I loved your site.

I had an idea though. I am bisexual, and my theory about that is this: Heterosexuality and homosexuality are genetic. Bisexuality is, like type AB blood, codominant, or in some cases incomplete dominance (when someone favors one sex over another, but is attracted to both sexes).

Comment

Also, I had to comment on this: "This is not a pleasant subject to discuss but it is pertinent, some men identify themselves as gay simply because they are men to whom homosexual acts have been done. They can be recruited. This is not what the gay rights activists want to hear but I believe it is true. " I disagree. They may identify as gay, but sex does not determine one's orientation; you can be straight or gay before you ever have sex. And they simply enjoyed the act of sodomy, that does not make them naturally attracted to the same sex. Just a thought :)

"Most gays are born and have no choice, some make a choice because of trauma and maybe a tiny handful will also make that choice for their own strange reasons. " Agreed.

Many of my Lesbian friends have been victimized by experimenters who were not looking for a relationship. Those who choose homosexuality are experimenting, or are probably somewhat bisexual. :)

Thanks for listening.

Thanks for the comments. I am not sure if I quite understand your point about bloodgroups and codominance. My knowledge of biology is full of holes.

I think that the idea that everybody is naturally bisexual is wrong. But I also think that people have a capacity to develop bisexual behaviour. We all have ancestors who were attracted by men and ancestors who were attracted by women. It does not take too much to trigger that latent behaviour pattern and the actual acts involved are naturally pleasant to participate in once you have decided that you will allow yourself to enjoy them.

Unusual circumstances can help develop this behaviour. Abused women who are naturally attracted by men can find themselves enjoying lesbian relationships. Men too may find sexual behaviour with other men or boys gives them what they are wanting without actually being actually attracted by men as such. There is a big distinction between attraction and behaviour.

The Church sees it too, being attracted towards buggering an altar boy is much less of a sin than doing it and two women can be free to show affection to each other by holding each other's hands, but nothing much else. This is one of the few ways in which I agree with the Church! There is a distinction between attraction and activity. But neither is sin.

Men and women are not like the Yin-Yang symbol suggests. They are not perfect opposites matching their contrasting needs. Men are basically people with lusts added. All people enjoy togetherness love and so on, but for a man this is not quite so important as getting his end away. Women are different, to men and to each other. A woman's survival and breeding strategy depends on being contrary and unpredictable. I have come to the conclusion that the most complex thing in the entire Universe is human female sexuality. And that is not simply being flippant.

A woman has needs. Some she is aware of and pursues consciously. Mostly, however, she pursues her needs unconsciously. Ironically the parts of the "higher brain" that are supposedly the seat of rational behaviour are in fact usually the home of the irrational aspects of the female psyche. Her body acts rather rationally, seeking to maximize chances of breeding success. Ask a woman why she chose that skirt that particular night and you get an irrational explanation phrased as a rational explanation. Paradoxically human intelligence has probably been driven more by the needs of the female to find irrational explanations for rational behaviour than by anything ever done by a male.

I like women, but I will never understand them. The only consolation I have is that they stand even less of a chance of understanding themselves than I do. And the explanation is that it doesn't always pay a woman to know why she is doing what she must do.

Male sexuality is fairly easily explained by simple evolutionary principles. Men can father hundreds of children in a year in the right circumstances, a woman is limited to one pregnancy per year. A man can achieve biological success if he can inseminate a woman and get away with it. By that I mean not get caught out and have to pay a large penalty. Death is an obvious penalty. In pre-agricultural societies sexual jealousy is the one of the main causes of premature death. A man can be successful if he is wise enough to take advantage of every conceivable opportunity, pun intended. Driving that kind of system is quite simple, a man should want to bonk anything that moves but show a preference for younger, fitter and healthier females; that is then coupled with a rational caution to avoid the obvious dangers. So when presented with one good opportunity to inseminate a moderately attractive female he will take it, when faced with a choice of several he will go for the most fertile and attractive one first, then move on to the next best option and continue the process until the brink of exhaustion (that was a flight of pure fantasy I enjoyed). Attractive often means perceived to be attractive. It is best to want what everybody else wants, that way you are more likely to have attractive daughters and granddaughters.

Female sexuality is much more discriminating. A female has to consider the long term opportunity cost of every pregnancy. Letting this scrawny imbecile impregnate me might do more long term damage to my breeding success than telling him where he can sick his undying love. Lust is still important, it is how the body tells the brain to get on with what the body wants to do. "He'll do, now let's do it, now!"

