Bisexuality: images and perceptions

[archyboi]

I did not mean to be condescending.

You don't agree with my statements. You think you are right and I am wrong.

I am not wrong. The evidence is compelling and I have done the requisite research and represented it as accurately as I am able.

I also said regardless of the empirical evidence I am committed that no one's experience is invalid for them or me -- Honour Bright.

Didn't you read this? When I got a little forward with Paul he and I let our guard down, got vulnerble with each other and we saw the truth from our perspectives for our own experience. It was a great exchange and I learned so much from him. I think he did from me too. That is so very satisfying.

I really think Dr. Reames makes a strong case that labels of any kind for today are inappropriate for 2,400 years ago. I take it further. Labels of any kind are boxes that imprison something that cannot be contained and shouldn't. No one is summed up by a simplistic label -- regardless of any time period. Labeling Alexander the Great and Hephaistion as "GAY" and "LOVERS," "BISEXUAL" or denying it is inappropriate. They would never have recognized themselves as such. It is far more complicated. They loved each other like their own souls but that does not equate with them being merely their plumbing or "behavior". Hephaistion told Alexander he would never allow shame and dishonor to shadow Alexander's good reputation. He'd rather die than do that. But these guys trained in battle school together. They were tutored by Aristotle together with their friends. They were strong, healthy, vital young men with raging hormones and strong emotions. They thought of themslelves as the reincarnation of Achilles and Patroclus. I am positive they were intimate BUT that does not mean the same things today as it did then. Olympias said she was worried that Alexander wasn't the least bit interested in the fairer sex. She confronted him with: "Perhaps it is time you tell your father the King that it is a husband he should present to you, not a wife." WHOA!!! When Alexander vanquished Darius II decisively he and Hephaistion went to Darius' mother. She prostrated herself before -- not Alexander -- but Hephaistion -- he was the taller and more than equally as handsome. The Queen Mother's error was said her by her handmaiden and she blanched mortified by her affrontery. Alexander in genuine courtesy and great generosity said, "Be not troubled, Mother. He, too, is Alexander." Alexander never fathered a child yet married 5 times until after Hephaistion's tragic death -- 1 murdered, 1 survived born 4 months postumously of Alexander's death. You do the math.

You read Reichen Lehmkuhl's book, Here's What We'll Say and you will see connections you never knew existed.

Some are highly senstive to my initial terms: "myth" & "fiction".

Let it go. I very likely was speaking too technically.

You are entitled to your opinion. I am entitled to mine. But neither of us are entitled to our own facts. I have investigated the facts. You by your own admission have not. This is not condescending. This is treating you like an adult and holding both of us accountable.

Now, please, let's not distract this thread any more with our argument.

Let's let it go and move on.

Can you respect me and me respect you in our mutual agreement to disagree? I hope so. I do care for you and would never disparage anyone or be unjust.

Accept my apologies, everyone.

--kev

[archyboi]

Your annecdotal evidence matchs up with the empirical evidence -- sooooo that's COOL!

My whole point in bringing it up wasn't to push a personal agenda to label anyone.

What was interesting to me were two things.

1. That women and men really are different in so many ways and so we should respect and honor each other's mutually exclusive traits and support a rapport between us that never imposes standards for one that would harm the other, but rather open a supportive, empowering dialog.

2. That men who express anti-gay sentiments or behaviors are actually closeted gays who deny their real sexual identity, fabricate a ficticious heterosexual identity and then cover it up with the anti-gay stuff.

There's an exception to this. Many Republican politicians and conservative religious leaders opportunistically use anti-gay tactics to curry favor for majority-rule tyrranical excercise of power and may or may not actually be gay -- although the last 2 years seems to support the notion that more often than not they are.

Thanks, sweety!

--kev

[u-dog]

Originally Posted by archyboi

I did not mean to be condescending.

You don't agree with my statements. You think you are right and I am wrong.

I am not wrong. The evidence is compelling and I have done the requisite research and represented it as accurately as I am able.

I also said regardless of the empirical evidence I am committed that no one's experience is invalid for them or me -- Honour Bright.

Didn't you read this? When I got a little forward with Paul he and I let our guard down, got vulnerble with each other and we saw the truth from our perspectives for our own experience. It was a great exchange and I learned so much from him. I think he did from me too. That is so very satisfying. I really think Dr. Reames makes a strong case that labels of any kind for today are inappropriate for 2,400 years ago. I take it further. Labels of any kind are boxes that imprison something that cannot be contained and shouldn't. No one is summed up by a simplistic label.

Some are highly senstive to my initial terms: "myth" & "fiction".Let it go. I very likely was speaking too technically.

You are entitled to your opinion. I am entitled to mine. But neither of us are entitled to our own facts. I have investigated the facts. You by your own admission have not. This is not condescending. This is treating you like an adult and holding both of us accountable. Now, please, let's not distract this thread any more with our argument.
Let's let it go and move on.

