with a phone number more often than not. But I can't give him much credit for his intellect, he is just a bit smarter than a rock and a little dumber than the moss growing on it. In conclusion I think it's mostly confidence and lack of self conciousness.
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
- Login to post comments
Offline SEX, imo, should not come into the picture until/unless there has been a serious, monogamous relationship cultivated first.
Sexual promiscuity is something I frown upon, now that I am older and wiser.
But you will hop into a car with a man you just met for destinations unknown to have a sexual encounter if he's charming enough right?
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
- Login to post comments
Offline Sandycane wrote:SEX, imo, should not come into the picture until/unless there has been a serious, monogamous relationship cultivated first.
Sexual promiscuity is something I frown upon, now that I am older and wiser.
But you will hop into a car with a man you just met for destinations unknown to have a sexual encounter if he's charming enough right?
No. What brought you to that conclusion?
'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein
- Login to post comments
I am not against marriage. I AM against how it is sold as a utopia, like a fairy tale. Selling it to society like it will solve the world's problems. With half of marriages ending in divorce, I just wish they'd skip "Till death do us part". It sets people up for an unrealistic view of life in that people change. And that meme can make a divorce really messy.
In reality marriages are merely financial contracts that deal with what happens with money in case of a divorce or death. Thats fine, but the religious crap and utopia crap really makes what amounts to a partnership contract on paper, and turns it into a princess fairy tale.
I consider myself lucky in that after all the dating before I got married, I was aware that things can change so I when I did get married I wasn't deluded in thinking it would last forever. I just went in thinking that I'll enjoy this as long as it lasts. It is always painful to feel rejection. But you cant force someone to have emotions they don't have. So in that respect, my x and I delt with it alot better than most people.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
yeah, i second this. i jumped into my share of tight jeans in college after (at most) an evening at the movies, and the only reason i didn't do it a lot more was because i have extremely demanding tastes when it comes to a girl's intellect, wit, artistic inclinations, etc., etc. i didn't care if they looked like natalie portman: one vacant look or vapid comment at the wrong time and my shorts became considerably more loose.
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
Women feel social pressure not to have sex. If she's the type of person who thinks that sex isn't a big deal she might do it with you immediately. I don't know about the chocolate and flower thing, but I don't think being confident and funny will make a woman sleep with you immediately if she wasn't inclined to do that in the first place.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
I firmly disagree, and have plenty of experience with that exact kind of girl. Some maybe, but most are susceptable to a little charm, just like we are to theirs, this is natural. What do these types say after after you've charmed them? "Your trouble" haha. Thats what I always got... "I'm never like this, your bad, your trouble." Which translates to: "You are very charming, confident, you don't kiss my butt like other guys, and because of that I am very drawn to you." = "Your trouble"
Edit: Also the goal is not to get them to sleep with you, this is the goal of guys who never get laid, which is exactly why they don't get laid because that is their focus. The goal is to get them to want to sleep with you, this is the climax of flirtacious sexual interaction, not the sex itself.
undersexed? I guess that depends on who you are talking about really, i know gay men that have a hard time getting laid, at the same time I know straight guys that have sex with a different woman every weekend, sometimes 2 or 3 different women. What does that prove? Nothing really. Same with gay guys that bang anything that walks and has a dick, doesn't mean squat.
Monogamy works for some, doesn't always work for everyone. It works in the gay community as well, i know lesbians that have been monogamous for a decade, others that can't be in a stable relationship if their life depended on it.
Well, I'm not saying men should have a goal of getting laid. The OP said women make men wait for sex and that makes sense because women have reasons to do that. Immediately for gay men is pretty immediate. If you meet a woman and she has sex with you less than an hour later I doubt it's because you're charming and funny.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
Maybe not an hour, but what about 3 hours? LOL. A drinking nights time... I can't count how many girls are not like that (all their friends warned me I was waisting my time), yet they were like that with me (not to boast, that's just the truth).
Alcohol works really well.
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
I don't doubt that happened but just because a woman is inclined to sleep with a man in less than a day doesn't necessarily mean she'll do it with everyone. I mean, I have a gay friend who told me he fucked a guy who just said hello to him. Nobody is that charming.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
So true. Once I was out with this smoking hot girl I knew from highschool, she was putty in my hands by the end of the night. Myself, her and some of her friends went to a park after the bar to have few more drinks. We ended up in a discussion about pregnancy, abortion, adoption etc... She made the following statement in a completely nonchelant, spaced out, selfish and sinical manner:
"If I had a kid who came out retarded, I would give it up for adoption (giggles), eww I couldn't handle it."
"Retarded," "it," "eww!" I was instantly discusted by her, she literally appeared ugly to me from that moment forward and there was no looking back. I left her and her friends at the park. Now I may be a little sensitive to this type of garbage given I had a sister with downsyndrom and leucemia who died at a very young age, but either way it was an example of her shallow, selfish way of thinking. After that she couldn't get me hard if she was rinsing soapy bubbles off of her naked body.
We also have codes for getting fucked in the gyms after a nice hot workout. You'll do a "glance" at someone the shower, or go into the sauna and start talking about a specific sport game (usually mentioned in their online post in the local craigslist) and it'll go from there.
Also, I'm sure both straights and gays have their guys who'll fuck anything, but my personal experience shows that it's much higher among straight men than gay men. Once again though, that's anecdotal, and you might have completely different experiences in that regard.
There's a fine line between greasing the skids and assault I guess.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
I have a sister who is autistic-like, so that's simply just terrible. But, you're right, it's incredible (or maybe not) how huge of a turn off shit like that can be.