Female sexuality is always going to be a mystery, because it works better if it is. Predictable behaviour from a woman is not in her interest. In sex at least, although it probably helps in most other things, like driving. :-)

In a way the reason I write my website is a perversion of the sexual drive. I want to impress people, men and women. By becoming respected for my opinions I increase the chances of getting into another conceivable situation. So sex provides the fuel for my web activity. That doesn't mean I am doing it exactly for that reason, the same explanation would also work for the Pope, he wants to do well in his chosen career for similar built in reasons that fundamentally are driven by the sex drive, but there are many many layers of reason and culture overlaid which hide this motivation from everybody, including probably most of the people themselves.

Do you have any theories as to why so many heterosexual men spend so much time thinking about lesbians and their sexual antics? It has always seemed rather strange to me. When I look at such pictures I get bored stiff. (groan)

The type AB blood is a result of codominant genes. A person of A blood type can be recessive for b, and the alleles look like this: IAiB A person who is A can be homozygous A: IAIA (the A should be superscript). However, sometimes both genes take dominance, looking like this: IAIB. Therefore, you have bloodtype AB. Just as a person might be homozygous gay, heterozygous Gay, or homozygous straight or heterozygous straight. If genes take codominance, you have bisexual, or if they have incomplete dominance, one sex is preferred but both are enjoyed. Incomplete cominance is like this: A purple flower is crossed with a white flower, producing a pink flower. The flower is a combination, instead of being one thing and recessive for the other.

What of virginal people who identify as Bi or Gay?

"Unusual circumstances can help develop this behaviour. Abused women who are naturally attracted by men can find themselves enjoying lesbian relationships." Sometimes, but not always.

"Do you have any theories as to why so many heterosexual men spend so much time thinking about lesbians and their sexual antics?" Yes. It is something they could never hope to do. They see women as beautiful, and the pleasure of women as beautiful. Therefore, beautiful women causing beautiful pleasure must be double the attractiveness. And women tend to know how to please each other better. It is the same with seeing a female masturbate, that is the fantasy of many males.

Virgins?

Do you know a lot of virgin bisexuals? I think they would be rather rare, considering how much opportunity they have to cease being virgins. Any statistics that I have seen on the subject suggest bisexuals tend to be sexually active younger and have more sexual partners than exclusive heterosexuals or lesbians, although male exclusive homosexuals can be in a different league, giving bonobos a run for their money sometimes ;-)

I certainly knew that I was interested in girls and women from the earliest times. Right back when I was about 7 or 8 I knew that it was girls that I was interested in. Before that I don't think it was an issue for me, I suppose I would have been able to talk about getting married and having a girlfriend but it would not have meant much to me. By the time I was 8 I knew there were certain girls I wanted to do things to, but I wasn't quite sure what or how. Over the next few years my concept of what I wanted to do became more refined. My first chance to put it into practice came when I was 16, but I was so surprised that she would let me that I couldn't, I wasn't expecting her to say yes and I wasn't prepared for it (in either sense of prepared).

Did you think about both sexes equally? I find that hard to believe, note, that is not the same as unbelievable.

I did not mean to suggest that all abused women were always suckers for seduction by lesbians. Some naturally heterosexual women would never find it acceptable. I think that many people who are definitely one way or the other in normal societies and normal circumstances could be changed into being functionally bisexual.

Sexual attraction and fetishes. Nobody is born a rubber fetishist. Nobody is born to be dominated and humiliated, to worship feet, leather or fur, to be a transvestite or to enjoy being pissed on. If fetishes and perversions can develop out of experiences why cannot a small propensity towards bisexuality be fanned by experience or trauma into something much bigger? I think that some people's sexuality is explained in this way, especially those previously gay people who suddenly realize that they were really (mostly) straight all along. It would seem to fit the pattern. No society seems devoid of homosexuality but some have a lot more than others. "I was born this way" is not the only explanation.

What the rabid Christians and the like forget is that having sex with a man or a woman is quite normal and very enjoyable, as long as you are comfortable with it. Bisexuality does not need explaining. Really it is the opposite, unisexuality, that needs explaining. Why do homophobes find the idea of indulging in a mutually rewarding act so repulsive? Why are they so screwed up? Admittedly homosexual acts perform no real "purpose" but then neither do most heterosexual acts, my two children resulted from a tiny, tiny minority of my sexual activity.

Another thing. Gay men. Why do they have such a disproportionate influence on our culture? Like users of Mac computers, a small minority that makes far more than its fair share of noise. Theatre, fashion and many other arts are dominated by the gay Mafia. Any theories? Note that I am not homophobic, just freethinking. My principle objection to the tide of gays is the effect it has on the perceived desirable female body-shape. Gay men have gay tastes, muscle and bone is good, fat is not, they like their women to be boys.