Can you respect me and me respect you in our mutual agreement to disagree? I hope so. I do care for you and would never disparage anyone or be unjust.
Accept my apologies, everyone.

--kev

He makes my teeth itch


just for the record: here is the definintion of "Condescend"

Main Entry: con·de·scend
Pronunciation: "kän-di-'send
Function: intransitive verb
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French condescendre, from Late Latin condescendere, from Latin com- + descendere to descend
1 a : to descend to a less formal or dignified level : UNBEND b : to waive the privileges of rank
2 : to assume an air of superiority

Just to be helpful I have marked all the phrases in red where your interaction with Brent is characterized by "an air of superiority". If you are ever in doubt about what "condescending" means, just refer back to your post. it is precisely what "condescending" looks like.

[dsdrane]

Originally Posted by archyboi

You read Reichen Lehmkuhl's book, Here's What We'll Say and you will see connections you never knew existed.

If you don't stop quoting this book, I think I'll never stop vomiting.

Originally Posted by archyboi

You are entitled to your opinion. I am entitled to mine. But neither of us are entitled to our own facts. I have investigated the facts. You by your own admission have not. This is not condescending. This is treating you like an adult and holding both of us accountable.

Really?

You seem to have a very high regard for your own investigatory abilities.

If you bothered to check, you are not the only one with graduate, post-graduate, and/or professional degrees on this forum, though you seem to be the most willing to trumpet your own graduate/professional work.

This is a non-violent site, and others here are either too nice or too respectful of the ideology of this site to say what I will gladly say (with all deference to u-dog):

I find you rude, and I find you obnoxious. You are a bully, too drunk with your own pomposity to recognize that you're shooting yourself in the rhetorical foot.

What exactly is your agenda?

[tdogg]

Originally Posted by archyboi

BTW: love the sliver surfer avatar but too bad the movie sucked so bad, eh?
--kev

Ummm, as a fan of the Fantastic Four, including the Silver Surfer, including the first and the most recent movies - I loved them both. ESPECIALLY the Return of the Silver Surfer. I'm not a professional movie critic, but if you are looking for enough action and hot bodies to justify spending the price of a movie ticket, this one shouldn't disappoint.

If you are looking for scientific evidence of the possibility of the existence of the actual characters or those with like abilities, then no, you would not care for this movie.

By the way, Jessica Alba is steaming! No way I'm bi, not that there's anything wrong with it! I think this one got off track a ways back, just trying to make it real again.

Welcome Kev, you might want to be a bit more personal and not so robotic in your dialogue...just a thought, I found much of your posts to be barely readable in their formality. Anyway, welcome to you.

[archyboi]

I'll work on it. I have two modes. Fun, silly kev and rapier-hyper-accurate kev. It's a situational thing. If someone gets in my face I get in theirs. It's arrogant. I admit it. I'll sit this one out for a bit. I get really excited by new, radical ideas whether or not they topple sacred cows. That can get out of hand as it did here. My heart's in the right place though.

I do have a serious pet peev. I won't remove or substantly alter previous posts. I consider that dishonest and I have no attachment to looking good. So, you can count on me being real even if I don't look so good in the process. At least I'm honest. You can hold me to account for it.

I apologized. How 'bout some love over here?

--kev

[Zerbie]

I sense you are really trying to get along.

Play gently.

[paul]

Originally Posted by archyboi

I'll work on it. I have two modes. Fun, silly kev and rapier-hyper-accurate kev. It's a situational thing. If someone gets in my face I get in theirs. It's arrogant. I admit it. I'll sit this one out for a bit. I get really excited by new, radical ideas whether or not they topple sacred cows. That can get out of hand as it did here. My heart's in the right place though.

I do have a serious pet peev. I won't remove or substantly alter previous posts. I consider that dishonest and I have no attachment to looking good. So, you can count on me being real even if I don't look so good in the process. At least I'm honest. You can hold me to account for it.

I apologized. How 'bout some love over here?

--kev

Hey Dear Kev,

I've been reading through all these posts alternately laughing and grimacing. My first response to you when you introduced yourself over in "hello my name is land..." was, "to bad you don't have any energy." Twas a joke. You come on like gang busters.

It seems to me that you want what everyone wants, love. To my way of thinking, one of the primary components of loving someone is to recognize and acknowledge their value. We all want to be recognized and acknowledged for our brilliance, insights and deep understanding. I think sometimes, if we've gone without love...which a lot of gay people have (you can't love someone you don't see because they're in a closet), we end up with a love vacuum. We go around trying to make people see how wonderful we are so they'll love us. It's no crime to want to be loved, but it's kind of violent to put a gun to someones head in an effort to make them love us.

There are some wonderful, brilliant, sensitive, loving people here. I know you're not used to that, it's rare, especially in cyberland, but it's true. You don't have to make us love you. You don't have to prove a damn thing to us. But maybe you could try and give us time to get to know you just by being you. Rather than telling us who you are, let us discover on our own. You don't have to be fancy to have our love, even if it turns out that you are fancy. Am I making a bit of sense?

paul