I am. haha. But seriously I said there may be some who simply wouldn't, I haven't met too many. Girls build these walls around them to keep out a certain kind of guy which is that vast majority of men, and to hold on to a reptutation they are trying to keep. Once they are interested, and you make them feel very comfortable with you and the sexlife you keep respectfully private (not the guy screaming "I totally fucked her!!!), those walls come crumbling down, and they want them to come crumbling down, they are dying for you to come and make those walls come crashing down. They absolutely love being charmed and helplessly letting those walls fall down. Girls love secret naughty relationships with "special" guys that aren't like the rest.
I'm glad you have success with women and I hope it continues but you're kind of illustrating this guys point. You're going through this whole elaborate "charming" thing with these kind of arcane rules, getting the women that others can't get because of a special way of doing it that's not apparent to everyone else, even to your associates. All the OP had to do was look at craigslist.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
I think I may have gotten laid more while I was drunk than not, go figure. I don't drink a lot anymore and I don't get laid a lot anymore either, it would seem there could be a correlation ..
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
What a cunt. Hopefully her next boyfriend will be a serial killer.
That doesn't indicate how much they enjoy it, or whether they have a strong desire for it, at all.
Totally disagree.
The major distinction between women and men, is the 'sense' that men are sexual predators and that women are sexual prey. I won't derail into why that 'sense' is there, but rather, stay on topic.
The reality is, that both men and women are sexual, and can both have equal libidos.
The reality is, that (in general) women are inclined to desire sex as much, if not more than men.
The major obstacles are fear, and inhibition.
Lower the level of those 2 items, and things evolve in a much different fashion.
Can those 2 items become absent almost immediately? Absolutely. Under the right circumstances.
I'm with NMCP, on this one. Without even trying, and even sometimes going to lengths to avoid it, I come across sexual opportunities all the time, with women.
I don't understand people who think that sex between males and females is governed by females.
It's governed by the shared chemistry between a male and a female.
Sex is shared among men and women. Not given to men, by women.
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
I didn't say women don't want to have sex with men. Of course people want to have sex. I'm saying what prevents women from having sex with men immediately isn't charm or lack thereof. What the Op is talking about isn't really even an option for straight men no matter how charming you are. Women don't have sex with men immediately for lots of reasons and charm of manner is not like a panacea that makes all women susceptible to one night stands. Of course it doesn't hurt either.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
Shh! Unlike the nihilistic overtone which underlines the gay male escapades, the straight ones are a form of bravado, the last remnants of masculinity in an increasingly androgynous world. I remember when one gentleman told me how he was part of a secret society of men that studied female psychology in order to advance their amount of sexual encounters. So, I want to see where this is going. Keep provoking them, and be my homme fatale.
Gauche just said he thinks you're lying. Could you studs elaborate more on how you're not?
It probably is since every thing we are is just a function of our brain its like saying do stupid people choose to be stupid. Clearly we are just a product of our environment and our not free agents. Do we know where our thoughts come from or how they are generated cause the stuff I am typing is just coming to me I dont have a thought before having a thought so thats why I dont believe in the whole free will thing cause clearly I am jsut self aware but simply following instructions so to speak from my brain(which is me but you get what I mean) based on my current situation.
How about this for a bottom line, and not just on the issue of sexuality.
How about not confusing "this works for me" or "this should be" and see life for what it is, A RANGE, not a script.
If you don't like men, you don't like men. If you like men, you like men. If you are a woman and you like men, then so what. If you are a woman and like women, then again, life is a range, not a script.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
That's just creepy.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
Were you responding to me? I just can't believe that we have any control over what we will do next only that we have the feeling that we have control. I have messed up thoughts that just come out of nowhere and if I had control over them then I would make them stop. I am not saying its a script as in someone knows what is going to happen next but just what happens is the only thing that can happen. Say you went back in time and observed everything taking place and it happens the same way as you remember it and then go back again it should happen the same way again. Now if you went back in time and interacted with the enviornment than you would bascially be adding new variables to the equation and get a different outcome. So our surroundings determine what is going to happen Cause we only make choices based on our external world.
What I dont get is what makes us attracted to the opposite sex in the first place? I know the body looks good but other animals dont seem to be like this. When did we base things off of our apperance? It seems like its not unusaul to be gay I mean look how many girls will make out with another girl to turn a guy on. obvioulsy guys dont do that for social reasons so I think if you had a bunch of guys excluded from birth away from women they would be sexual with other guys. Cause there would be no such thing as "eww gross thats gay".
quote=wingless_sephiroth]
I'm a n00b on this forum and maybe shouldn't go further than this sentence. But, it's seems a tad extreme to start attacking an individual for an opinion by stating he has no interpersonal skills in the real world, craves for a gigantic soapbox, and putting him in the same sentence as that messiah complexed Jean Chauvin. The worst thing he did say amounted to, "You're wrong and I find those statements to be backwards and offensive," which is like what two or three other people also said.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHEsE9yN2CY
Except that is exactly what he does in quite a few threads; tell people what they should do in a given situ, how society should be run, what bills should be signed into law, etc and without much in the way of charisma or even a measurable shred of humility. A kind of person who has $0.02 about how everything should be done, but doesn't wrap it in an attractive -or compelling- package. A "rottweiler" for a particular worldview, indeed. Everyone's nanny...
On further introspection, though, he may not actually act like that IRL, and simply use the internet to vent moral outrage that has no outlet in person.
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)