I like women. Note this does not mean the Pamela Anderson type, skinny girl with globular breasts stuck on. I like real women, thighs that wobble, breasts in all shapes and sizes. And buttocks. Oh yes. Real women, not those dolls in magazines and on television. They just don't do much for me, like members of another species. I don't get turned on by cats either, however aesthetically pleasing, it must be a similar thing.

I think that it is positively obscene that Darryl Hannah is seen as perfect because she has the longest legs of any woman in Hollywood, it is obscene that a superlative is held up as so desirable. You can never too rich or too thin, or have legs that are too long. You might as well say you can never be adequate, or happy.

I think the most sexually attractive feature any person can have is in their head. I love being loved. To have love and lust and passion in equal measures with no fear or jealousy is the best experience of all.

"Do you know a lot of virgin bisexuals? I think they would be rather rare, considering how much opportunity they have to cease being virgins."

Me, for one. A few of my friends, both male and female. The promiscuity is a bit stereotypical.

"Did you think about both sexes equally? I find that hard to believe, note, that is not the same as unbelievable."

No. I like females better physically, males are more attractive emotionally to me.

"I did not mean to suggest that all abused women were always suckers for seduction by lesbians. Some naturally heterosexual women would never find it acceptable."

Some heterosexual women were abused as well.

"Another thing. Gay men. Why do they have such a disproportionate influence on our culture? Like users of Mac computers, a small minority that makes far more than its fair share of noise. Theatre, fashion and many other arts are dominated by the gay Mafia. Any theories? Note that I am not homophobic, just freethinking."

I think that's more of a stereotype. And maybe the part of them that makes them gay also makes them artistic.

Virgin bisexuals

Sorry, but I find this one hard to get clear in my mind. You are a bisexual because you think about doing it? How seriously do you have to think about it to qualify? I have thought about just about everything that is immoral or illegal, speculated about it, even had a few brief fantasies. Does that make me a moral equivalent of Hitler or Caligula? It is a difficult point. If you speculate about sex with a partner of the other sex (other than your usual partner's sex) are you bisexual? Or do you have to do it while masturbating or do you have some other guideline in mind? Or are you only bisexual if you really want to do it, but if so how do you know you really want to do it until you actually do it? I think this is a rather grey area.

Before I had sex I knew I was heterosexual because I passionately wanted to do it. But how could I be sure whether or not my bisexuality was big enough to count? I had thought about it, but I had never done anything about it. Do I count as bisexual just because I sometimes think about it or would I only count as a virgin bisexual if I planned in detail about how I wouldn't have sex. I once spent several weeks devising cruel and unpleasant deaths for somebody I worked with, does that make me a virgin murderer, or just a fantasy murderer? How do you draw that line? Is that line drawn by something inside you or by external realities? I am quite sure that if I had lived in some distant time or place in which murder was more common and more easy to get away with I would have done it, with relish, then modest guilt. If the reasons you do not indulge your fantasies are based on the realities of your current relationship or some other external factor what is the big distinction? Virgin bisexual or fantasy bisexual?

Abuse of sex

I think we got a bit confused about abused women and lesbians. What I meant was that most women are heterosexual, or predominantly so. When such women go through an abusive relationship it often leaves them damaged, part of that damage leaves them hungry for emotional and sexual fulfilment without violence, domination and perhaps penetration. That condition makes them more vulnerable to seduction by lesbians, but only if they allow it, for some that seduction would be seen as a further violation of their trust.

Women need emotional support and security, it is a vital part of their emotional make-up, this has roots in evolution. Security is essential for the female because sex is so related to their long term health and reproductive strategy. For men sex is always more casual, his investment is never as total as he has more options to walk away from the results of his sexual activity and any one sexual encounter is far less likely to change the course of his life. This fundamental sexual inequality is inherent in sexual reproduction with unequal sized gametes, when one sex is very much more likely to be left holding, or carrying, the baby the two sexes will not be equal in behaviour because they have different strategies coded by the success of their ancestors. The equality and joint responsibility of animals like penguins and gibbons is rare, the vast majority of species show male behaviour which is more opportunistic. Make hay while the sun shines, tomorrow you might be dead.

Creative Gays

Stereotypes abound. Are gay men more creative or is it the other way around, creative fields allow people to be themselves or even perhaps they force people to invent more colourful personae? That is an interesting point. I can't help thinking about David Bowie, if he was David Jones, accountant, would he have been actively bisexual or would he have just had his wife and two children and occasionally had a few confusing thoughts while he had sex or masturbated. I suspect that is quite likely. David Bowie wore his hair long very early in life at a time in which men did not, this made his sexuality an issue, if it had not been an issue it might not have developed into behaviour at all. If you dance in the ballet, play women's tennis, cut people's hair, act in the theatre or become a rock icon your sexuality is always going to be an issue to someone. Perhaps the constant questioning makes people more likely to answer that way? Think about it, if I introduced you to Sandra a women tennis player, Sven from the Swedish Navy, Julian, a nurse and Barry a coal miner, which of those would you start asking "I wonder if they are gay?..." I strongly suspect you would not think it of Barry within the first ten seconds, unless he had a big butch moustache :-)
(or a boyfriend)

Being homosexual makes you artistic? It is possible, but I am not sure. The stereotype could perhaps be seen as a form of sampling error. When somebody is of average stupidity nobody suggests whether he is gay or left-handed or born under a particular starsign is an explanation for it.

Reliable Survey

How widespread is bisexuality? I am not sure. A friend of mine had a sideline in repairing computers. Whenever he had a used harddrive in his hands he would search it for pornography ( FIND: *.jpg, *.jpeg ) and back it up for his own collection. He collected hundreds of megabytes from dozens of men, most hard drives came up trumps for him. He only found regular stuff, most of it technically illegal to possess in this country but it was all male-female with a bit of female-female and a bit of heterosexual orgy. No children or animals or gay men. I am sure that this is the mechanism by which Gary Glitter was caught by technicians at PC World with child pornography, they were looking to add to their collection but found some stuff that was out of the ordinary. How else can you explain them finding it? It is probably seen as a perk of the job.

Martin

"Sorry, but I find this one hard to get clear in my mind. You are a bisexual because you think about doing it?"

I'm bisexual because I know what I find attractive and I know what I fantasize about. I know that I've fallen for a woman before. I know that my best friend is very appealing to me.

"Before I had sex I knew I was heterosexual because I passionately wanted to do it."

Exactly

"But how could I be sure whether or not my bisexuality was big enough to count? I had thought about it, but I had never done anything about it."

If you aren't naturally attracted to the same sex, then you probably aren't. I know that I like women with curly blonde or red hair, and with curves and all.

"Do I count as bisexual just because I sometimes think about it or would I only count as a virgin bisexual if I planned in detail about how I wouldn't have sex."

Sex does not determine sexuality, attraction does. Do you find men attractive? Or do you just ponder about the experience?

"I think we got a bit confused about abused women and lesbians. What I meant was that most women are heterosexual, or predominantly so. When such women go through an abusive relationship it often leaves them damaged, part of that damage leaves them hungry for emotional and sexual fulfilment without violence, domination and perhaps penetration. That condition makes them more vulnerable to seduction by lesbians, but only if they allow it, for some that seduction would be seen as a further violation of their trust."

Those women usually aren't lesbians. They are just looking for fufillment without men. I find it easier to trust girls, as I am a female myself.

"Are gay men more creative or is it the other way around, creative fields allow people to be themselves or even perhaps they force people to invent more colourful personae?"

I don't know. I do know that people who are bipolar or ADD or have some other problems tend to be more creative. Gay men are often threatened, outcast, or beaten up, creating emotional problems. Or perhaps it is similar to chemical imbalances. Maybe the stereotypical creativeness stems from that.

"Think about it, if I introduced you to Sandra a women tennis player, Sven from the Swedish Navy, Julian, a nurse and Barry a coal miner, which of those would you start asking "I wonder if they are gay?..." I strongly suspect you would not think it of Barry within the first ten seconds, unless he had a big butch moustache :-) (or a boyfriend)"

LOL ;)

"The stereotype could perhaps be seen as a form of sampling error. When somebody is of average stupidity nobody suggests whether he is gay or left-handed or born under a particular starsign is an explanation for it."

Offhand comment: it is said that left-handed people are typically smarter than right-handed.

"How widespread is bisexuality? I am not sure."

Some people seem to think that it is either nonexistant, default for everyone, or getting popular because of hollywood. I disagree with all three.

We have a lot in common, a similar taste in women for one.

A number of people have asked me whether I am left handed. Presumably when I answer that I am not this does nothing to dissuade them from their beliefs, but if I had said I was my name would be added to the list of the proof that left handed people are smarter or more creative or whatever they want to believe. Just as one stain on a wall in the vague shape of a bearded man is the face of Jesus and therefore proof of the truth of the Bible, notwithstanding the trillions of stains that are not in that shape, including those in the shape of faces with horns, or elephant's trunks.

Thank you for you definition of yourself, it seems reasonable. I am more convinced than ever that sexuality is complicated and multi-dimensional. People do not fall into neat simple categories. They have urges, desires and learned tastes. Your sexuality is set partly by your genes, partly by the events that have happened to you and is partly under your direct control, and every person has their own individual mix.

Tastes can get fixed by experiences. When I was young I was attracted to young girls of around 10 to 12, not surprising because I was that age myself. I moved house and was sent to an all boys school. My "search image" was frozen for a while. I did not come across girls of a suitable age and my tastes were becoming unhealthy. Fortunately when I turned 15 my school went co-educational and things began to sort themselves out, I moved on. I can imagine all too clearly how a slightly different set of circumstances could have had a big negative impact on me. I could have retained those ideas into later life and I might have become dangerously fixated. On the other hand if I had not had the spell in the boys school I might have grown up with no knowledge of how easily I could have gone seriously astray. Certainly it has helped me to understand that experiences and circumstances have a big effect on people.

One thing my experience taught me was that single sex environments are not healthy. School performances of both boys and girls are better when they study apart but they should be well mixed at other times, a good compromise would be single sex and/or ability classes within fully mixed schools.

Perhaps all outcasts are more creative, at least more creative than they would otherwise have been. The perfectly adjusted people are always sitting around talking and being popular. The thin weedy ones, those with erratic behaviour, mood swings, strange tastes or desires get more time on their own to develop their abilities. It is a possibility. Or perhaps there is some truth in the idea that homosexuality and creativity are linked genetically in some way, I would not say that either theory is self evidently true or false.

I wish you well with your life, real and fantasy, and hope that if your fantasies become reality they are as rewarding as you imagined. You can't wish much more than that, can you?

Martin

Roving Eye: why looking at girls is normal

I read parts of your site and I am very impressed. I also am an intellectual, although I am Catholic. I am not a happy Catholic, however. I had a website very similar to yours, but not as important, but one I had to remove. I would appreciate any feedback if I can forward an essay or two. (They are not Catholic essays.)

By all means send your essays, please use *plain text email only*, cut and paste into a plain text email. I will add my comments.

Please note that I am not by nature an unduly polite person, so if they are not about anything I am interested in it might be better if you didn't send them. OK? It's your call.

Martin

Thanks Martin,

Not to offend, but this is an essay about my sex life. I wrote it a year and a half ago. I have recently married a beautiful woman on January 13 of this year.

Sincerely, Michael Sanders

My Relationships with Women

The Good, the bad, the ugly

I have had many, wonderful relationships with women which leave me wondering why I am not married and a father. However, at my age, 38, I am neither. This has led me to look back on my past relationships to see if I have done something to prevent my marriage from taking place, or if it is circumstance that I am single today.

At this point I am convinced of one thing which I will explain. My marriage and any successful conclusions to the relationships I have had were prevented by the absolute and insurmountable hatred that homosexual men bore me.

I have never been a homosexual man. Nor have I ever been interested in entertaining a homosexual relationship. Nor have I ever had a homosexual interest in any of my friends. My own view is that modern psychology ha not gone far enough to find the root psychological cause of homosexual identity. Contrary to popular belief I do not feel that men are passively attracted to other men in a homosexual-neuter manner. On the contrary I believe that men are absolutely not attracted to each other The only yearnings, urges, instincts that men have are for women. I believe that when men examine their feelings they discover this. I do not believe they discover a sublimated nor a subconscious attraction to men. I believe this is true or all men, even homosexual men.

The sincere and extreme dishonor that homosexual men do to heterosexual men is to engage them in an acceptance ritual. An acceptance ritual is the introduction into a social relationship of the possibility of an extended social relationship that comes from and that is played out according to the contract established by means of the introduction of that social relationship by each party. The assumptions are the same n both sides. There are no surprises and there is no growth nor bonding in this type of relationship and acceptance rituals generally take place in scattered series among parties who are strangers to each other In fact, ritual initiation typifies male relationships.

Homosexual men break the bonds of acceptance rituals by entering into social contacts with heterosexual men, knowing they are promising to engage in a heterosexual male ritual and then breaking that relationship contract in an attempt to carry out a homosexual bonding ritual. This is unacceptable and it is precisely because homosexuals are incapable of completing a normal acceptance ritual that heterosexual-homosexual male friendships do not exist, as a rule.

I don't believe this is hard to believe. I work at not entertaining homosexual thoughts. I believe that everyone ought to work at this. This is the only way to keep from committing grave sin. It is important to guard against others influencing you to sin. If you do not think homosexuality is a sin then you have a grave problem. Maybe you are one of the people who bears such extreme hated towards me for saying these things openly and maybe you are one of the people who has tried to ruin my marriage and who has ruined my past relationships. I hold these beliefs openly, that homosexuality is a grave sin, and that repentance is the only way to gain forgiveness. Without being forgiven homosexuals will never be accepted in the societies of men and men like myself will continue to revile them and to consider them grave sinners without repentance.

After reading this any one will reply, "You are the grave sinner, and your sin is xyz, and I am going to be the person to make you pay." My reply to this is that I thank the Lord, Jesus Christ, that I do not commit grave sins in my life. I continually ask my Lord to watch over me to prevent me from sinning. I sorrowfully thank our Lord for forgiving my sins.

My own habits and my personal nature are not open to discussion. I refuse to let people debate my merits. On the other hand, homosexuals always want to hear that people forgive and accept them. I lead a personal life and I am a private person. My life with God is not open to public discussion and I condemn all men who do attempt to discuss my life and to thereby judge me.

To these people who say I still judge homosexuals I reply they have asked for public condemnation and public judgement. Even if I were to find a way to forgive them, they would reject this in favor of another person's judgement of hell. I no longer have the patience to believe that a homosexual is going to deny the truth and go to hell, hoping that God will not find him there and visit the terrible judgement upon him that is waiting for him. Hoping instead to escape judgement in hell only later to re-emerge with a new life on earth.

I now know that homosexual men are bereft of belief in themselves and in God, preferring instead to believe in a white man, a living person, who says he is Jesus Christ to you in order to keep you in his system of belief and thereby to grow in power.

They fully believe that they can go to heaven and be saved by following a false Christ and denying repentance. This is the very reason so many people in society find them repugnant. Because they are boisterous and likeable about a collection of beliefs that many people do not hold. I am sorry, but I do not need to believe in a false saviour, and to believe in him in a way that I find repugnant.

The supercilious excess by which homosexuals approach other people goes way beyond what I demand from people. This zeal does not include the basic tenet of faith, "Follow the commandments." If only people would follow the ten commandments. Then we would not have to know them. I, for one, am sick of having to remember people because of their sexual preference. This has become a de rigour practice in our society, I am afraid, without people knowing why. The reason is that homosexuality brings with it a certain measure of fame which people are unaware of. They always want to know who is homosexual, they want to know if they are homosexual, they want to know what homosexuals believe. But like, in its history, fame, homosexuals are bound together by the utter depravity of their actions. As though people believe a man, like an unsung hero of war, can emerge from the putrid tale of homosexuality and tell what he knew. We all wait for this. We also wait for their repentance.

What a preamble to a section about women. But, when you hear more about my history it will become clear why I have said these things. I want to make it clear that my sexual history was wit women and not with men. And as I continue, you will learn why I need to say these things. I am sorry, but the exoteric homosexual does not get the grief and the pity. That goes to me know, and I do not want to know him.

More the good, the bad and the ugly

The plain fact of the matter is homosexuals constitute a race. This is true because they are excluded from the body of Christ by definition. (This is especially true in Christianity whose truths are not truths of being, that is, are not self-evident, but are true according to testimony which is to say by definition.) The error that homosexuals make in their Being is to seek to prove that they are two beings, that is, that two men can co-exist as one body. Neither peace nor love has ever demanded that men make one body out of two bodies. The reconciliation of the problem of the many and the one is not solved by proposing that two men join as one. But it is solved in the mystery of the body of Christ. But this mystery does not allow two men as one man to be true. That is why homosexual men can constitute a race, but can never constitute a part of a religion. The problem with belonging to a race is that the members of a race can never enjoy the love and happiness that comes from belonging to a religion, but they are always given to violent racist behaviour that is defined by ignorance. It is time to admit that the races have not advanced science nor mankind, but religions have. It is most evidently the men and women who belong to religions Christian, Hindu and Moslem, etc. who have advanced society. Christians have to begin to admit that they do not belong to separate races or tribes such as the Levittes, etc. but that men and women have left these violent, ignorant beliefs behind to form religions which have worked to advance society. It is up to people who call themselves homosexual to leave this ignorant, hateful, violent group and through confession of sin and repentance leave this behavior behind in favor of joining a decent religion of men and women. I warn you that no men nor women will ever accept the ignorant, violent behavior of homosexuals as a normal contribution to society.

For this reason, without censorship, religions ought to silence them. Because in reality there is no homosexual unity. It is not possible because, ipse isum, there is not such a group as homosexuals. There are only misguided individuals who have fallen together in such large numbers that we take their commonalties such as fallen from grace, temptation, sin, etc. as group identity. It should not be forgotten that in religion, unlike politics, the weak are protected, wheras in politics the strong are defended. That is why the American constitution defends homosexual group identity wheras the catholic church only protects any homosexual. Therefore a homosexual cannot expect to develop group identity within the Catholic Church, any more than an Irishman can expect to, but each, himself, must pray, confess, convert, repent, as God so wills the individual. It is harmful to the body of Christ as a whole for a group to practice the way irrespective of any members' non-homosexual, or non-Irish, belief.

Even the gospel cannot do this. The gospel only claims to make one body out of many. By definition many, in sum, is more than one. Men cannot make two bodies into one. This is true because the gospel only meant that in bringing two people together in marriage as one person it was acknowledging the truth of creation in Genesis when woman was created from man. That these two people had come from one person, as taught in Judaism was acknowledged in Christianity as true when Christianity acknowledged in the institution of marriage that two people come together as one person. A classic discussion of the philosophical problem of the many and the one takes this discussion of Genesis and of the Gospel concerning the nature of man out of the realm of metaphor and into the world of morality. That is, the discussion whether the nature of man is many like the parts of the soul, or is one like our Christian idea of God, is in moral terms, a discussion of whether we are philosophically good (that is, do we love God?) or have our lives sunk into a debased state of evil.

Men who marry each other thinking they can do that, instead, live as two bodies. That is, the state of their nature is not one or whole, it is two and many. The state of evil they have chosen to exist in is not a state that the Catholic Church can bless. Salvation is not a consequence of a corrupt nature. A corrupt nature, however, is one that exists in a state not of simplicity but of multiplicity. This is the nature of a homosexual man. One that cannot be resolved into the nature of Christ, because of its duplicity, except by its repentance of the state of sin. But homosexuals as a group do not repent. Instead they claim an identity as saved souls within the body of Christ. However, this identity is denied to them because they have lied about their state of grace. Believe it or not, like it or not, this is my way of saying I reject homosexual men for their low-life dirty, lying, ignorant, hateful, violent betrayal of my own heterosexual relationships with women which has directly led to my being a bachelor today, unmarried and without children. Why do I sound miserable?

What can I say? You say you wrote it a year and a half ago, I hope in the intervening time you have discovered spellcheckers.

You put your lack of success with women down to the hatred homosexuals have of you? I could begin to understand if it was your irrational fear and hatred of homosexuality that was causing your problems, but to say that it is their hatred that causes your problems beggars belief.

All men are really attracted to women, and only women. Well, it's a novel theory but I think it is fairly easy to disprove. I suggest it would take me about six seconds; open my browser, log onto a search engine, tap in "gay, sex, jpg, big dicks" or something of the sort. I don't suppose I would be short of hits that suggested that there is a market, of men, for pictures of men. You might find that hard to believe but it seems to be the case, some men actually prefer men to women and want to have sexual and/or loving relations with them. As you American intellectuals say; Go Figure.

Now why should that be hard to understand? Women want to have sex with men. Every man has a mother, two grandmothers (well, outside Alabama...), four great-grandmothers etc. Being sexually attracted to adult male human beings is rather normal, we all carry it within us, many of us express it.

To my mind homosexuality is a multi-faceted condition or set of conditions. I think it is very unlikely that any single explanation will suffice; whether that is sin, genes, conditioning or corruption.

A much harder phenomenon to understand is homophobia. Why should it matter to you one bit what somebody else is attracted to? Why should it either concern you or even be of interest to you, let alone repel you?

Believe it or not there are despicable vile creatures out there who like having sex with DOGS. This causes me no distress whatsoever, because they are bitches. I don't myself fancy having sex with a dog but that doesn't mean I have a desire to kill bitches. It does not bother me in the slightest what other animals find attractive, so why should it make such a big difference for members of my own species? To my mind it doesn't. People are sexual animals, we all have desires, we all find some people attractive, very few people agree totally on the definition of what is attractive.

If you come at the world with a religious mind you see everything as made up of two forces, good and evil, to a Christian that is more fundamental than matter and energy. It is totally warped thinking. Do yourself a favour and wipe away all those concepts from your mind, they can only hinder you. Reality has no good and evil.

I agree with you when you say that most men are not attracted to other men in a sexual way. I can look at pictures of attractive women all day long but soft gay porn and women's pin-up pictures of bare chested men do nothing for me. I wouldn't look twice at them. Hard core pictures are different. I find sex exciting, people having sex is inherently fascinating no matter what the number or gender combinations involved. I think my attitude is very healthy, if I look at sexy pictures of one person she has to be a woman. If there is more than one person involved I don't discriminate by gender only by the nature of the activity. This attitude actually makes evolutionary sense. It makes sense for a man to be turned on only by the right kind of person, a sexually available and fertile looking woman, that is the desired "search image" for an ideal partner, a young and fertile wife, literally nubile (look it up), but at the same time any hint of a sexual free-for-all and if you don't have a stirring in the loins you might be left with sloppy seconds or worse.

Many men fear this excitement at the idea of sex, even rampant orgies of the sort characteristic of the city of Sodom, means they are actually queer. Nonsense. There is no point in worrying about whether or not you are queer, you either are or you are not and worrying or praying isn't going to change it one way or the other. Are you homosexual? Simply ask yourself this simple question; do you want to have sex with men more than you want to have sex with women. That is it, a really infallible test. Anything else doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if Brother Francis gave you a blow job when you were fifteen and you enjoyed it or whether you sometimes feel an urge to stick things into your anus, if you don't actually fancy men then you are not homosexual. If you shafted Pat Robertson he would come. Being homosexual is nothing to do with your body's sexual response.

Your point about homosexuals betraying the trust of male-male relationships has some merit. To me the bad action (sin) involved is betrayal of trust not the homosexual urge or even the approach. This is rather like the teacher-student relationship, it cannot work if the teacher wants to prey on the student in a sexual way. But I cannot see how this presents some insurmountable problem. If your circle of male friends includes a gay male and he makes an advance that is unwelcome he will be hurt by it more than the man who rebuffed him, this could only present a problem if the gay man persisted, once is a pass, three times is sexual harassment and is not to be tolerated. (So what is twice? It is making allowances for the stupidity of real people). This rule should work in all spheres of life including the military, after all it is a statistical certainty that thousands of gay men have served, died or been received as heroes.

The betrayal of trust can go further in some cases, many Churches and youth groups know this all to well. This kind of thing is not to be tolerated. Using male bonding rituals, youth groups or religious mumbo-jumbo as a smokescreen for preying on the young is abhorrent to all right thinking people. Even more so if sex is involved. ;-)

It is most evidently the men and women who belong to religions christian, hindu and moslem, etc. who have advancd society.

Really? Bishops, Priests and theologians have advanced our society? Scientists, artists and engineers have advanced our society. Some of them have, coincidentally, been believers. Many have not, and as time has gone on the believers are becoming a minority among those that really advance our society.

I have some sympathies for your fear that homosexuals are "taking over", having a disproportionate influence, I have had a few words to say on the subject myself but my best advice on this matter is GET A LIFE.

I really cannot see anything in what you have written that justifies the conclusion that homosexuals have caused you to be single for so long. Why not take a balanced look at the subject, the more gays there are the more totty is left for the rest of us.

I hope the lifestyle comes together,

Martin

PS Why not post your messages directly on my bulletin board?

Your reply raises many interesting points, which I will try to reply to on your bulletin board. The short answer is that

1) I hope I am not homophobic. But if I am, then it is an answer to homosexual aggression. I do not think I am homophobic, but I am not homosexual either. Like you, I have a healthy attitude towards sex. I do not shy away from men in sexual positions, so long as one of the other partners is a woman. But, and this is where our viewpoints probably differ, I see this as an expression of a relationship of power, and not of feelings. It is domination and submission that is being expressed by dirty pictures of sex acts, and being excited by those pictures is an expression of one's own fantasy of domination.

2) Likewise, homosexual aggression towards me is also an expression of a power relationship. I am not afraid of being seen as an attractive man to another man, although this is not something I like. I see myself as an average looking male. (Picture on the way.) But I believe the homosexual male wants to express a power relationship when he approaches a heterosexual male and to, in fact, seek vengeance for his lack of power, or his inability to find 'wish fulfilment' from society. That is, to satisfy himself with a woman. That is why I focus on what is the other guy thinking and doing.

3) My own inability to have a successful relationship, which is true, is not only rooted in homophobia, but also in my relationships with my parents, both of whom are heterosexual. But I find the expression of homosexuality, in the political sense is, in fact, a hindrance to heterosexual relationships. A point we also probably disagree on. I have another essay on this topic which I will also post to your message board that address aspects of this theme, namely, who is the man in us, who is the woman in us, why are we heterosexual?

4) We also disagree here, because I see a very powerful influence over men and women by the religious notion of sin, which I believe in as a term used to define human nature, but not as an active, historical fact. My view is that understanding sin, without prejudice provides a solution to the problem of homosexuals, without resorting to the final solution.

Thanks

your intellectual stimulation is very welcome. I look forward to more input via your message board.

Mike Sanders